pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How are your RM files doing?  (Read 13735 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 17, 2012, 11:10 »
0
RM is a green field with still untapped potentials for microstockers. Some microstock sites are making an inroad into it. It is less competitive than RF files which are reaching saturation.

How are you fairing in RM?



Ed

« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2012, 11:24 »
0
RM is a green field with still untapped potentials for microstockers. Some microstock sites are making an inroad into it. It is less competitive than RF files which are reaching saturation.

How are you fairing in RM?

Which microstock sites are "making an inroad"?  Which micros are licensing images on an RM basis?

Can you explain "untapped potential"?  RM has been around much longer than the RF and the Subscription RF model.

My RM portfolio is doing just fine.  Quite frankly, it is just as, if not more, competitive that RF at the micros.

« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2012, 11:30 »
0
My RM portfolios isn't doing very well on alamy the past few months but the monthly sales thread shows that some people are doing nicely there.  Hopefully I'm just going through a dip and things will pick up.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2012, 11:48 »
0
My RM portfolios isn't doing very well on alamy the past few months but the monthly sales thread shows that some people are doing nicely there.  Hopefully I'm just going through a dip and things will pick up.

You do know that most of the people reporting good sales there have ports of around 10K or even more?

« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2012, 12:00 »
0
At Alamy no. At Getty doing just fine. Portfolio of around 1500 images.

« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2012, 12:06 »
0
My RM portfolios isn't doing very well on alamy the past few months but the monthly sales thread shows that some people are doing nicely there.  Hopefully I'm just going through a dip and things will pick up.

You do know that most of the people reporting good sales there have ports of around 10K or even more?
Yes, its not easy but at least its possible.  I will look at other sites for RM one day but I'm concentrating on them for now.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2012, 12:18 »
0
My RM portfolios isn't doing very well on alamy the past few months but the monthly sales thread shows that some people are doing nicely there.  Hopefully I'm just going through a dip and things will pick up.

You do know that most of the people reporting good sales there have ports of around 10K or even more?
Yes, its not easy but at least its possible.  I will look at other sites for RM one day but I'm concentrating on them for now.

Oh indeed, me too. In fact within the past few days I had an Alamy sale which a friend pointed out iStock would have rejected for 'flat light', (even though it's within a high courtyard, therefore the best you could hope for is that the light isn't too harsh), yet someone was prepared to pay over $100 for it.
 :)

Poncke

« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2012, 15:05 »
0
RM is a green field with still untapped potentials for microstockers. Some microstock sites are making an inroad into it. It is less competitive than RF files which are reaching saturation.

How are you fairing in RM?

Alamy has 30.000.000 photos online, thats hardly less competitive.

« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2012, 22:30 »
0
Among RM shooters few come as profitable as Jeff Greenberg in Alamy. He is probably one of the two top earners there.

I've found an interesting quote here:

Search Alamy for Jeff Greenberg.  His portfolio has over 78,000 images and counting...mostly street photography.  He's a frequent poster on their forums and openly shares his sales numbers (well over $100K per year in earnings from Alamy alone).

Looks like we may see more such productive RM shooters in microstock.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 22:41 by Sion »

« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2012, 22:32 »
0
You do know that most of the people reporting good sales there have ports of around 10K or even more?

In this days and age many of us have double of that figure.  :)

But not good sales. Just enough sales. A lot of hard work with diminishing earnings.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2012, 05:31 by Sion »

« Reply #10 on: September 17, 2012, 23:51 »
0
I rarely uploaded to Alamy in the past three years. Still get sales, but the prices are much much lower, my income is 1/3 of what it was.

« Reply #11 on: September 18, 2012, 00:36 »
0
Jeffs photography and travel is exactly what will sell at Alamy. Its tailormade for Alamy. I know of a medical photographer who left Alamy around 2008 because lack of sales. He then joined another Rm agency and for the last two years he is earning a small fortune.
I think with Rm its very important one actually picks the right agency, the agency that have the clients for specific photography.
My thoughts anyway.

grp_photo

« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2012, 00:51 »
0
I think with Rm its very important one actually picks the right agency,
I think its very important one actually picks the right agency regardless of RM or RF. It still hurts me to see some stuff going to the micros which would do so much better at the right macro agency.

« Reply #13 on: September 18, 2012, 02:56 »
0
I think with Rm its very important one actually picks the right agency,
I think its very important one actually picks the right agency regardless of RM or RF. It still hurts me to see some stuff going to the micros which would do so much better at the right macro agency.

Absoloutely. I have only been involved in micro for a couple of years so I cant really give an opinion on that but after ten years of shooting Rm and Rf material I do know that its much, much more demanding then micro. The editing process is a lot harder and especially with agencies such as Getty and Corbis. Its also very time consuming and its very seldom one can see any earnings in the first year.

« Reply #14 on: September 18, 2012, 05:33 »
0
I rarely uploaded to Alamy in the past three years. Still get sales, but the prices are much much lower, my income is 1/3 of what it was.

I can concur 101% to that.

lisafx

« Reply #15 on: September 18, 2012, 12:05 »
0

Absoloutely. I have only been involved in micro for a couple of years so I cant really give an opinion on that but after ten years of shooting Rm and Rf material I do know that its much, much more demanding then micro. The editing process is a lot harder and especially with agencies such as Getty and Corbis. Its also very time consuming and its very seldom one can see any earnings in the first year.

I don't sell RM, so I hadn't heard this.  I was under the impression that micro was much pickier about photo editing - noise, focus, contrast, etc.  Many RM pros were surprised to find they could not match the technical standards set by Istock, for example. 

Or are you talking about tighter editing of your collection - meaning only uploading one or two images from a shoot rather than the whole series? 

I am curious in what ways RM is much more demanding than micro. 

« Reply #16 on: September 18, 2012, 12:32 »
0

Absoloutely. I have only been involved in micro for a couple of years so I cant really give an opinion on that but after ten years of shooting Rm and Rf material I do know that its much, much more demanding then micro. The editing process is a lot harder and especially with agencies such as Getty and Corbis. Its also very time consuming and its very seldom one can see any earnings in the first year.

I don't sell RM, so I hadn't heard this.  I was under the impression that micro was much pickier about photo editing - noise, focus, contrast, etc.  Many RM pros were surprised to find they could not match the technical standards set by Istock, for example. 

Or are you talking about tighter editing of your collection - meaning only uploading one or two images from a shoot rather than the whole series? 

I am curious in what ways RM is much more demanding than micro.


Personally as an Rm photographer I would not join an agency like Alamy, too much into travel and landscapes and so on but thats me others might have differant experiences. Creative buyers consult the Rm industry for one purpose only and ready to pay extra money, rights and ofcourse something above the average or else they would ofcourse buy micro or even Rf.
A typical submission to say the Getty original collection is around fifty pictures and the reject percentage is around 80%, so its a very time consuming affair and takes years to build up. Editing for Rm is a lot harder then Rf.

As I said this is my own experience for what its worth. You do have a few Getty Rm photographers here, I recognize their names and style and maybe its worth asking for their opinions and then comparing them to mine.


lisafx

« Reply #17 on: September 18, 2012, 13:45 »
0

Absoloutely. I have only been involved in micro for a couple of years so I cant really give an opinion on that but after ten years of shooting Rm and Rf material I do know that its much, much more demanding then micro. The editing process is a lot harder and especially with agencies such as Getty and Corbis. Its also very time consuming and its very seldom one can see any earnings in the first year.

I don't sell RM, so I hadn't heard this.  I was under the impression that micro was much pickier about photo editing - noise, focus, contrast, etc.  Many RM pros were surprised to find they could not match the technical standards set by Istock, for example. 

Or are you talking about tighter editing of your collection - meaning only uploading one or two images from a shoot rather than the whole series? 

I am curious in what ways RM is much more demanding than micro.


Personally as an Rm photographer I would not join an agency like Alamy, too much into travel and landscapes and so on but thats me others might have differant experiences. Creative buyers consult the Rm industry for one purpose only and ready to pay extra money, rights and ofcourse something above the average or else they would ofcourse buy micro or even Rf.
A typical submission to say the Getty original collection is around fifty pictures and the reject percentage is around 80%, so its a very time consuming affair and takes years to build up. Editing for Rm is a lot harder then Rf.

As I said this is my own experience for what its worth. You do have a few Getty Rm photographers here, I recognize their names and style and maybe its worth asking for their opinions and then comparing them to mine.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, but you didn't really answer my question.  I didn't say anything about Alamy, and wasn't asking for a comparison between Alamy and Getty. 

I was asking what do you mean when you say "Editing for Rm is a lot harder then Rf".  Do you mean Photoshop editing of individual images, or culling your shoots down to the right images to submit? 

Hopefully that is clearer because I can't think of a way to rephrase it any better :).

velocicarpo

« Reply #18 on: September 18, 2012, 14:59 »
+2

Absoloutely. I have only been involved in micro for a couple of years so I cant really give an opinion on that but after ten years of shooting Rm and Rf material I do know that its much, much more demanding then micro. The editing process is a lot harder and especially with agencies such as Getty and Corbis. Its also very time consuming and its very seldom one can see any earnings in the first year.

I don't sell RM, so I hadn't heard this.  I was under the impression that micro was much pickier about photo editing - noise, focus, contrast, etc.  Many RM pros were surprised to find they could not match the technical standards set by Istock, for example. 

Or are you talking about tighter editing of your collection - meaning only uploading one or two images from a shoot rather than the whole series? 

I am curious in what ways RM is much more demanding than micro.

Lisa, whats typical for the Micro world is all this technical quality thing of low Noise, even lightning etc. Macro comes from a world of film and has other values. The term Quality refers MUCH more to composition and originality in Macro than to Noise. At least this is my experience. Another thing is that many know "Macro" only from Alamy, and we all now that their approval standards are quite low.

"Editing" refers to "Selection of images". This is the hardest part of the Macro world.

1. Micro: produce a generic and possibly well known shot at best possible technical quality (noise, light, etc.) and then hope for sales. One shooting is prepared for 2 days and gives 60 uploads, 40 of them accepted.
2. Macro: Do original work. Know what you are doing. Be _really_ creative. Use 8 Shots of a entire shooting which was prepared for a entire week and get 2 accepted. 1 of them has Noise :D
« Last Edit: September 18, 2012, 15:07 by velocicarpo »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #19 on: September 18, 2012, 16:50 »
0
I was asking what do you mean when you say "Editing for Rm is a lot harder then Rf".  Do you mean Photoshop editing of individual images, or culling your shoots down to the right images to submit? 
One thing I've heard with some of the more elite sites is that if they have one supplier supplying images in a niche, they won't take on another who works in the same broad area.

Ed

« Reply #20 on: September 18, 2012, 19:53 »
0
Lisa, whats typical for the Micro world is all this technical quality thing of low Noise, even lightning etc. Macro comes from a world of film and has other values. The term Quality refers MUCH more to composition and originality in Macro than to Noise. At least this is my experience. Another thing is that many know "Macro" only from Alamy, and we all now that their approval standards are quite low.

"Editing" refers to "Selection of images". This is the hardest part of the Macro world.

1. Micro: produce a generic and possibly well known shot at best possible technical quality (noise, light, etc.) and then hope for sales. One shooting is prepared for 2 days and gives 60 uploads, 40 of them accepted.
2. Macro: Do original work. Know what you are doing. Be _really_ creative. Use 8 Shots of a entire shooting which was prepared for a entire week and get 2 accepted. 1 of them has Noise :D

Agree with this 100%

I recently did a shoot with over $1,000 in overhead including models, makeup, and wardrobe (not to mention overhead associated with studio rental, my equipment, my time, etc.).  I walked away with 84 images...all of which I would not hesitate sending to the top tier micros spread out over a few months (as many people here do).

Alamy - 100% acceptance
Traditional agency a => all images rejected for "too much noise" (these would have made the micros no problem - there is no noise)
Traditional agency b => all images rejected (agency does not give reasons)
Traditional agency c => 18 of 83 images accepted - images not accepted were rejected for "not being marketable"

You get the point.

« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2012, 01:00 »
0

Absoloutely. I have only been involved in micro for a couple of years so I cant really give an opinion on that but after ten years of shooting Rm and Rf material I do know that its much, much more demanding then micro. The editing process is a lot harder and especially with agencies such as Getty and Corbis. Its also very time consuming and its very seldom one can see any earnings in the first year.

I don't sell RM, so I hadn't heard this.  I was under the impression that micro was much pickier about photo editing - noise, focus, contrast, etc.  Many RM pros were surprised to find they could not match the technical standards set by Istock, for example. 

Or are you talking about tighter editing of your collection - meaning only uploading one or two images from a shoot rather than the whole series? 

I am curious in what ways RM is much more demanding than micro.

I think the next couple of posters have summed it up. The technical aspects are important but not enough to reject a good conceptual image.
Lets put it this way after what I have seen in micro, 70% would never pass the doors to the Getty Rm or Corbis Rm, not because the images are bad but because they lack a message or not conveying the message propperly.
The only micro agency in my books at least who is actually trying to select and give potential buyers the very best is Graphical Leftovers, they seem to work pretty close to an Rm agency.

Also the reason they dont want too many similar portfolios is because they try to avoid too much copying which stands to reason considering the way it looks in micro, even in Rf.

Hope this helps a little bit.

« Reply #22 on: September 19, 2012, 01:09 »
0
Lisa, whats typical for the Micro world is all this technical quality thing of low Noise, even lightning etc. Macro comes from a world of film and has other values. The term Quality refers MUCH more to composition and originality in Macro than to Noise. At least this is my experience. Another thing is that many know "Macro" only from Alamy, and we all now that their approval standards are quite low.

"Editing" refers to "Selection of images". This is the hardest part of the Macro world.

1. Micro: produce a generic and possibly well known shot at best possible technical quality (noise, light, etc.) and then hope for sales. One shooting is prepared for 2 days and gives 60 uploads, 40 of them accepted.
2. Macro: Do original work. Know what you are doing. Be _really_ creative. Use 8 Shots of a entire shooting which was prepared for a entire week and get 2 accepted. 1 of them has Noise :D

Agree with this 100%

I recently did a shoot with over $1,000 in overhead including models, makeup, and wardrobe (not to mention overhead associated with studio rental, my equipment, my time, etc.).  I walked away with 84 images...all of which I would not hesitate sending to the top tier micros spread out over a few months (as many people here do).

Alamy - 100% acceptance
Traditional agency a => all images rejected for "too much noise" (these would have made the micros no problem - there is no noise)
Traditional agency b => all images rejected (agency does not give reasons)
Traditional agency c => 18 of 83 images accepted - images not accepted were rejected for "not being marketable"

You get the point.

I agree with this exept that Alamy tends to accept just about anything nowdays and for selling Rm, its not exactly your ideal agency. I dont work with Alamy but I know many who does and they hardly ever sell any Rm pictures.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 15:25 by ClaridgeJ »

RT


« Reply #23 on: September 19, 2012, 16:04 »
0
I dont work with Alamy but I know many who does and they hardly ever sell any Rm pictures.

I believe a lot of that depends on your location and your subject matter, I'm guessing the people you refer to are not from the UK or probably don't shoot much UK orientated stuff?
I've been with them from the start and have a good sized portfolio across various pseudonyms and I do very well there, and know many in similar situation, although to be fair I also know of lots of foreigners  ;) who don't.
Alamy are like any other agency (except they pay a fair commission and don't screw you at every opportunity) be it RM, RF or microstock, you just need to upload the correct content for their market, I think too many people are looking for the 'golden egg' but spend their time chasing the wrong goose.

« Reply #24 on: September 19, 2012, 16:24 »
0
I dont work with Alamy but I know many who does and they hardly ever sell any Rm pictures.

I believe a lot of that depends on your location and your subject matter, I'm guessing the people you refer to are not from the UK or probably don't shoot much UK orientated stuff?
I've been with them from the start and have a good sized portfolio across various pseudonyms and I do very well there, and know many in similar situation, although to be fair I also know of lots of foreigners  ;) who don't.
Alamy are like any other agency (except they pay a fair commission and don't screw you at every opportunity) be it RM, RF or microstock, you just need to upload the correct content for their market, I think too many people are looking for the 'golden egg' but spend their time chasing the wrong goose.

Thats what its all about. Uploading the right content to the right agency. I do know a few UK photographers who are shooting lots of lovely landcapes and scenery and they do very well at Alamy but then again isnt general scenery, travel some of their hallmarks.

lisafx

« Reply #25 on: September 20, 2012, 09:06 »
0
Thanks a lot Velocicarpo, Ed, and Claridge for providing the great detailed info on the difference between micro and macro.  That is really extremely helpful! :)

So in building an RM port, and still maintaining a micro port, it sounds like interesting, unique concepts and one-of shots would be more appropriate for RM and your garden variety 50 shots of a model on white would go to micro. 

This is a really helpful conversation, hopefully not just for me but for anyone thinking of submitting RM. 

RT


« Reply #26 on: September 21, 2012, 10:14 »
0
Just checked my August statement from Getty, my highest nett earning RM sale got me a wopping $9.36 and the lowest was $1.05, and the last few months display a similar low commission from RM, I admit I have had four figure commissions from Getty but they are getting extremely rare.
I don't do lavishly expensive stock shoots but I'd be pretty pretty peeved if I'd spent thousands on a shoot for it to nett me a $1.05 sale.



lisafx

« Reply #27 on: September 21, 2012, 12:27 »
0
Just checked my August statement from Getty, my highest nett earning RM sale got me a wopping $9.36 and the lowest was $1.05, and the last few months display a similar low commission from RM, I admit I have had four figure commissions from Getty but they are getting extremely rare.
I don't do lavishly expensive stock shoots but I'd be pretty pretty peeved if I'd spent thousands on a shoot for it to nett me a $1.05 sale.

Wow.  Pretty shocking.  I keep hearing that Getty is the place to be to make big money, but then I read posts like this, and some of the ones from Istock exclusives who are experiencing similar, and I wonder if it's worth the bother.

« Reply #28 on: September 21, 2012, 12:37 »
0
Just checked my August statement from Getty, my highest nett earning RM sale got me a wopping $9.36 and the lowest was $1.05, and the last few months display a similar low commission from RM, I admit I have had four figure commissions from Getty but they are getting extremely rare.
I don't do lavishly expensive stock shoots but I'd be pretty pretty peeved if I'd spent thousands on a shoot for it to nett me a $1.05 sale.

Wow.  Pretty shocking.  I keep hearing that Getty is the place to be to make big money, but then I read posts like this, and some of the ones from Istock exclusives who are experiencing similar, and I wonder if it's worth the bother.
Alamy RF is better than that!!

Poncke

« Reply #29 on: September 21, 2012, 13:05 »
0
I just heard someone licensed a photo on Getty for 1500 dollar.

Milinz

« Reply #30 on: October 04, 2012, 04:21 »
0

Absoloutely. I have only been involved in micro for a couple of years so I cant really give an opinion on that but after ten years of shooting Rm and Rf material I do know that its much, much more demanding then micro. The editing process is a lot harder and especially with agencies such as Getty and Corbis. Its also very time consuming and its very seldom one can see any earnings in the first year.


I don't sell RM, so I hadn't heard this.  I was under the impression that micro was much pickier about photo editing - noise, focus, contrast, etc.  Many RM pros were surprised to find they could not match the technical standards set by Istock, for example. 

Or are you talking about tighter editing of your collection - meaning only uploading one or two images from a shoot rather than the whole series? 

I am curious in what ways RM is much more demanding than micro.



Personally as an Rm photographer I would not join an agency like Alamy, too much into travel and landscapes and so on but thats me others might have differant experiences. Creative buyers consult the Rm industry for one purpose only and ready to pay extra money, rights and ofcourse something above the average or else they would ofcourse buy micro or even Rf.
A typical submission to say the Getty original collection is around fifty pictures and the reject percentage is around 80%, so its a very time consuming affair and takes years to build up. Editing for Rm is a lot harder then Rf.

As I said this is my own experience for what its worth. You do have a few Getty Rm photographers here, I recognize their names and style and maybe its worth asking for their opinions and then comparing them to mine.


This guy seems to be just like you. christain58 on alamy and bitter to
http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=13889&p=3

"Well for starters, no way are you going to make a living here alone, this is not the sort of place for that ( with respects). I know a heck of a lot of people making a living in micro and Im not talking about the, MSG bunch, thats all mouth and no money ( yeah I also used to be there but it gave a bad rep ). I also know lots of people, including myself making a solid living in the Getty RM house collection."

you hate us so much that you have 3 accounts on MSG.

« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2012, 04:51 »
0
RM sales are fine but you dont need many sales to make a good month and thats a big differance from micro. I would suggest more people start looking at agencies like Age, Media Bakery, Masterfile, etc. They do RM and RF.

Obviously Getty is the ultimate for RMs, they have an incredible selling power much thanks to the Stone-ImageBank collections but Getty is also a very time consuming and slow affair.
There are in fact tons of other Rm outlets. :)

grp_photo

« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2012, 05:58 »
0
I'm doing well with Getty but besides other things it's important in which collection your images end up, Photographer's Choice, Vetta and Photodisc are IMHO not very high ranked, but which may change so you should have your photos as in many different collections as possible, I guess Stone+ is always a sure bet but pretty hard to get anything in this collection.

« Reply #33 on: October 04, 2012, 07:08 »
0
I'm doing well with Getty but besides other things it's important in which collection your images end up, Photographer's Choice, Vetta and Photodisc are IMHO not very high ranked, but which may change so you should have your photos as in many different collections as possible, I guess Stone+ is always a sure bet but pretty hard to get anything in this collection.

Yes Stones/Image-bank collection is the ultimate but today thats a closed door. Fortunately I got in many years back. Today it might have been a differant story.
Photographers-choice is not what many believe some sort of leftovers from people who cant get into the main collection. Fair enough, you pay to get in there, so what? PC, house many good photographers and plenty of great imagery and most important, they sell. In fact any collection within Getty will give exposure! advertising, PR, etc which one normally has to pay for.

I think we have to separate the Rm outlets from micro. Inside the Getty Rm its totally differant people on a totally differant level then say within their micro outlets.

« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2012, 07:13 »
0
welcome back and back and back lagereek

BTW its different ;D

« Reply #35 on: October 04, 2012, 08:45 »
0
 
welcome back and back and back lagereek

BTW its different ;D

Ah yes. He is yet another pezzanovante with an infamnia. ;D

Milinz

« Reply #36 on: October 04, 2012, 10:05 »
0
Lisa, whats typical for the Micro world is all this technical quality thing of low Noise, even lightning etc. Macro comes from a world of film and has other values. The term Quality refers MUCH more to composition and originality in Macro than to Noise. At least this is my experience. Another thing is that many know "Macro" only from Alamy, and we all now that their approval standards are quite low.

"Editing" refers to "Selection of images". This is the hardest part of the Macro world.

1. Micro: produce a generic and possibly well known shot at best possible technical quality (noise, light, etc.) and then hope for sales. One shooting is prepared for 2 days and gives 60 uploads, 40 of them accepted.
2. Macro: Do original work. Know what you are doing. Be _really_ creative. Use 8 Shots of a entire shooting which was prepared for a entire week and get 2 accepted. 1 of them has Noise :D

Agree with this 100%

I recently did a shoot with over $1,000 in overhead including models, makeup, and wardrobe (not to mention overhead associated with studio rental, my equipment, my time, etc.).  I walked away with 84 images...all of which I would not hesitate sending to the top tier micros spread out over a few months (as many people here do).

Alamy - 100% acceptance
Traditional agency a => all images rejected for "too much noise" (these would have made the micros no problem - there is no noise)
Traditional agency b => all images rejected (agency does not give reasons)
Traditional agency c => 18 of 83 images accepted - images not accepted were rejected for "not being marketable"

You get the point.

I agree with this exept that Alamy tends to accept just about anything nowdays and for selling Rm, its not exactly your ideal agency. I dont work with Alamy but I know many who does and they hardly ever sell any Rm pictures.

Not just about anything they do take anything. Good focused picture they take it. You don't work with alamy but you know you won't sell rm there, you never tried. You bad mouth alamy and msg. That's the real Lagereek we know.


« Reply #37 on: October 04, 2012, 11:17 »
0
RT!  wow thats a BIG sale, isnt it. must be one off. I have also had a few small sales but on average the RMs seem to be around 400-600 bucks.
Im afraid its a sign of the times really. Ten years back the prices were twice as much, customers were used to these prices and didnt even complain.

best.

RacePhoto

« Reply #38 on: October 04, 2012, 12:14 »
0
RM is a green field with still untapped potentials for microstockers. Some microstock sites are making an inroad into it. It is less competitive than RF files which are reaching saturation.

How are you fairing in RM?

Which microstock sites are "making an inroad"?  Which micros are licensing images on an RM basis?

Can you explain "untapped potential"?  RM has been around much longer than the RF and the Subscription RF model.

My RM portfolio is doing just fine.  Quite frankly, it is just as, if not more, competitive that RF at the micros.

I hate to drag this back to the OP and on topic, but, I agree. Still I wonder...

Which microstock sites are "making an inroad"?

As for people who don't like Alamy but never sent their work there, please continue that policy. Less competition in any area with any agency and talking people out of joining is always appreciated.

I dont work with Alamy but I know many who does and they hardly ever sell any Rm pictures.


Poncke

« Reply #39 on: October 04, 2012, 12:31 »
0
Lagereek also ends his post with Best.

Chris is on Alamy saying he quit MSG because he was getting a bad rep.  :o

« Reply #40 on: October 04, 2012, 12:41 »
0
RM is a green field with still untapped potentials for microstockers. Some microstock sites are making an inroad into it. It is less competitive than RF files which are reaching saturation.

How are you fairing in RM?

Which microstock sites are "making an inroad"?  Which micros are licensing images on an RM basis?

Can you explain "untapped potential"?  RM has been around much longer than the RF and the Subscription RF model.

My RM portfolio is doing just fine.  Quite frankly, it is just as, if not more, competitive that RF at the micros.

I hate to drag this back to the OP and on topic, but, I agree. Still I wonder...

Which microstock sites are "making an inroad"?

As for people who don't like Alamy but never sent their work there, please continue that policy. Less competition in any area with any agency and talking people out of joining is always appreciated.

I dont work with Alamy but I know many who does and they hardly ever sell any Rm pictures.

Hi Race! I dont think anybody said they dont like Alamy, its an old British friendly agency and long before micro but its a pigeonholed agency, specializing in travel, scenics, British landscapes, etc.
Now after what I have been told which may I add might ofcourse be wrong, is that RF outsell RM by miles.

RacePhoto

« Reply #41 on: October 04, 2012, 15:20 »
0
RM is a green field with still untapped potentials for microstockers. Some microstock sites are making an inroad into it. It is less competitive than RF files which are reaching saturation.

How are you fairing in RM?


Which microstock sites are "making an inroad"?  Which micros are licensing images on an RM basis?

Can you explain "untapped potential"?  RM has been around much longer than the RF and the Subscription RF model.

My RM portfolio is doing just fine.  Quite frankly, it is just as, if not more, competitive that RF at the micros.


I hate to drag this back to the OP and on topic, but, I agree. Still I wonder...

Which microstock sites are "making an inroad"?

As for people who don't like Alamy but never sent their work there, please continue that policy. Less competition in any area with any agency and talking people out of joining is always appreciated.

I dont work with Alamy but I know many who does and they hardly ever sell any Rm pictures.



Hi Race! I dont think anybody said they dont like Alamy, its an old British friendly agency and long before micro but its a pigeonholed agency, specializing in travel, scenics, British landscapes, etc.
Now after what I have been told which may I add might ofcourse be wrong, is that RF outsell RM by miles.


It depends where the RF is and what the RM photos are taken of and where they are marketed. You have pointed that out many times yourself.

If you put MicroStock RF up on Alamy, it's going to die a slow death, compared to what sells better on Alamy, scenic and travel for example. (RF and RM) The same good sellers on Alamy probably won't be accepted on Micro. It isn't RF vs RM, it's what and where. Someone who wants to over simplify and say, that agency X makes the difference is going to be wrong. It's what you sell on that agency and matching it to the buyers needs and desires.

Put some of your ball bearings and oil and gas rigs up on Alamy and see what happens. Don't just say "it's not going to work, so I won't do it..." And keep repeating how it's a poor place for images or making money. Sounds like the same people who shout, "you can't make money selling images for 25c a download." But odd, there are a good bunch of people here who do!  :D

Example:

Alamy

Portfolio size of 1400 images. On Alamy my portfolio is split RM 74% RF 26%.

56% of revenue came from RM sales
44% of revenue came from RF sales


Average return per sale for RM images was $44
Average return per sale for RF images was $115


Source: http://fstop57.com/rm-rf-earnings-alamy-agefotostock/

The next fallacy you try to sell here and on Alamy and everywhere else is that Only the Brits selling scenic and travel, can make money. Also wrong:

"Alamy is better for me, given my very specific circumbstances. I shoot law enforcement, prisons, forensics etc. On average I get between $125 and $200 per license through Alamy. Don't know how many downloads I'd need on any micro (since I don't have any images with any micro agency) to get - say $150 - but I doubt that my images are suitable for mass-downloads. While a textbook publisher is normally perfectly happy to pay $150 to $250 for the average license for one of my images of - say - cops busting down a door to serve a high-risk drug related search warrant, how many downloads would an image like that get on the micro agencies? Or how many downloads would I need on a micro to match the $2,400 for a recent license (one-time usage as I pretty much only to RM) of a cop using a shotgun to breach a door? I don't know."

http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=13522

Old Data 2007 but even if it has shifted, there's some point to be made for, income and sales on Alamy and RM makes poor money. (as you claim)

"Alamy does not release revenue, except to provide average price-per-image licensed figures. Thirty-four percent of revenue came from RF sales at an average price-per-image of $155, and 66 percent from RM at an average price of $222. About 90 percent of their sales were for editorial use with an average price of $130."

Source: http://rising.blackstar.com/fast-growing-alamy-adds-nearly-one-million-images-in-q1.html


I dont work with Alamy but I know many who does and they hardly ever sell any Rm pictures.


Hi Race! I dont think anybody said they dont like Alamy, its an old British friendly agency and long before micro but its a pigeonholed agency, specializing in travel, scenics, British landscapes, etc.
Now after what I have been told which may I add might ofcourse be wrong, is that RF outsell RM by miles.


I believe you've been told wrong, in all cases?  :-X

Ed

« Reply #42 on: October 04, 2012, 18:45 »
0
OK - here's some numbers...

I have 2167 images on Alamy - 90% RM.  Last month 4 images were reported for $189.70 net to me (they were actually licensed in July and August but reported in Sept.) - all sales RM
I have 176 images at another traditional agency - all RM.  I had one image reported used at $38.65 net to me (actually used in August)
I have 667 images at another traditional agency - 90% RM.  They report quarterly, but 8 images were licensed in September which should show up on my Q4 sales report when money is collected - all 8 are RM images
I have 215 images at another traditional agency 95% RM.  No sales reported for September
I have 441 images at another traditional agency 95% RM.  No sales reported for September

I don't think I have anything to complain about - $228.35 for one month is much more than what I was making at the micros.

Ed

« Reply #43 on: October 04, 2012, 18:51 »
0
P.S. - I have taken a day job with an oil and gas company.  Lagereek's images are all over the place....in training modules, in internal documentation, etc.  This company is Canadian based and licenses many images from iStock.

« Reply #44 on: October 04, 2012, 19:26 »
0
"I don't think I have anything to complain about - $228.35 for one month is much more than what I was making at the micros."

Sorry but $200 for 2,000 images in a month is no success story, IMO.  That's almost not worth the time.

Ed

« Reply #45 on: October 04, 2012, 19:28 »
0
"I don't think I have anything to complain about - $228.35 for one month is much more than what I was making at the micros."

Sorry but $200 for 2,000 images in a month is no success story, IMO.  That's almost not worth the time.

...and it's still more than what I was making at the micros. :o

« Reply #46 on: October 05, 2012, 00:59 »
0
RM is a green field with still untapped potentials for microstockers. Some microstock sites are making an inroad into it. It is less competitive than RF files which are reaching saturation.

How are you fairing in RM?


Which microstock sites are "making an inroad"?  Which micros are licensing images on an RM basis?

Can you explain "untapped potential"?  RM has been around much longer than the RF and the Subscription RF model.

My RM portfolio is doing just fine.  Quite frankly, it is just as, if not more, competitive that RF at the micros.


I hate to drag this back to the OP and on topic, but, I agree. Still I wonder...

Which microstock sites are "making an inroad"?

As for people who don't like Alamy but never sent their work there, please continue that policy. Less competition in any area with any agency and talking people out of joining is always appreciated.

I dont work with Alamy but I know many who does and they hardly ever sell any Rm pictures.



Hi Race! I dont think anybody said they dont like Alamy, its an old British friendly agency and long before micro but its a pigeonholed agency, specializing in travel, scenics, British landscapes, etc.
Now after what I have been told which may I add might ofcourse be wrong, is that RF outsell RM by miles.


It depends where the RF is and what the RM photos are taken of and where they are marketed. You have pointed that out many times yourself.

If you put MicroStock RF up on Alamy, it's going to die a slow death, compared to what sells better on Alamy, scenic and travel for example. (RF and RM) The same good sellers on Alamy probably won't be accepted on Micro. It isn't RF vs RM, it's what and where. Someone who wants to over simplify and say, that agency X makes the difference is going to be wrong. It's what you sell on that agency and matching it to the buyers needs and desires.

Put some of your ball bearings and oil and gas rigs up on Alamy and see what happens. Don't just say "it's not going to work, so I won't do it..." And keep repeating how it's a poor place for images or making money. Sounds like the same people who shout, "you can't make money selling images for 25c a download." But odd, there are a good bunch of people here who do!  :D

Example:

Alamy

Portfolio size of 1400 images. On Alamy my portfolio is split RM 74% RF 26%.

56% of revenue came from RM sales
44% of revenue came from RF sales


Average return per sale for RM images was $44
Average return per sale for RF images was $115


Source: http://fstop57.com/rm-rf-earnings-alamy-agefotostock/

The next fallacy you try to sell here and on Alamy and everywhere else is that Only the Brits selling scenic and travel, can make money. Also wrong:

"Alamy is better for me, given my very specific circumbstances. I shoot law enforcement, prisons, forensics etc. On average I get between $125 and $200 per license through Alamy. Don't know how many downloads I'd need on any micro (since I don't have any images with any micro agency) to get - say $150 - but I doubt that my images are suitable for mass-downloads. While a textbook publisher is normally perfectly happy to pay $150 to $250 for the average license for one of my images of - say - cops busting down a door to serve a high-risk drug related search warrant, how many downloads would an image like that get on the micro agencies? Or how many downloads would I need on a micro to match the $2,400 for a recent license (one-time usage as I pretty much only to RM) of a cop using a shotgun to breach a door? I don't know."

http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=13522

Old Data 2007 but even if it has shifted, there's some point to be made for, income and sales on Alamy and RM makes poor money. (as you claim)

"Alamy does not release revenue, except to provide average price-per-image licensed figures. Thirty-four percent of revenue came from RF sales at an average price-per-image of $155, and 66 percent from RM at an average price of $222. About 90 percent of their sales were for editorial use with an average price of $130."

Source: http://rising.blackstar.com/fast-growing-alamy-adds-nearly-one-million-images-in-q1.html


I dont work with Alamy but I know many who does and they hardly ever sell any Rm pictures.


Hi Race! I dont think anybody said they dont like Alamy, its an old British friendly agency and long before micro but its a pigeonholed agency, specializing in travel, scenics, British landscapes, etc.
Now after what I have been told which may I add might ofcourse be wrong, is that RF outsell RM by miles.


I believe you've been told wrong, in all cases?  :-X


Well given the fact that I dont have as much experience as you have in the macro area, yes as you say I might be wrong on all accounts and I have then been misled and told wrong in all cases.
Maybe, perhaps you would be kind enough to give us a guideline as to what will sell at Alamy and all other RM and RF agencies?
Sorry about my errored post about Alamy.

have a good day sir.


« Reply #47 on: October 05, 2012, 02:01 »
0
"I don't think I have anything to complain about - $228.35 for one month is much more than what I was making at the micros."

Sorry but $200 for 2,000 images in a month is no success story, IMO.  That's almost not worth the time.

...and it's still more than what I was making at the micros. :o
I presume you had much less than 2,000 images on the micros?  Either that or they just aren't suitable for microstock and they appeal more to RM buyers?

$200 for 2,000 images that wouldn't be accepted by the micros is OK.  I made 0 with 1,500 RM images on alamy last month :)

« Reply #48 on: October 05, 2012, 07:13 »
0
What we only need to know are average RPI-s of RM and RF portfolios...
Only difference between those two measures might worth something...

RacePhoto

« Reply #49 on: October 07, 2012, 22:48 »
0
What we only need to know are average RPI-s of RM and RF portfolios...
Only difference between those two measures might worth something...

I think RPI is a faulty way to look at income and sales. Not bad for Micro because in the past there was some correlation, but I'm not sure it applies anymore. Same old question, RPI for What?   ;D Like sliced tomatoes, people shaking hands or ladies with headsets or the perfect sandwich? See what I mean, RPI doesn't take into account, what the subject is and if it's good Micro or not suitable. (I'm a not suitable)

RPI for RM can be the same thing. Keep in mind, Alamy takes everything and anything, as long as it's a good quality production, shot and well exposed. I've often said, you can shoot a brown rock, on a brown sandy beach and it's going to get approved, if it's got good definition. So RPI still comes down to "what?" not how many and that makes RPI irrelevant for comparing the two as well as only amusing for Micro.

Someone with a killer collection of 200 shots, on Micro sites, will have a blazing RPI. Someone with 300 shots that are "CrapStock" (like me) will have a much lower number. Is RPI per site, per collection or per all sites? Well ever site doesn't accept or sell the same shots, so how does that work? Example, one of my top ten on SS was refused by IS. In fact about half of my top ten on SS were refused by IS. No problem, it's just getting it out there that counts.

Final RF / RM and what's what. Getting things accepted isn't a direct relationship to making a sale (license for those who want to quibble about terminology) I have about 80 images on SS and BS that will probably never get one license. They are accepted. They will count for my RPI. But they are fat flops. Should I remove them and boost my RPI? LOL  ;)

RM is not RF, but it's only a license, it doesn't determine content. I can license one shot of a sliced vegetable RF on micro and a different sliced vegetable RM somewhere else. There's no difference in making the shot or the vegetables, no matter how you slice it. (groan)

The things that sell on Micro are not always identical to what sells on Alamy. Some shots can work for both, most will not.

For people to ask or compare the two agencies, based on RPI or RF vs RM, when none of it is the same, doesn't really make sense to me.

How about RPD? How does 33 cents on SS compare to $80 on Alamy?

Now about that claim that Micro is making inroads into RM, which was way back about message two. Can someone point me in the right direction? Where, who, with what?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
8533 Views
Last post February 02, 2010, 10:45
by Stu49
1 Replies
2094 Views
Last post August 07, 2013, 13:54
by sharkyenergy
Old files are now new files?

Started by dpimborough Veer

4 Replies
2993 Views
Last post November 09, 2014, 16:33
by Pixart
26 Replies
9074 Views
Last post February 12, 2019, 22:28
by captain
7 Replies
3106 Views
Last post May 01, 2019, 17:07
by DiscreetDuck

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle