xxxxxxxxxx freedom YOU SAID....
 
If you do not have a great variety of subjects and a decent number of images, you will not see any results for a long time
   xxxxxxxx

sounds like me. so, in your opinion how many images do i need in Alamy, if i do want to see result ?
 i've been with them about 6-8 months now. i moved there after Photo Shelter's demise.

Tan, I know a lot of people say it's a number's game, but it's yes and no. Some people were complaining about zero sales last month with a few thousand images. I'd say you need at least a few hundred with many different subjects. It is a British agency so European contents sell well, but the competition is also stiff because many contributors are Europeans.

Quote from: Freedom on May 02, 2009, 19:00

xxxxxxxxxx freedom YOU SAID....
 
If you do not have a great variety of subjects and a decent number of images, you will not see any results for a long time
   xxxxxxxx

sounds like me. so, in your opinion how many images do i need in Alamy, if i do want to see result ?
 i've been with them about 6-8 months now. i moved there after Photo Shelter's demise.

Does anyone fear (like me) that every one of the big 6 someday will demand exclusivity from all contributors (maybe even after excluding contributors that don't perform well and demanding fees for uploading)? What then? Would IS take ex-exclusives back?
Just a thought.

I thought this at one point too. it doesn't make sense from an economic perspective. if agencies were to do that it would upset the whole cart and completely change the agency model.

agencies would have to lure the best contributors with incentives and this would result in shrinking their profit margins substantially, for little gain. I think most agencies are more concerned with branding themselves rather than branding their contributors.

IF there should be an IS  ...    it could be only PC

What does  PC mean? 

Quote from: stardust on May 07, 2009, 15:47

Quote from: batman on May 07, 2009, 15:12

IF there should be an IS  ...    it could be only PC

What does  PC mean? 

Photos.com

Oh no! Let's hope not! 

Quote from: Freedom on May 02, 2009, 19:00

... But the truth is, Alamy is no salvation.

You're not kidding. The last financials I read (2008) had Alamy generating about $11M pa from 9.5M images. That's just over $1 per image/year.

Currently IS has about 4.7M images and, judging by the stat's on multimedia.com, are generating something like $150M per annum (although that figure is consistently rising), which equates about $32 per/image year.

Even when you take into account IS's pittiful commission rates your portfolio is far more likely to generate more income on IS than at Alamy. Oh __ and the equation is swinging ever more towards IS and against Alamy and the like. Trad RF is basically dead in the water.

Your figures are either intentionally misleading or you just want to ignore that RPI between the two agencies is an irrelevant creative number the way you figured it. Of course they are going to have a lower RPI, because they have 300% more images for buyers to choose from.

ALAMY: The average price of all images sold in 2008 was $152.66 (78% RM images sold for average of $135.5 and 22% RF for $213.5).

What's the average price for a sale on IS? 

True, and I agree with you, Alamy is no salvation, it's just another outlet for images, with a different market, pricing and buyers.

Quote from: RacePhoto on May 11, 2009, 02:27

Your figures are either intentionally misleading or you just want to ignore that RPI between the two agencies is an irrelevant creative number the way you figured it. Of course they are going to have a lower RPI, because they have 300% more images for buyers to choose from.

ALAMY: The average price of all images sold in 2008 was $152.66 (78% RM images sold for average of $135.5 and 22% RF for $213.5).

What's the average price for a sale on IS? 

True, and I agree with you, Alamy is no salvation, it's just another outlet for images, with a different market, pricing and buyers.

I'm not sure I understand you here? How is RPI 'an irrelevant creative number' when comparing between the two agencies? If Alamy has 300% more images then why aren't they producing 300% more revenue for example __ instead of less than one tenth?

An average image sale at IS would appear to be about $6 (based on 5000 of my own sales this year).

So, using the figures quoted earlier, an 'average' portfolio of 1000 images on IS should generate $32K in total per year which would be worth $6400 to an independent contributor.

If that portfolio was instead placed on Alamy then it should generate about $1000 per year and presumably be worth about $650 to the contributor.

Are those figures wrong or am I missing something somewhere? I know we are comparing IS numbers for 2009 and Alamy's from 2008 but that shouldn't make a huge difference.

I've been meaning to upload to Alamy for years but, from the statistics I read and reports from friends/colleagues who are there, I struggle to find the incentive to do so __ with the possible exception of editorial images.

It's not the same system. Yes you are selling photos, which is the same but when people sell images for and average of 69 cents on IS, or 33 cents on SS, it's not quite the same as getting $125 for selling one image is it? 

If you are averaging $6 an image on IS, you are limiting yourself by not uploading to Alamy. Those must be some pretty good photos. Personally I average about 69 cents an image on IS. Here again someone can look at RPI or return per sale, and the numbers are going to look very different. Some other exclusives are going to have to weigh in with average sales numbers for IS, it would be interesting since I've seen people mention $1.50  and nothing like $6 per image.

Anyway, one place is volume one is price. (here we go again)  You go to McDonalds and they sell Billions of inexpensive hamburgers, or you go to some posh restaurant and they sell less, but they are finer meat and cost ten times more. You go to a steak house which is selling "cooked beef" and you pay much more. Somehow all are doing just fine, and all are selling the same product in different forms. Hope that makes some sense.

Comparing Alamy to IS is not very relevant because they are different markets and different pricing. While we may see some sort of bulk sales on Alamy, or discounting, we aren't going to see microstock style "subscription" sales. Sometimes it's not even valid to compare SS to IS, because the way they market and sell is very different. The target clients of any of the above three may be very different as well. I know that the people who buy from Alamy and the type of material they seek from Alamy is not the same as others are buying and looking for on microstock sites.

RPI isn't the only way to measure the potential profits from an agency. That's why I said PRI is irrelevant for comparing Alamy and IS, or any other micro site.

You keep mentioning only one agency in your comparison. How about other people who can have 1000 images up on Crapstock (that fictional place we all know) and they don't even reach a payout in a year, or will never reach payout. RPI must really be low and sales stink. You keep using IS as an example, while there are hundreds of other places that sell stock photos. All of a sudden Alamy doesn't look so much a waste of time, does it?

My best return for images is SS by the way, I hardly sell anything on IS. Something else to consider is Photos of What, when comparing agencies, how good are the photos?

Last of all, if you go look at the "average IS portfolio of 1000 images" it's nowhere near $6 per image in sales. There are people with 1000 photos since 2005 who have been passed by new photographers with 250 photos, that started in 2008. There is no average, just by looking at photo numbers, the quality of the images has to be considered. You may sell 5000 images in a year, but there are others with same size portfolios who don't sell 1000 photos per year. You need to look at the overall agency, not just the best people, or successful people like yourself.

With that, there are many other ways to evaluate how good an agency may be than just looking at RPI.