MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Alternatives to Alamy or non-exlcusive Macro agencies?  (Read 24933 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 07, 2009, 19:18 »
0
Alamy takes pretty much everything you throw at them.

But are there any other non-exclusive macros that have higher standards?

Furthermore I'm not asking for uploads that I have to pay for like that Getty deal. They're exclusive anyway...

I know most people don't speak about this but maybe someone might be kind enough...

Looking for lifestyle, landscape and creative agencies.


« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2009, 05:54 »
0
finding other sites is easy, try this - the links I posted are both rf and rm (although the discussion was for rm)

http://www.microstockgroup.com/newby-discussion/why-is-alamy-only-one-to-provide-rm/msg83398/#new

finding the submission info, the standards, and whether the site is even worthwhile thats the hard bit :)

but inmagine (they have a seperate submission portal, search this forum for inmagine and it will turn up), photoshot.com (encompasses a number of agencies) and photolibrary come to mind as non exclusive RF

Phil

« Reply #2 on: June 08, 2009, 15:23 »
0
Simple Question  (or maybe not).
   I've been around for awhile now and have been relatively successful in the micros, being with as many as 9 at one time ( now down to  6). I've been published magazines, books, and have been doing well marketing and selling direct.   
    Early on in my micro  'career'  I sent materials to Jupiter and Getty..  I was basically told by them both... they liked the work, but of course,  it was too small, come back when I was shooting larger files.
   I've been shooting with my 5D Mk II for a while now and feel comfortable with the  results and am now considering the macro market.

Simple question for my photog brothers and sisters that are with macro agencies...
your opinions, observations, pro/cons.... etc

Getty,  Jupiter, Corbis...     who are you with, would you change if you started over? 

I am for the most part  landscape, nature.

Any thoughts  & advice would be appreciated.   8)=tom



« Reply #3 on: June 08, 2009, 15:30 »
0
Simple Question  (or maybe not).
   I've been around for awhile now and have been relatively successful in the micros, being with as many as 9 at one time ( now down to  6). I've been published magazines, books, and have been doing well marketing and selling direct.   
    Early on in my micro  'career'  I sent materials to Jupiter and Getty..  I was basically told by them both... they liked the work, but of course,  it was too small, come back when I was shooting larger files.
   I've been shooting with my 5D Mk II for a while now and feel comfortable with the  results and am now considering the macro market.

Simple question for my photog brothers and sisters that are with macro agencies...
your opinions, observations, pro/cons.... etc

Getty,  Jupiter, Corbis...     who are you with, would you change if you started over? 

I am for the most part  landscape, nature.

Any thoughts  & advice would be appreciated.   8)=tom




I think it's best to consider both sides of the fence. The ones who tout only one part of the equation generally lose out. Nothing is exact but  to say micro only  or macro only is kinda dumb.

lisafx

« Reply #4 on: June 08, 2009, 15:53 »
0
I hope some of the trad/macro photographers who like to pop in and complain about the micro model will be willing to answer the questions in this thread.


« Reply #5 on: June 08, 2009, 16:09 »
0
Hi - take Corbis and Getty out of the equation for a moment - law to themselves.

I live in the UK, the umbrella organistion of picture libraries and agencies is www.bapla.org. Have a look at their site, and search for an agency by category, E.G - Travel, North American. This returns 23 results. Of these names like Pictures Color Library, AA, Travel Library, Travel Ink all stand out. You would have to look at the web sites of all these agencies, which will give you info on how to submit a test selection of images, and what there stance is on exclusivity.

Next step, head over the CEPIC.org, and look at other individual countries using the same method.

Another idea, there is a link somehere on Alamy that lists all the agencies they deal with in different countries - some may be good for you.

Choosing a good selling agency is key, a bad one will be like submitting to a ninth rate micro, a good one like hitting gold at Istock. Sorry I can't come up with specific name's - too many people read this site!

Rgds

Oldhand


« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2009, 16:18 »
0
I upload to Ad Stock / My Loupe (RF and RM), however I never sold anything there.  No submission review after you are approved, so possibly no "higher standards".

As I said in another thread, I signed up with AbsoluteStock but get errors and no reply from support, so I can't tell about their standards.

There is a German agency I started to upload to, Imagebroker.net, but delayed plans because they are a bit confusing (you have to rename files to their standard).

PS: There are many agencies around, the key is: who sells?
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 16:19 by madelaide »

lisafx

« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2009, 16:29 »
0

PS: There are many agencies around, the key is: who sells?


Bingo!  My small forays into macro have been very disappointing.  Micro sales, and yes royalties per month, far outweigh anything I have gotten from macro. 

Maybe I haven't given it enough of a shot, but to be honest, when I read the articles that circulate about how much the average macro shooter is making I am not a big envious. 

« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2009, 16:52 »
0
Lisa,

I believe many of these agencies do sell - like Alamy as other people have already experienced.  But the same way we have Albumos and Gimmestocks and other microstock sites that don't sell (and yet don't disappear!), there are macros who apparently run on automatic mode and we have no idea whether they sell or not.  :(

One site I regret not having joined when I first read about them is World Of Stock.  Unfortunately they haven't been accepting new contributors for a long time, except for some specific niches, but I do check them from time to time.  That seems one right place to sell my travel photos.

« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2009, 17:00 »
0
Bingo!  My small forays into macro have been very disappointing.  Micro sales, and yes royalties per month, far outweigh anything I have gotten from macro. 

Maybe I haven't given it enough of a shot, but to be honest, when I read the articles that circulate about how much the average macro shooter is making I am not a big envious. 


I'll get a bad name on this forum, sometimes I just can't resist!

Same principle in macro as mico, you need a big portfolio of good pics. Before becoming a one man band, I used to work for one of the big agents in the UK, their agent in one European country used to sell 4,000 ($6,000) per month, every month. This was ten years ago. Yes, they had a big library to sell, and also had another ten agencies selling good amounts.

There was huge money to be made, and still is. If Yuri doesn't put his entire portfolio with other agent's than Alamy, I'll eat my hat.

Oldhand

« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2009, 17:10 »
0

PS: There are many agencies around, the key is: who sells?


Bingo!  My small forays into macro have been very disappointing.  Micro sales, and yes royalties per month, far outweigh anything I have gotten from macro. 

Maybe I haven't given it enough of a shot, but to be honest, when I read the articles that circulate about how much the average macro shooter is making I am not a big envious. 
I think that macro agencies take a much bigger commitment than most people are willing to give. Some macro agencies are not that good and others, exactly like micro, have to be worked a certain way to make any money from them. I don't know how many times I've read here how someone dipped their little toe into the macro waters, sold nothing or weren't accepted and wrote it off as a waste of time. I guess it was a waste of time if that's the entire level of commitment you want to give it. It really does take a lot of work to get accepted and then more work to get a portfolio large enough to make consistent sales.

lisafx

« Reply #11 on: June 08, 2009, 18:32 »
0

I think that macro agencies take a much bigger commitment than most people are willing to give.

I am sure that's true.  I think because it takes such constant effort to feed the micro beast there isn't a lot of time left over to build a separate macro port.  At least not in my case.

Quote

Some macro agencies are not that good and others, exactly like micro, have to be worked a certain way to make any money from them.


So true.  I believe that is why the OP started this thread - to get some help separating the wheat from the chaff.  And macro shooters don't seem inclined to give specific guidance on which agencies are worth the effort. 

Not that I blame them.  If I was sitting on good returns from some not-commonly-known macro agencies I doubt I would be telling either.  ;)

« Reply #12 on: June 08, 2009, 20:02 »
0
Somehow I didn't get notified when this thread gets answers...  >:(

Not that I blame them.  If I was sitting on good returns from some not-commonly-known macro agencies I doubt I would be telling either.  ;)

Well that's what I mean.

Clipartof.com was a hidden gem until Dennis made THE move. Can't blame him - the referral program is the best I've seen and he will be making a sh!(load of money just from people who signed up on this forum (and another forum...).

Now the upload queue is backup to the ceiling and god knows when the rest of us is getting their files online. I still have faith that there are lots of buyers out there and I'll be making some $$$ with them (sometime towards the end of this year...).

Anywho.

I've been with Alamy for over 4 years now and it was a nice ride so far. I produce not a lot of images but try to focus on 100% stock that sells and deliver quality. Those 50 images a week seems to me like torture and makes me feel like that I have to go and do a "job" in order to keep up. Well who cares anyway...

Like mentioned above I think it's realistic to say that even (and most likely "especially") Makro shooters produce A LOT of content. Talk about quantity on the micros? Go check out the portfolios of Getty photographers... It's definitely not like "Yeah now I'm in a trad agency and can lean back with my 600 images and become filthy rich". Forget that.

As with the Micros, getting more or less money (depending on where you sell) you have Makro shooters on Getty getting as low as $2 for a shot since Getty tossed their RM images into the subscription plan that got them into a class action lawsuit. Who can blame them...? But of course you can also rake in thousands of $$$ for a single RM sale. I'd assume though that those sales mostly appear for really, really ambitious and famous photographers that have connections, reputation and most likely a studio etc. (or spend quite some $$$ on expenses for their landscape shots).

Some Getty shooters have over 150.000 images in their ports - and they are not studios like iofoto or Yuri. Of course it took them years (decades) to get a collection like that but that's what the RMs want.

I know there are plenty of agencies. But and that's the key, how do you find out which agency is right for you?

I think I couldn't even go through the list of all the RM agencies checking their requirements and knocking at their door. There are simply too many.

Well, it's like lotto then. Maybe you get lucky one day, finding a few good performing agencies...


« Reply #13 on: June 08, 2009, 21:00 »
0
But of course you can also rake in thousands of $$$ for a single RM sale. I'd assume though that those sales mostly appear for really, really ambitious and famous photographers that have connections, reputation and most likely a studio etc.


A lot of what you said I agree with except the above quote. I am anything but famous, not that ambitious (perhaps more patient) and have few connections. However I still see a lot of good sales come through. Had a $1700 sales today for a rather mundane image that would have been rejected for all the usual reasons if submitted to micro. A good image but not great, however it filled a niche for a customer that wanted something less used. An old image I might add, something like 15 years old.

« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2009, 22:09 »
0
A lot of what you said I agree with except the above quote. I am anything but famous, not that ambitious (perhaps more patient) and have few connections. However I still see a lot of good sales come through. Had a $1700 sales today for a rather mundane image that would have been rejected for all the usual reasons if submitted to micro. A good image but not great, however it filled a niche for a customer that wanted something less used. An old image I might add, something like 15 years old.

I think I worded that wrong.

First off, congrats to the sale.

Surely many photographers get sales like these on a more or less regular basis. I don't know if you can expect such a sale every other day, twice a month or every 6 months.

What I wanted to say was that those photographers that have a portfolio of 5.000 to 10.000 (or more) filled with top notch stock are more likely to get such sales (1000$ and up) than many of us "macro-water-testers" with 1000-2000 images on Alamy or any RM.

As you read through the Alamy forums, there are plenty of photographers with 3.000 or 5.000 images that sometimes don't get more than 3 to 5 sales a month. Just because someone has tons of images doesn't mean they sell well...

Still there are exceptions to the rule where the infamous mystery-photographer with 400 images can make a living...

In the end I believe it's obvious that with more images in your portfolio you have a higher chance of selling something. Minimum requirement is that one understands RM otherwise you'll rarely get a sale...

« Reply #15 on: June 09, 2009, 02:28 »
0
So true.  I believe that is why the OP started this thread - to get some help separating the wheat from the chaff.  And macro shooters don't seem inclined to give specific guidance on which agencies are worth the effort. 

Not that I blame them.  If I was sitting on good returns from some not-commonly-known macro agencies I doubt I would be telling either. 


The comments  you all make about good size portfolios are entirely valid, most macro want a regular supply of good images to make it worth their while representing your material, When I started a trad agency I had zero pictures. The internet was in it's infancy, and that's where I found contributors. I approached people with large collections of good sellable pics, who would not have otherwise thought that they could sell - all amateurs. Had to be ao f a good standard and decent amount, otherwise in the macro market you could not get decent returns from them on a portfolio less than say 500.

As to why I personally don't divulge specific name,  becauase seperating the good from bad takes a lot of work - old friend of mine spent two weeks flying around Europe visiting all the top agents before deciding who could represent his material - agreement's were country exclusive, so get a bad agent in Germany, then you can expect no sales from Germany for it's duration.

Prsonally I'l look for agents dealing with type of photo's I take who have been around a good while. Problem is saturation of images, you have to offer a different slant on what they have got to succeed - much like micro really.

Oldhand

« Reply #16 on: June 09, 2009, 03:06 »
0
Hi All,

just wanted to share my story with all of you.
I started selling my images on RM agencies about 7 years ago. At that time I made some investigation and ended up to submit to AGE Fotostock and Marka. This latest one is Italian agency with mostly focus on national subjects. Since I am Italian I thought it was something good to contribute.
Then I build up a portfolio on both agencies and soon after revenue started to flow. There was not really a lot of money but, I know that it take a while to make a portfolio big enough to generate substantial revenue. So I where OK with it.

At a certain point of time I realized that I had in my archive more than 2000 images not suitable for RM, hence I went looking around for a new way to monetize them. The traditional RF archives around (some on CD, some others already online) did not triggered too much interest.
Then, after some online study I find out iStock and decided to give it a try. Now I am exclusive with about 1400 images on file.

About the RM agencies I don't know yet what will happen in the future but for the time being what I see is that my revenue from RM is falling while those from RF is ramping up.

On the quality aspects, Age Fotostock accept about 10% of my submitted images. I find them very selective on aspects like Composition, Lights, Marketability, Uniqueness,  not much about pixel peeping or chromatic aberration, distorsion, etc.

Now I continue to feed all three agencies (2 RM + 1 RF) with different materials and different timings. #1 priority for me now is to reach 5000 pictures portfolio on IS and see what's happen.

To see my portfolio over Age please click www.agefotostock.com, go to Image Search > Advanced Search and type "Antonio D'Albore" in Photographer name field.  

Stock Photography is, of course, just a piece of my professional activity who involve also assignments and commercial shootings.

Hope my experience will be helpful to somebody else.  
« Last Edit: June 09, 2009, 05:17 by antoniodalbore »

« Reply #17 on: June 09, 2009, 05:10 »
0
Thanks for sharing, Antonio  :)

« Reply #18 on: June 09, 2009, 05:14 »
0
About the RM agencies I don't know yet what will happen in the future but for the time being I see is that my revenue from RM is falling while those from RF is ramping up.

Of course it is because that's what's happening in the overall market. I've just done an example price check for the use of one image from each of your portfolios for a billboard campaign. I was quoted about $2500 for the highly-restrictive, once-only, answer-10-questions usage of the RM image __ and about $15 for the no-questions, use-as-many-times-as-I-like RF image. That's 166x more expensive for the highly-restricted option and such a huge differential makes little sense to me (both images were taken in China btw).

As it happens there's a bill board campaign in my local area (one them just up the road from my house) which features one of my own images. The image is one from a farm animal series I took a couple of years ago. So far the series have sold about 200x on IS and I've also had 4 EL's at SS from one of the images. I would estimate that so far the series has earned me about $600 and should go on to earn much more. I was just driving past a field when I saw the potential and I stopped for maybe 15 minutes to take a few shots __ of course I wish I'd taken more now. I actually remember thinking as I clicked the shutter "That's a $100's ... that's another $100's ...". Easy and not particularly unusual either. I feel quite well rewarded for my efforts. Why do I need to demand $100's for each useage?

I cannot find the motivation to 'explore' the macro market as I just don't think it has a long-term future. Sure, they'll always be niche agencies for highly-specialised subjects, but not for the mass-market stuff that probably accounts for 99% of sales. I've spoken to a few of my fellow microstockers who have put time and effort into building an RM portfolio and without exception they report that earnings per image are well below what they get from their micro portfolio.

Micro is still relatively new __ even us 'old-hands' have only been doing it 4-5 years and it's only recently that the micro libraries have grown to the size from which to seriously compete with macro. It's only just begun. Give it another 5 or 6 years (maximum) and the 'macro market' will simply not exist as we know it now.

SS currently has a library of 7M images and, at their current rate of growth of 90K new images per week (which has actually been steadily accelerating), will have over 30M by 2015. What subjects/needs won't be covered within that?

When major macro players like Iofoto and many others start feeding the micros with thousands of images then you know that the writing is on the wall. It is surely only a question of 'when', not 'if', that at least one significant macro agency like Alamy will be forced to drastically revise their pricing structure to compete head-on with the micros. When that happens the rest will collapse like a pack of cards. The thousands of smaller agencies, unless they are highly-specialised in something like botanical images or insects, will just disappear.

They'll be very few photographers selling individual licenses for hundreds or thousands of $'s in 5 years time. The smart ones will recognise the direction the wind is blowing and adapt their business model accordingly.


« Reply #19 on: June 09, 2009, 05:53 »
0
About the RM agencies I don't know yet what will happen in the future but for the time being I see is that my revenue from RM is falling while those from RF is ramping up.

Of course it is because that's what's happening in the overall market. I've just done an example price check for the use of one image from each of your portfolios for a billboard campaign. I was quoted about $2500 for the highly-restrictive, once-only, answer-10-questions usage of the RM image __ and about $15 for the no-questions, use-as-many-times-as-I-like RF image. That's 166x more expensive for the highly-restricted option and such a huge differential makes little sense to me (both images were taken in China btw).

As it happens there's a bill board campaign in my local area (one them just up the road from my house) which features one of my own images. The image is one from a farm animal series I took a couple of years ago. So far the series have sold about 200x on IS and I've also had 4 EL's at SS from one of the images. I would estimate that so far the series has earned me about $600 and should go on to earn much more. I was just driving past a field when I saw the potential and I stopped for maybe 15 minutes to take a few shots __ of course I wish I'd taken more now. I actually remember thinking as I clicked the shutter "That's a $100's ... that's another $100's ...". Easy and not particularly unusual either. I feel quite well rewarded for my efforts. Why do I need to demand $100's for each useage?

I cannot find the motivation to 'explore' the macro market as I just don't think it has a long-term future. Sure, they'll always be niche agencies for highly-specialised subjects, but not for the mass-market stuff that probably accounts for 99% of sales. I've spoken to a few of my fellow microstockers who have put time and effort into building an RM portfolio and without exception they report that earnings per image are well below what they get from their micro portfolio.

Micro is still relatively new __ even us 'old-hands' have only been doing it 4-5 years and it's only recently that the micro libraries have grown to the size from which to seriously compete with macro. It's only just begun. Give it another 5 or 6 years (maximum) and the 'macro market' will simply not exist as we know it now.

SS currently has a library of 7M images and, at their current rate of growth of 90K new images per week (which has actually been steadily accelerating), will have over 30M by 2015. What subjects/needs won't be covered within that?

When major macro players like Iofoto and many others start feeding the micros with thousands of images then you know that the writing is on the wall. It is surely only a question of 'when', not 'if', that at least one significant macro agency like Alamy will be forced to drastically revise their pricing structure to compete head-on with the micros. When that happens the rest will collapse like a pack of cards. The thousands of smaller agencies, unless they are highly-specialised in something like botanical images or insects, will just disappear.

They'll be very few photographers selling individual licenses for hundreds or thousands of $'s in 5 years time. The smart ones will recognise the direction the wind is blowing and adapt their business model accordingly.



Interesting post gostwyck thanks. But do you not think there will always be a need for a buyer to guarantee that an image is not being used by a competitor, say in a major advertising campaign?

« Reply #20 on: June 09, 2009, 06:00 »
0
Interesting post gostwick thanks. But do you not think there will always be a need for a buyer to guarantee that an image is not being used by a competitor, say in a major advertising campaign?

I'm sure that there will be occasional needs but it will be a tiny part of the overall market and anyway the option to purchase the image outright exists already. I've sold about 150K licenses but have never been offered a buyout yet.

Within the context of 'a major advertising campaign' the cost of a custom shoot are relatively trivial.

« Reply #21 on: June 09, 2009, 06:22 »
0
And macro shooters don't seem inclined to give specific guidance on which agencies are worth the effort.  

One reason for them being quiet is that most macro shooters shoot only for 1 or 2 agencies (compared to micro shooters that try out a dozen sites). Many of the macro agencies are also (image-)exclusive, it's very hard to compare sales between different agencies because it's not the same images that are for sale.

For example I'm shooting for Alamy and one small local agency. I have sales at both, but I have no idea how my sales would be at Getty, Age, Corbis...

« Reply #22 on: June 09, 2009, 07:12 »
0
Yes, they maybe Image Exclusive but normally even if you are exclusive with one RM Agency this is not preventing you to be contributor to different RF agencies. As far as I know contracts require exclusivity only for RM-type imagery.

One reason for them being quiet is that most macro shooters shoot only for 1 or 2 agencies (compared to micro shooters that try out a dozen sites). Many of the macro agencies are also (image-)exclusive.

« Reply #23 on: June 09, 2009, 07:39 »
0
The thousands of smaller agencies, unless they are highly-specialised in something like botanical images or insects, will just disappear.

Bang on the nail - the wind blows micro. That was my view as soon as small agencies started struggling or giving up altogether, it will be a house of cards. Alamy already has recognised the competition, hence their option to sell your pics for a small fee on blogs etc. Now their traditional outlets are drying up, they are having to negotiate subscription deals with newsaper groups.

Regarding how many agencies macro's supply, I have 30. All different RM "editorial" stock. My situation is common practice. That revenue stream is bit by painful bit drying up, who can predict 5 years from now?

Many moon ago when Alamy had hundreds of thousands of pictures and were aggresivley building their library, I saw some of mine on their site. An overseas agency had decided (Without telling me) it would be a good idea to sell my pictures on it. I compained to Alamy and had them all removed. One of their bosses asked me to leave them on, just switch it over to my name - I said no. Hated the idea of of an agent competing in the same UK market and I was myself.

In hindsight a big mistake, the pics could have been up their and earning for years. Can't put them up now, as they wouldn't pass modern quality control.

Micro is the single biggest threat to Macro ever - period. I am jumping ship.

« Reply #24 on: June 09, 2009, 08:04 »
0
SS currently has a library of 7M images and, at their current rate of growth of 90K new images per week (which has actually been steadily accelerating), will have over 30M by 2015. What subjects/needs won't be covered within that?

I'm not too sure about that statement.

When you check various portfolios at Shutterstock, you quickly realize that 8 out of 10 almost look identical. Their best sellers could be from each others portfolio.

Some really creative contributors come up with new unique ideas but seriously. There are those waves of concepts. A year ago it was the floral design vectors or all the grunge vectors. Now you have the vectors with 3 colored arrows pointing up or 4 colored backgrounds with silhouettes of people dancing in them.

Out of those 90.000 images per week there are too many newbies (with inferior stock quality - not useless but not a real competition either) and lots of people copying each other.

So I think it doesn't matter if SS has 5M. or 7M. images - the niches will still be small or not filled at all. In my opinion SS is accepting too much stuff as are other agencies. Quality has been going up but in many areas it is still sub-par. Still you see badly isolated shots with dirty gray edges etc. That stuff shouldn't be online. SS is following a different strategy rather than providing solely high quality images...

And when you look at the Trads you will see more contributors with outstanding content than bad ones. Just because millions of freelance graphics designers and ad agencies keep buying from the Micros doesn't mean that thousands of big corporations don't need exclusive or RM material for their campaigns. RM is going to stay in one way or another.

I dare to mention the example editorial. Let's say you covered a local event and upload it as editorial to SS, DT and BigStock. What are you getting out of this? 10 sales? 20? If you have 1 sale at Alamy you start with more money than all sales at the micros altogether...

There is so much to consider when uploading to RM agencies. For one you want to make big $$$ by delivering fantastic content but on the other hand you want to cover niches/editorial that simply won't cut the cheese on the Micros.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
9655 Views
Last post March 25, 2007, 20:55
by madelaide
31 Replies
21304 Views
Last post August 03, 2010, 16:53
by cathyslife
14 Replies
5888 Views
Last post December 07, 2012, 18:49
by OM
22 Replies
6884 Views
Last post October 21, 2013, 08:58
by KimsCreativeHub
12 Replies
7823 Views
Last post April 12, 2018, 12:51
by JaenStock

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors