pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Success stories on Alamy - the $100,000+ club  (Read 19620 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

« Reply #50 on: January 30, 2018, 17:42 »
0
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.


« Reply #51 on: January 30, 2018, 20:17 »
0
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!

« Reply #52 on: January 31, 2018, 00:25 »
0
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".

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #53 on: January 31, 2018, 03:56 »
0
Now, the million dollar club would be truly impressive!

« Reply #54 on: January 31, 2018, 05:40 »
0
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 dont 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.

« Reply #55 on: January 31, 2018, 05:58 »
+1
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.

 

« Reply #56 on: January 31, 2018, 06:15 »
0
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.

« Reply #57 on: January 31, 2018, 06:36 »
0
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.

« Reply #58 on: January 31, 2018, 06:36 »
+3
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.

ShadySue

« Reply #59 on: January 31, 2018, 07:04 »
0
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.

« Reply #60 on: January 31, 2018, 07:59 »
0
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

« Reply #61 on: January 31, 2018, 08:10 »
0
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

ShadySue

« Reply #62 on: January 31, 2018, 08:25 »
0
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).
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 10:36 by ShadySue »

« Reply #63 on: January 31, 2018, 10:14 »
+1
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".

« Reply #64 on: January 31, 2018, 10:45 »
0
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
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 11:24 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #65 on: January 31, 2018, 10:50 »
+1
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?

« Reply #66 on: January 31, 2018, 11:09 »
0
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!
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 11:20 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #67 on: January 31, 2018, 11:31 »
0
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.

« Reply #68 on: January 31, 2018, 11:38 »
0
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?

« Reply #69 on: January 31, 2018, 11:50 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 12:01 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #70 on: January 31, 2018, 23:04 »
0
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.

« Reply #71 on: February 01, 2018, 09:16 »
0
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

« Reply #72 on: February 01, 2018, 09:37 »
+2
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.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2018, 09:39 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #73 on: February 01, 2018, 10:48 »
0
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

« Reply #74 on: February 01, 2018, 11:01 »
+2
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?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
5091 Views
Last post December 14, 2007, 08:06
by a.k.a.-tom
3 Replies
2981 Views
Last post July 13, 2013, 00:41
by michaeldb
0 Replies
1835 Views
Last post June 28, 2014, 12:41
by photographyplus
2 Replies
3149 Views
Last post July 11, 2014, 14:18
by Tror
Alamy- Any success??

Started by Artist « 1 2 ... 5 6 » Alamy.com

147 Replies
48457 Views
Last post October 13, 2017, 09:11
by namussi

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results