|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ShadySue
Pages: 1 ... 43 44 45 46 47 [48] 49 50 51 52 53 ... 624
1176
« on: March 16, 2019, 18:56 »
https://www.stockperformer.com/pricing
Aha! So that's where the little birdies are! 
I think we've been through this before. I wonder how stockperformer knows the downloads and incomes, without passwords. That would be some pretty valuable information for the agencies to know about each other. I really couldn't see much more than their promotional claims, and I'd really wonder what some subscribers say from their actual experience?
I also don't know why the link was to the pricing page instead of the features? https://www.stockperformer.com/features Anyone have more details about this place?
There's a forum here on msg, but it is mostly threads started by stockperformer with no or very few replies. One post in the whole of 2018, none this year. Does that suggest that most msg-ers aren't interested in the software? Or ...? How can it gather the stats of individual stock artists and rank them? Does it even have access to iS's API, for example?
1177
« on: March 16, 2019, 09:43 »
After over 19 months of waiting for earnings to be cleared (they are still not cleared) now I am waiting for more than one week for a human reply (not the robotic one they send) to see if I will ever have those earnings cleared. I don't know if I should laugh or cry. 
Oh, that's very unusual. You might not always get the answer you want, but you usually get a prompt reply on weekdays. Try again?
1178
« on: March 15, 2019, 10:50 »
Being a cynic why would they encourage exclusive images when they make more from non-exclusive? Or are the prices different?
The prices are the same. I guess the advantage of highlighting exclusive images might be to discourage buyers from shopping round (but Alamy don't think that happens to a great extent).
1179
« on: March 15, 2019, 09:58 »
Sales dead though since 21st Feb though 
Are your images exclusive or non exclusive?
Is there any way buyers can see that info? Or set a filter?
Is there any indication that Alamy is favouring exclusive files in search?
I have a buyers account with Alamy and there is no way to select "exclusive" files that I can see.
As to favouring exclusive files in the image searches its doesn't appear to be the case as I have none exclusive files (RF) that do appear in searches lower than my RM/RF exclusive images but to be honest I've no idea how they arrange "creative" and "relevant"
That's what I'm finding. I can't work out 'creative' or 'relevant' either; and for many searches, the first page at least is identical. I don't even know how they decide which searches to split and which not to. Maybe that's over-assuming that some sort of actual thought has gone into it! Seems like the usual 'diversity algorithm' still rules.
1180
« on: March 15, 2019, 09:17 »
Sales dead though since 21st Feb though
Are your images exclusive or non exclusive?
Is there any way buyers can see that info? Or set a filter? Is there any indication that Alamy is favouring exclusive files in search?
1181
« on: March 15, 2019, 09:06 »
1182
« on: March 15, 2019, 06:48 »
according to that stats site with the bird logo (I forgot the name), Sounds like a waterproof way to get the facts. 
I can't think of the site unonimous meant, but how do they know what all stock photographers earn?
1183
« on: March 14, 2019, 13:31 »
I am not on Novel Use though, years back it used to generate 1.00 sales so wasn't too happy.
From reports on Alamy's forum over the past few months, it seems that NU nowadays might well be an initial offer to New Users, as the uses seem very standard, but the prices are tiny.
1185
« on: March 14, 2019, 12:46 »
I've had 50cent net sales on Alamy as well and $112 net on SS so it can work both ways.
And I've had the same file selling for high and very low prices on Alamy RF; and also high and low prices for the same file on iS. (Different files on each agency).
1186
« on: March 14, 2019, 12:07 »
What we rather do or not is really irrelevant. We're here to provide a service to buyers.
Why can't you sell at both? Today, I've had the same image sell on both Alamy and SS...
You say we are here to provide a service to the buyers. What will the buyer think when the exact same photo costs just cents on SS and 10 USD minimum on Alamy? Isn't it confusing? Is it good service? They probably won't be happy finding out that the image they just bought at 150 USD on Alamy costs a fraction of that on SS.
It's not that simple. If they wanted a pic for cents on SS, they'd need to have needs into the hundreds per month. If they were big buyers, they could negotiate huge discounts on Alamy. In any case, exclusive and non-exclusive on Alamy should let the buyer know s/he can't get the same image elsewhere, or that they can, and are free to shop around. (I'm not sure if that info is currently available to the client. Maybe I'm missing it?)Not sure why you think that $10 is a "minimum on Alamy". I've had distributor RM sales as low as 66c net, meaning they paid $2.20 for the image. OTOH, it's many years since I had any sort of sale which was anything like the amount quoted on the file's page on Alamy. I recently looked back at my Alamy sales, and even several years back, I had months where my average rpd was $4.50, and none of these distributor sales, nor NU, which I'm not in. Note that Alamy confirmed on this very forum years ago that it's nothing to do with the file, it's to do with the discount the buyer negotiated. After 2.5 years submitting to Alamy alone, I'm back to splitting my files, some to Alamy as RM, some to iS as RF, different files on each. Of course, buyers should be paying a lot more for RF files than they do for RM-non-exclusive, but it'd be difficult to push that genie back in the bottle .
1187
« on: March 13, 2019, 07:17 »
Hello to all,
is it just me who think alamy is not 'well'? Does anyone has some better information?
Are you very new to the game? They reduced commission from 50% to 40%, but are there some new benefits to keep the situation little bit balanced?
Exclusive images are 50%. How many other agencies do you know which pay even 40%? Also, image is sold, but money hang somewhere... I sold several images and over 2 months I saw 0 USD, then appeared 12 dollars. it is just ridiculous...
That may be your opinion, but it's the way Alamy works. They give buyers time to pay, which is a relatively USP compared to having to pay in advance at the micros. Comparing to SS I am selling everyday also extended licenses.
Yeah, probably; but Alamy generally focusses more on Live News and secondary editorial. In addition, obviously prices at Alamy are being kept down by the likes of SS. Well, I think I will stop uploading new content..
Everyone has to work out what's best for them.
1188
« on: March 06, 2019, 17:25 »
To be honest the whole Alamy credit control system is a joke and so is the recording of sales which appears to rely on some form of honesty system where the customer reports which images they used.
...they said they'd had changes in personel...
The only changes in personnel needed at Alamy HQ is the management. They have proven their lack of competent decision making at every level. How Alamy continues to exist in 2019 is beyond comprehension, dumb luck I suppose. No regrets about severing ties with these clowns.
Who do you think more worthy of keeping ties at?
Companies that aren't compete idiots about image review, that can handle communication civilly, and that actually make somewhat regular sales. Companies that can actually pay their contributors their share in a reasonable amount of time (when the honest customers choose to report their purchases and pay, considering Alamy is using some sort of freaking "honor system" that their customers are clearly taking advantage of). Companies that don't force us to do all sorts of extra work doing reverse image searches and sending multiple emails on our end making sure they aren't complacently giving away our photos, only to heavily discount those sales or pretend they happened after the 20% royalty cut, just to screw us even further. Pretty much every other company does everything they do better than Alamy does.
Don't get me wrong, we are all in a desperately short supply of bonafide honest, fair, and competent stock companies. Mostly by our doing since so many allow the worst ones (ie iStock) to continue ruining the industry. Alamy could be so much better, but they need to get management that aren't shockingly incapable of making any correct decisions.
Yeah, yeah, I get all that. For me, it's just a matter of different people being willing to put up different sorts of cr*p. I'm not convinced any of them are much better than the rest, when you take everything together into consideration (I mean in the micro universe, not talking about macros). I really wanted to know which specific companies you think are better than Alamy.
1189
« on: March 06, 2019, 14:33 »
To be honest the whole Alamy credit control system is a joke and so is the recording of sales which appears to rely on some form of honesty system where the customer reports which images they used.
...they said they'd had changes in personel...
The only changes in personnel needed at Alamy HQ is the management. They have proven their lack of competent decision making at every level. How Alamy continues to exist in 2019 is beyond comprehension, dumb luck I suppose. No regrets about severing ties with these clowns.
Who do you think more worthy of keeping ties at?
1190
« on: March 06, 2019, 08:29 »
Hi guys, Sorry if the question had been answered before; I'm quiet new to stock photography. Simple question: Is it required to blank the license plates from cars and motor bikes for submission as an editorial image? Are all agencies require the same? Because it looks often very 'unnatural' when I do so. If yes, are you just blur it, or remove all numbers completely? Thank you
You can send altered editorial images to Alamy. You used to have to indicate this but now you don't, so I'm surmising that not many buyers were interested. (I haven't uploaded Live News for a while, maybe these need to be unaltered [?]) It's a personal decision as to whether you blur out or blank out number plates, I don't but I know that some togs choose to, for various reasons. Like Sean says, on many other sites you can't alter editorial images. You'd need to check the terms and conditions of whichever sites you upload to.
1191
« on: March 06, 2019, 06:23 »
To be honest the whole Alamy credit control system is a joke and so is the recording of sales which appears to rely on some form of honesty system where the customer reports which images they used.
Obviously, it would be to Alamy's advantage as a USP (if not Unique at least Unusual). However, like I keep saying, like a scratch on a record, the real problem with that system is that if we catch out people using images without reporting them, Alamy just bills them their current discounted rate, not even the rate they'd have paid at the time. IMO, they should bill them at the very least at the 'rack rate', meaning the file page price for their usage. OTOH, I had a particular pnewspaper group which used one of my RM pics c40 times, but hadn't reported 22 of them. I had to trawl though all I could find online and fill in a spreadsheet and send it to Alamy. Took a long time, as it started with a Google reverse search. Anyway, I got a canned reply to say my file was in the system, and ominously not to contact them again. After some months, I contacted them again to ask when it was going to be cleared, and they said they'd had changes in personel, my spreadsheet was back in the system, not to contact them again on that issue. Exactly the same story when I contacted them for the third time (so they had two complete changes of personnel within a year? Really? Not sure whether it's more worrying if that's true or if it wasn't true.) Anyway, eventually I was paid, at that group's discounted rate, which was half what they'd paid the last time I had the file reported. However, the group must have taken the huff about being called out, because almost immediately, they moved to SS - though I see they are coming back to Alamy: presumably SS just doesn't have the range of editorial images they need. I'm guessing in this climate it's really difficult to keep clients. One might argue that this sort of client isn't one they need, and although I was the one who spent the hours looking for and recording the sales, Alamy had to spend time matching up the sales with the reported records, so identify which ones had or had not been reported (I got that info back), so that took up a staffer's time. BTW, another unreported reuse of one of my RM files was by the magazine of ... the NUJ (National Union of Journalists), who surely should know better. (They are a lower-volume buyers, I guess: the sale was a much higher value than under the UKNS.
1192
« on: March 05, 2019, 20:18 »
I recently had another go around over an image I found in use (article dated 2 months earlier) that hadn't shown up as a sale. They told me they did have a "relevant download" for the image and would contact the account manager. After another month I contacted Alamy again; they said they'd chased the account manager. When the sale finally showed up March 2nd, it was at the 40% royalty rate rather than the 50% it would have been had the customer reported the sale promptly.
That's horrible and unfair: I'd definitely take that up with them, even if just to make them justify themselves and see what they say.
1193
« on: March 05, 2019, 17:00 »
I nudge them after three clear months after the use has been reported.
1194
« on: March 05, 2019, 12:05 »
You need to try out the agencies and see what works for your portfolio.
Some agencies are better for selling some sorts of files than others.
1195
« on: March 01, 2019, 04:13 »
Me again, but I'm increasingly noticing (in wildlife magazines) articles illustrated by the writer. So maybe writing about how you came to photograph the rare animals, including conservation issues and measures, might be a good fit for you.
1196
« on: February 28, 2019, 12:04 »
I'm with a few agencies, all non-exclusive and wonder how my child would be able to continue taking my sales if I'm gone. No intention of that happening any rime soon!!!
I've included specific details of my stock sites in my will, which should be enough for agencies. However, this has been asked often enough before, and it may be (?) that different agencies have different requirements. I know in the past there has been official word from Getty that they need this to be specified in a will; though normally unless otherwise specified, that should be part of the residue of an estate. But different countries have different rules/laws. Why not ask your lawyer?
1197
« on: February 28, 2019, 11:59 »
Alamy doesn't sell well for me on wildlife/nature, as opposed to iS, where these topics sell more or less in parallel with its percentage in my port. You can check in Alamy Measures, where for one species I have pics of, I (alone) sold more in a year on iS than there were recorded searches on Alamy (No idea what percentage of searches are 'recorded'.)
As my name implies, I shoot nature. I try to focus on rare to extremely rare, but I will shoot anything. I did not know Alamy was an exclusive style. I was under the impression that alamy was a Macro-Stock site, where quality standards were higher than micro, sales were fewer, but commissions were a lot higher than on micro sites like SS.
Alamy is at best midstock, quality standards were considerably lower than e.g. iS used to be (do iS have any quality standards nowadays?). Anything can sell there, but their main focus is editorial sales. Have you tried any of the specialist nature agencies? They are likely to serve you far better, but the ones I see selling (meaning I see their credits in publications here) have a large quantity requirement both for initial submission and ongoing submissions - and they mostly only want subjects they haven't got loads of coverage already, so you could meet their needs. Maybe where you live, other agencies dominate and don't have these requirements. If your subjects are rare, that could mean low supply, but almost certainly also low demand. That's no good for you selling on micros or even Alamy, where it's not the quality or rareness of the image which control the price, but the discount the buyer has negotiated. All you can do is experiment and see what/where works for you, at this stage of the game. Also you need to be in it for the long haul. Maybe no-one will want a pic of a Lesser-striped Sputelijk for five years. No-one else has the same portfolio as you, and people may be ahead of you in the pecking order (search positioning), so really, no-one can tell you what will work for your port, starting recently. Suck it and see! Good luck!
1198
« on: February 28, 2019, 06:08 »
1. 60c or less
2. The sky can be the limit
3. Who knows, it varies wildly. Most money seems to accrue from US sales or for some people via Live News. I Think they say that the average sale is $35 gross.
4. You get 50% of the same value rather than 40% (for direct sales).
Thanks. By 60c do you mean 60 cents USD ($0.60)?
Yes, that's what they quote sale prices in. BTW, be aware that like PancakeTom above, most people quote their Alamy sales as gross; but most (probably all) micro sales are quoted net. Like PancakeTom, I can't work out from what has sold previously what will sell on Alamy. It just seems to be what a buyer needed at the time. Alamy doesn't sell well for me on wildlife/nature, as opposed to iS, where these topics sell more or less in parallel with its percentage in my port. You can check in Alamy Measures, where for one species I have pics of, I (alone) sold more in a year on iS than there were recorded searches on Alamy (No idea what percentage of searches are 'recorded'.)
1199
« on: February 27, 2019, 20:30 »
1. 60c or less
2. The sky can be the limit
3. Who knows, it varies wildly. Most money seems to accrue from US sales or for some people via Live News. I Think they say that the average sale is $35 gross.
4. You get 50% of the same value rather than 40% (for direct sales).
1200
« on: February 27, 2019, 15:11 »
And they give students to keep 100% of the sale price. Someone here said that, I don't know if it's true. Instead of splitting 50/50 with students they prefer to take 20% from regular contributors. Really disgusting.
Its quite correct students do get 100% royalties and Alamy also dump cash in to charities
I think it's more that Alamy was started in the main as a business enterpise to fund family charities. One of which, an alleged 'educational charity', I can't even understand how it gets charity status as it's just some software to crunch relative exam attainment levels in schools, which to my mind is a commercial operation, and a dubious one at that (speaking as a former teacher). To me, an 'educational charity' is e.g. an organisation which donates supplies to deprived school areas, or maybe sponsors important educational research, or funds teachers to teach in the developing world, or stuff like that.
Pages: 1 ... 43 44 45 46 47 [48] 49 50 51 52 53 ... 624
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
