Alamy stock photography

Pricing - the Alamy way

Permalink Comments (48)17 September 2007 at 12:44 by James West - CEO
Posted under Rambling CEO

© EyebyteAs a general trend, prices across our industry are falling and appear set to continue to do so. This downward pressure ranges from mild to extreme and results from one or more of the following:

An abundance of images on the market
Customer consolidation (mergers and takeovers in the publishing world)
Aggressive pricing strategies in some stock agencies
Micropayment sites
Erosion of traditional print media by the web
Migration of advertising spending to the web
Uncertain outlook in the global economy

We will shortly be making our revenue figures public for the first time. Our sales figures show us so far sitting outside this broader industry trend: they suggest that our prices are stable and our market share is increasing. This is because we are a growing company that does 70% of its business in the relatively stable secondary editorial market (magazines, non-current affairs sections of newspapers, book publishers, travel companies, etc.).

Later this year we will be releasing a number of new products to broaden our customer base beyond that secondary editorial market. In that expansion our pricing strategy will be one that recognises and respects that prices are falling across the industry but also that contributors need to retain control over how their images are sold.

Photographers need to be able to test the water in some of these growing new markets without cannibalising their sales or devaluing their product in the process. We will endeavour to make this possible for you and I promise that we won't do anything drastic without your consent!

Add your own commentComments (48)

17 September 2007 at 15:11 Andrew

Change happens, looking forward to the challenge.
17 September 2007 at 16:07 John

I find your announcement alarming to say the least. In a time when, due to illness & unable to work in the profession that I have worked in for the past 38 years, I am trying to make a serious living from photography. Your announcement is just another nail in the coffin as from it`s tone it is obvious that we photographers are expected to take yet another cut in income. Your day will come, just remember who supplies the bread & butter for your industry.
17 September 2007 at 16:27 Bob Croxford

If this is advance warning of Alamy testing the waters of Microstock I will pull all my images from Alamy. With PS announcing a $50 minimum price and a marketing budget way above Alamy's it would be the height of foolishness to flirt with even lower prices.

Bob Croxford
Atmosphere Picture Library
17 September 2007 at 17:14 HermanM

Interesting phrasing of the announcement. I guess it will be wait and see. In a time when Getty has made a significant cut in prices and that PhotoShelter is opening a stock outlet, I can understand that adjustments are necessary. So, as said... Wait and see.
17 September 2007 at 17:17 Arni katz

I must confess this latest statement from Mr. West confirms my suspicions that the stock photo market, regardless of the agency, is just no longer worth the time of established professionals. After 35 years as a photographer and just under a year with Alamy, I have received flaccid sales and expended a tremendous amount of work. The draconian zero-tolerance policy and inconsistent management of image requirements toward "valuable collections" accepted, which do not meet the requirements the rest of we "great unwashed" photographers must accept, I can only say any reduction of rates will result in immediate deletion of my images.
Boo, hiss!

In the words of my long dead grandmother, "If you roll in excrement you will smell like it."
17 September 2007 at 17:31 Rolf georg

I'm looking forward. I would love to sell my random RF-images at a lower price via Alamy. I think the prices for ordinary isolated shots or design elements (backgrounds,close-up) should be lower.
Not microstockprices but only in the two-digit range. It would be nice two make it possible for contributors to place their RF-images in different price-ranges depending on content and quality for example premium (traditional prices) and budget(lower prices).
RM-Images should not affected in general only for sales to schools etc.
17 September 2007 at 19:02 Bill brooks

Alamy has to adapt to marketplace realities as it sees them. The ability to opt out, if the photographer does not agree with a new Alamy business plan, is more than fair. Here is hoping that you can come up with a proposition that benefits everyone.
17 September 2007 at 19:21 Simon stanmore

So much negativity!
It sounds like new price structures / licensing models will be designed to target the commercial sector of the market - Something Alamy have not yet tackled in earnest. If successful, it will be a win-win situation. JW making this announcement shows some empathy with photographers and offers the assurance that we'll maintain control of how our images are offered to the marketplace... So chill out!
17 September 2007 at 20:01 Ian murray

Stating that prices are falling is simply a statement of fact and the reasons given seem pretty spot on to me.

I welcome the openness of this announcement and the way that photographers are being consulted and considered. Personally, I have no objection in principle to micro uses attracting micro prices especially if there is an opt in/opt out system so everbody is free to make up their own minds and to change their own minds, and especially if the rights sold are carefully managed and restricted. I don't notice this sort of advance warning and consideration towards photographers from other sections of the industry.

What about some form of Alamy Premium collection catering for the higher end users?
17 September 2007 at 20:39 Arni Katz

Ian,

I commend your comment regarding Alamy's openness. After 15 minutes of chewing the carpet I was going to amend my virulent comment and compliment Alamy for their honesty and open dialog.

So Alamy, BRAVO!

I wish I had an answer to the increasing demise of what I have enjoyed as a craft and profession since 1972. Times change but at some point logic and good business sense slap you in the face. Certainly this applies to Alamy and all the other agencies.

Your idea of "Alamy Premium" is a good one. How to implement it is another question. Perhaps the best solution is to let the buyers decide if they want to pay or not. I choose not to sell cheap. I'd rather not sell. Others may feel differently.

I did have a good belly laugh over Jame's West's comment "An abundance of images on the market." Alamy's counter of inventory is the first thing you see on the site! Sweet irony!

Best to all!
17 September 2007 at 21:00 nina buesing

I agree with Ian Murray and Arni Katz. I think it is good that Alamy is being upfront and unfortunately it is true that the industry is changing and less profitable.
One word of caution however: Getty w/o doubt has always introduced new concepts and started trends within the industry. And I suspect that some of their latest actions also contributed to the decision making at Alamy recently.
However Getty images has not been doing so well as of late comparatively to a few years ago. Maybe it is the market, but maybe it also has to do with some of the changes they have been making.
So not everything Getty initiates is necessarily an example always does or that Alamy has not come already to the same conclusion as I.
Just a thought.
In the mean time let me applaud Alamy for its openness. I particularly like that I know right away if I have made a sale.
17 September 2007 at 21:15 nina buesing

I agree with Ian Murray and Arni Katz. I think it is good that Alamy is being upfront and unfortunately it is true that the industry is changing and less profitable.
One word of caution however: Getty w/o doubt has always introduced new concepts and started trends within the industry. And I suspect that some of their latest actions also contributed to the decision making at Alamy recently.
However Getty images has not been doing so well as of late --comparatively to a few years ago. Maybe it is the market, but maybe it also has to do with some of the changes they have been making.
So not everything Getty initiates is necessarily a good example. Not that Alamy bases all their decisions on Getty's actions or that Alamy has not already come to the same conclusion as I.
It is just a thought or food for thought.
In the mean time let me applaud Alamy for its openness. I particularly like that I know right away if I have made a sale.
Please keep us posted!
17 September 2007 at 23:03 Fabian gonzales

I am excited about this announcement.

While I understand the apprehension from some photographers given the current upheaval and uncertainty in the market, Alamy has in the past shown great respect for its contributing photographers and has always been receptive to feedback from the community.

I look forward to working with Alamy in the future, and hope the new product offerings will provide more growth opportunities for both Alamy and us photographers.
17 September 2007 at 23:18 Nic cleave

We for one are not surprised as we've seen our license fees fall away even in the five years or so that we've had our images with Alamy.

Our editorial images used to average around $200 per sale, but now rarley achieve $100 and have on occassion dipped to $10.59 for an L license, which we worked out to actually costing us $65 to sell at this price!!!!

We are lucky in that our stock work only makes up about 20% of our income from photography, so we will be deleting our entire collection of 10,000 images (which have so far produced over $35,000,) as soon as these 'new changes to pricing structure' (read intro of 'microstock opt-in scheme' and further legitamised reduction of L and RM licenses,) and leaving the stock game completely. We feel genuinely deeply sorry for those of you who rely on this type of photography for the bulk of your incomes.

We'd rather be out all together, than left in and giving our work away to the point where it cost us every time one of our images sells.

Good night and god bless to yet another revenue stream in the rapidly dissapearing profession of professional photography.

Nic
18 September 2007 at 03:30 Phil Scalia

This certainly gives pause. I'm hoping this'll be something we can "opt in" on an image per image basis.
Obviously the goal is to increase revenue by increasing volume of sales per unit. If this happens, I'm all for it. That's a big If. But I worry about these price wars. I believe the photographer is taking home as little as 20 cents per sale on istock. One hundred sales equals $20. Woop de doo. I'd like to say the photos are amateur but some of them are actually very good. How can anyone compete with this?

The photo chosen to accompany this topic... are those our profits that are blowing away?
18 September 2007 at 03:55 Gary

The only thing that is constant in life is change. And if you cannot accept and adapt to change, you are doomed as appears to be the case for some folks posting comments here. Alamy is simply adapting to remain viable and profitable and we must adapt as well or cease to exist as contributors. Very simple. I commend Alamy on being upfront and honest with their contributors.
18 September 2007 at 09:46 Bob croxford

"The only thing that is constant in life is change. And if you cannot accept and adapt to change, you are doomed as appears to be the case for some folks posting comments here."

Dear Gary

Being a contributor to Alamy isn't the greatest business decision of my career. I do not have to adapt to Alamy to survive. Alamy have to adapt to survive but not me to them. Photoshelter and DRR have changed the business environment. When Alamy changed their ranking system My sales plummetted. So did the sales of many other dedicated and professional specialist photographers. One who was earning $10,000 gross per month dropped to the last pagees of searches and his sales went to zero. Alamy's response has been, "If you don't like it, leave".

Whatever Alamy's pricing ideas are if they include Micro pricing I will take their advice and leave.
18 September 2007 at 10:16 Jon Arnold

Bob said; Being a contributor to Alamy isn't the greatest business decision of my career. I do not have to adapt to Alamy to survive

I say, stop complaining, and move on if it isn't working for you.

Alamy have worked well for many photographers, but obviously with so many images/photographers on their books not everyone will be a winner. And that's true of the whole industry. The ever growing supply to a not so growing demand.... and if someone's images are no better than those of amateur/semi pros being supplied to the microstock agencies, to be sold for as little as $1, you can't expect clients to pay 100x that amount via Alamy or Getty or wherever.

I hear so much moaning and concern in the stock industry but you know there are exceptions to all this gloom and doom. I was speaking to a well known travel photographer whose been in the business many many years and he told me this year is his best year in terms of income (nearly all from RM sales actually). I know numerous other travel photographers whose incomes are rising. Look at the PDN photographer survey published a few months back (http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/features/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003592325) and many stock photographers reported increasing incomes.

But James' analysis is absolutely correct and Alamy need to respond, just like any other agency. Let's wait and see what they propose before we make judgement.
18 September 2007 at 10:58 Bob croxford

Dear John

James West wrote above, "I promise that we won't do anything drastic without your consent!"

If we wait and see without making comments how will he know what our feelings are?

I too am happy with my earnings elsewhere but Alamy has always been a small part of my total and is getting to be almost insignificant.
18 September 2007 at 12:14 ViDra

I think it's time for ALAMY to ELEVATE the IMAGE QUALITY, from the artistic point of view.

In Alamy there are too many non professional photo, really!

Many Editorial agencies refuse to use Alamy for this reason.

So, it's time to start a molre accurate choise of the images. I think it's not important to have 10 million of photo, but 10 million of really good photo.
18 September 2007 at 13:05 José elias

Hi,

First, I’d like to thank you so much for enumerating the reasons which are creating problems in the stock industry, as people tend to blame simply only one factor (Micros), when so much, much more is involved.

Second, I’m looking forward for some of these new products. Personally I don’t see any problem in creating premium and affordable collections. Some images are too common these days to be priced at 100’s of dollars (and so, are never sold), and others should be valued by their higher quality (even from common subjects) and originality. AlamyRank can be a way to start this selection

The market is changing and I’m glad Alamy is adapting.

Best regards,
José Elias
www.fotoelias.com
18 September 2007 at 13:14 Paul panayiotou

I'll wait for further announcements before making any judgements or critical business decisions

There have been some robust discussions on the Alamy forum (and elsewhere) about the impact on the marketplace of microstock, aggressive pricing (of which microstock is also party to) and the long term effect of releasing perpetual RF licenses into the supply side.

It is very significant, to me at least, that these same and related issues are cited by Alamy as very key to the devalueing of the market.

Curiously, even the very suggestion of a devaluing market has been vociferously denied or rejected in some quarters, in particular by microstock enthusiasts, and now we hear it straight from the CEO of Alamy.

I should add that I often hear the generalism that microstock is mostly for "web use" and somehow this makes it OK to license at a dollar a go....I bet advertisers don't spend micro dollars for web use!

Some photographers should perhaps reflect with more consideration on the contribution they are making to the demise of stock photography, and in fact to the demise of the photography biz across the board.

I'll continue to try and raise the quality of my portfolio and and look for alternative revenue streams
18 September 2007 at 13:22 Mark Scheuern

I find it puzzling that people continue to pretend that the devaluation of stock photography by the micros isn't a large factor in driving down stock prices in general. But then there's never been a shortage of excuse making with the micro-apologists. I'll be very disappointed indeed if Alamy chooses to become a part of this problem.
18 September 2007 at 13:34 José elias

Vidra said: “I think it's time for ALAMY to ELEVATE the IMAGE QUALITY, from the artistic point of view.”

I agree completely. There are some very bad images at Alamy. I’m not a picture buyer but this, combined with the huge offer may turn a search in a real pain.

Looking through hundreds or thousands of bad images to find a good one isn’t a good way to sell images.

Except for pictures that may have an historical value, most should be deleted.

I would also like to see the end of the upsizing of images. I cannot see any point in this because it gives the buyer a false notion of the real resolution of the picture and if not correctly done it even damages the picture.

I think images should be sold in their native resolution, and the picture buyer / designer would then upsize it if he wished so. It’s the designer, better than anyone, that knows the best way to upsize the picture for his needs.

Upsizing, only damages images that don’t require the upsizing for their final use, it’s an extra step in the processing of images, and increases file size which isn’t good for uploading and storage of images.

Best Regards,
José Elias
www.fotoelias.com
18 September 2007 at 13:53 Cristina

I am very curious to see what happens! Changes are not necessary to be considered negative...
18 September 2007 at 14:32 José elias

Mark Scheuern
Unless you find that micro has a major influence in the world’s economy, I think that the most important factor is the uncertainty of global economy which make every company to look for the best buy and count every penny spent. You can see this trend in EVERY business nowadays.

Second, the huge offer of images. If Alamy is growing, but people report less sales (blaming solely the famous alamyrank), maybe it’s because the income is being spread over more people.

I also see the merging and takeovers in the publishing world as an important part. When you have 10 magazines belonging to 10 publishers, you can afford to loose one client when you don’t want to cut the sale prices. Now, when you have 10 magazines and 1 publisher… things are different aren’t they. The stock agency looses much of the negotiating power because it risks loosing THE client. It’s because of this that even in capitalist countries there are anti-monopoly laws.

I’m not saying that Micros haven’t affected part of the collection of traditional agencies. But I find it hard to believe that an agency like Getty that has a business of 800 million dollars is so easily affected by a business model like Micro that has in it’s strongest agency a business of just above 10 millions. Summing up all top micro agencies I don’t think they represent more than 50 million dollars based on information from some of the CEO’s of the agencies that gave a recent interview in a major news agency. I may be totally wrong, but this is based on public information. If someone has better info, please point it to me.

As I said, I can see only as positive a creation of an affordable and eventually premium collection, and especially a cleaning of Alamy collection (which I would love to see announced).

Regards,
José Elias
www.fotelias.com
18 September 2007 at 15:06 Tony collins

Hmmm... trying to reverse engineer the concept behind the Dandelion shot.
1. Bob parachuting away?
2. Winds of Change?
3. The insignificance of the stock photographer?
4. The fast spreading weed of microstock?
5. The image buyer loves me/not?
6. Go forth and multiply?
18 September 2007 at 15:20 Ed Endicott

I welcome the changes. I would love to see a separation in the collection based on creative and editorial images, and separate search ranking for each collection. I also think a "premium" collection - selected by editors (not photographers) would be a terrific addition.

Thank you Alamy for evaluating the market and changing in order to remain competitive!
18 September 2007 at 15:51 Jon arnold

According to Getty's email to photographers this week (in defence of their new $49 web-res pricing), istockphoto made 4.25 million sales in the last quarter. That's one every 2 seconds, day and night, 7 days a week...... that would bring the annual revenues to around $30-40 million for istockphoto I reckon. Still that's just 5% (give or take) of Getty's total revenues/turnover. Make of that what you will. But it's not something to be ignored.

And whether that means RM/traditional-RF shooters should get involved or simply work alot harder at producing the images that clients are prepared to pay 50, 100, or 10,000 dollars for is up to all of us to decide. But what is absolutely true is that high prices for mediocre images will be history. No doubt.
18 September 2007 at 16:04 Michael howard

Alamy seem to be testing the water and might be taking note of our opinions, so it is wise to give them an idea of different contributors' feelings, or it will be too late.

I don't think Bob is saying it's definitely going to be worse. Just pointing out that there would be an exodus of much (most?) of their better work if they try to force us to accept a Getty solution.

Alamy may be thinking of a two tier system with a clear division between the new low price option and the higher end work, whose owners just will not sell it for peanuts. This could be a great improvement. Depends on the scheme.

But if Alamy are going to do a Getty on us, and I don't think that's in character, I am quite sure that the agency who are putting much of my work on Alamy would pull out as pronto as possible. They provide much good work on the site.

I also would personally have to leave. (I was actually one of those who left the SAA at the big bang) but that would not be significant.

Michael Howard
18 September 2007 at 17:19 Ashley

Lets face it, stock has reached an abysmal state for any professional photographer out there trying to earn a decent income and has generally become a loss maker rather than a money maker. All the libraries do what's best for them and couldn't care less about the contributors.

Its time for photographers to find new business models away from stock where we can use our superior ability and experience to good effect by taking personal control. The biggest mistake made by photographers is to hand over images to the libraries at all who pick up a fat percentage for having done nothing more than given away the image for peanuts.
18 September 2007 at 17:29 nina buesing

Another thought I had is that people used to complain about stock photography the way people complain about cheaper pricing in stock now. Stock took away from assignment photography. Now microstock & amateur imagery is intruding on the professional photo stock market. Just an observation.
I think the truth is one has to be ready for change no matter what industry one is in. I hope Alamy will keep the photographers in mind in all their decisions.
On a postive note: at least one can pull one's images from Alamy quickly if one would want to. Not so easy to do with some of the other agencies...I hope choice stays a constant with Alamy!
I think photographers should be able to choose for each image how they want it licensed. This way the photographer can react to the market as they see fit.
Alamy should introduce different collections, to me that seems to be the solution that could work for all. It might also help edit some of the content on Alamy.
18 September 2007 at 17:35 Paul panayiotou

Jon Arnold, some good points indeed.

I can agree that producing better images (and it is a subjective criterion) might help.

But we must now also contend with the buyer phenomenon of "cheap enough is good enough"

Concerning iStockphoto and the 4.25m licenses sold annually, the real value of those sales is not the estimated revenue of 30-40 million USD.

Therealworth is the money left behind on the negotiating table

Generally speaking, I'm OK about micro prices for micro usage.

But what is of interest to me, and no doubt others, such as Alamy, who agree that the market is devalueing, is how many of those licenses were purchased by large clients in the editorial, corporate and advertising sectors?

And let's not forget, that those 4.25m purchases remain in the marketplace forever, permitting infinite re-use and stacking up the supply

I hope that now Alamy has cited microstock and aggressive pricing as key negative influences, it will raise awareness of the wider implications of microstock for anyone who currently contributes or is indeed considering a move to microstock

Only the most stubborn of deniers will today fail to acknowledge the negative impact of microstock on the long term sustainability of the stock photo market
18 September 2007 at 18:18 nina buesing

Forbes/Associated Press today published an interesting report about Getty today.
It's titled: "Out of the Gate: Getty Images" and relates to this discussion a great deal.
18 September 2007 at 19:14 Clive sawyer

The deminishing returns from shooting stock images by true professionals will mean that it will not be viable to shoot fresh quality stock. As time goes by all those buying cheap images will find it harder to find leading edge material shot on quality equipment and they will have no choice but to churn old outdated material. Yes there will be amateurs out there quite happy just to see their images published for just a dollar but the bulk of good stock is still supplied by us. Only time will tell, as individuals there is little that we could do to change things.
18 September 2007 at 19:26 Bob croxford

Clive sawyer said

"The deminishing returns from shooting stock images by true professionals will mean that it will not be viable to shoot fresh quality stock. As time goes by all those buying cheap images will find it harder to find leading edge material shot on quality equipment and they will have no choice but to churn old outdated material."

What Alamy do not seem to have taken on board is the truth of Clive's statement. Sure, open up the outlet to every Tom, Dick and Harriet with a digital camera and no idea of Adobe 98, Tiffs, Raws, Models Releases etc. The result will be ten or twenty million images which require no real investment. This will mean less chance of attracting quality RM images to sell to the commercial sector. Professionals rely on making a return where they can. Take away the easy images and the margins become tighter for the harder set-ups.
19 September 2007 at 08:44 photomamp

First of all, i wish to thank Alamy to be so honest and transparent (as always).
My opinion is that we shouldn't thing that the problem is there (or is bigger now) because Alamy tell us about it.
The "problem" is no more than a new change in our profession (as a lot of changes that we have lived before in our professional activity). As professionals, we have seen that things are changing from some (or several) months before, and not now that/because Alamy share with us its impressions about it (and his solutions, don't forget it)
Some fellow contributor have shown smart opinions in the previous comments. We can't kept our eyes closed to this new changes/challenges; even when we don't look, the challenges are out there.
So, I think is better for us to evolve trying to be up.to.date with our times instead to remain static (risky to become out.to.date). I think the complaining isn't a solution because is a glanze to our present-past, and we need to look to our present-future.
But I don't want to sell my pictures by peanuts, of course. Stock is my main activity.
So, what things that we can do? (in my modest opinion):
- It's true that the quantity it's not the most important thing. The quality is better. As it has said before, some searches in Alamy are a fuzzy-work for some buyers. So we can try to improve our images there (I'll try to do it).
- In the same line of thinking, it is a possibility also, to offer two different economic ways of images by Alamy (It has said before too for example like "Premium/budget"). Everyone can opt-in/opt-out in a per image basis for these both. We must be serious with our work and recognize which of our images can stay in one or another level/place (note for susceptibilities: I'm not talking about micro-prices; only updated prices with the present times). Even all, we have had from a long time ago two different ways to sell (and valuate) our images: RF and RM (aka L in Alamy).
Another question would be: how/who decide which images go to the contemporary-edge-stunning images (high prices, L-RM probably) and wich of them remain to the medium-pricing level (Part of L-RM as well, and RF)?
Opinions will be appreciate!
In any case, this two economic levels can help to keep customers with us. The business can change, but it is here. I prefer to be near than far away from the business.
There are lots of other things to comment, but I wouldn't like to make this message too much long and boring.
As a resume: our business is under continuos developing with challenges in front which we not always found the solution quickly. But we shouldn't forget them. We must be updated and thinking about how we can improve (or at least, keep) our situation in the business. If not, may be the business will forget us.
Thanks for your patient. And thanks again to Alamy for keeping us alert about the situation that we are involved.
19 September 2007 at 08:48 Michael howard

re Bob and Clive's comments

Hopefully the new pricing alteration will help solve the 10 - 20 million pix problem by providing the client with a choice of the cheap stuff or the better work! The amateurs will presumably opt for the cheap option. Unfortunately I fear this will mean they put their shots into both levels if not stopped. That way nothing will be improved. There are already contributors who put in exactly the same picture twice so that they stand twice the chance of being seen. Alamy obviously have no one checking.

I don't see how, under the present system, where Alamy check for spots and focus and little else, they can edit the work and weed out the poor stuff. They have been relying on alamyrank to push it to the back. This didn't really work as Bob well knows, though the order seems to be(very, very) slowly improving.

So, we wait agog for the new pricing system to be announced.
19 September 2007 at 09:49 Tony watson

These are uncertain times for the stock photographer, and I understand that business is never static.

I just hope that Alamy keeps it's unique and innovative approach to the industry and dosn't blindly follow the latest tends, micros, etc. If Alamy was to go down that road, I would serously consider pulling out my work, from what has been a very successful relationship so far.

Tony Watson
19 September 2007 at 11:04 Ian murray

Just to clarify my views. I'm not advocating that Alamy offers a micro collection in the same way as other outlets do.

I am as opposed to micros such as iStock and the others as much as anybody else ( often more so it seems). But I'm not actually opposed to the idea of a micro use having a low fee. It's exactly what RM/L should be able to provide in my opionion as long as the Rights can be properly managed.

The trouble with iStock and the rest (IMHO)is not so much their pricing but their licence. Their standard RF licence is for a print run of 500,000. I can't think of many Scout or church groups that need that.

Alamy would be smart to exploit this rapidly growing market and at the same time protect our images by offering tightly restricted useage rights to real micro users. In other words buyers would have to pay the proper going rate for non-micro uses. If this were to happen on an opt in (image by image?) basis I can't see that the fears expressed above by many need be realised.

If there is indeed a huge market for genuine micro uses then why shouldn't those Alamy contributors interested be able to benefit.

I for one would be quite content to licence my images for 'internal school education only use' for a small fee. I've actually written to Alamy a couple of times to say so. No reply as yet!

All this is at least worth careful thought and considerration.

Ian Murray
19 September 2007 at 14:25 Michael howard

Ian Murray wrote: I for one would be quite content to licence my images for 'internal school education only use' for a small fee.

Problem is , people tell porkies out there. Everybody is a charity or a student if it's cheaper.

And once the file is on some non professional's computer, that will be used in diverse ways till the end of time by an unknown numer of people.

That is the main reason that our images on the Alamy site must be watermarked asap, but that's another thread.

Michael Howard
19 September 2007 at 15:15 Ian murray

"Problem is , people tell porkies out there. Everybody is a charity or a student if it's cheaper."

I'd think it rather easier to check on this in a UK, European US school than a distributor sale to quite a few countries - some of which do not even have laws of copyright. RM buyers get the high res file for spot use don't they?

Micor prices, micro uses and could be micro files.

Ian Murray
19 September 2007 at 15:41 Michael howard

"I'd think it rather easier to check on this in a UK, European US school than a distributor sale to quite a few countries"

I am not convinced there is any checking.

But yes you are right about dubious countries as well - that's why I've not ticked so many of them (China etc) on Alamy's distribution agents' list.

But now I'm trying to get to the bottom of a Portuguese advertising use. The buck has been passed through 3 agencies in Portugal and Spain (so far!). I did not exclude Spain on my list, maybe that is another weak link.
19 September 2007 at 20:25 Ken norton

With 10 million images online with Alamy and counting, it has turned into a Flickr. This size is probably hurting us more than anything.

The best thing Alamy could do is restrict us all to three images of any type and no more than twenty keywords per photo.

As to the lower prices? Microstock IS hurting the industry. You look at the QUANTITY of image sales, not the dollar amount. If that quantity was at more realistic prices, you'd see that they are slaughtering the likes of traditional stock agencies.

But what else is new? Not too many years ago Corel...
20 September 2007 at 00:24 Big Daddy

Wow!

First stock was going to ruin the industry.

Then RF was going to ruin the industry.

Then microstock was going to ruin the industry.

And now, Alamy's 10 million images are going to ruin the industry.

Jeez, I think you guys should stop posting to blogs and either register for a Tony Robbins seminar or pester your MD for some Xanax.

You're all blaming your problems on exactly those things that are outside your control.

Success is not about dwelling on the problems. It's about creating solutions.
20 September 2007 at 19:50 Ladi Kirn

I only wish to express my deep respect for people who sign their posts with their names.
AND MY DEEPEST CONTEMPT FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT.
Ladi Kirn
06 October 2007 at 05:00 Peter phipp /travelshots

The Getty 49 dollars idea is getting a lot of stick from all the big professional photographers and their representatives. Its time to say to our Agents that we dont want our images being sold for peanuts, and we are very happy to work with agencies who have great software such as Alamy, ( the best), but remember we make our living by selling good images for as much as we can, and its no good if agents try to increase volume by reducing prices because the pro photographers wont want to go along with it. If all the good images taken by full time stock photographers were taken out of Alamy the agency would not look so bright. Come on Alamy , spend some MONEY advertising you have the BEST images, and see if that increases your revenue. If it works, then certain other agencies will see their photographers leave them to join Alamy. Working in the Caribbean for you (and me !) so if the time says 04.30 its only midnight here...!
18 October 2007 at 23:42 lisa valder

I have submitted to alamy right from the start, and recently I have tried out some microstock agencies. This is not because I agree with the way they operate, but because I have no choice but to be opportunistic. I have had a great income through alamy until AR commenced in Oct 2006, and as it stands I make proportionately 10 to 20 times more money out of the microstock sales than I do through alamy. Obviously these comparisons are not static, but that's the picture I currently get. I only hope my alamy sales will pick up again, because I think they are a great company.

Add your own comment

Means that we require this information. We respect your privacy and store your details securely. See our privacy policy for more.

Your name

Your email (not shown)

Your comment

Security code picture

No picture? Reload page.

Type the 6 characters you see in the picture on the left:

This helps reduce blog spam by ensuring that a person, not an automated program, is leaving a comment.

Remember me?

Blog

Pricing - the Alamy way

Add your own commentComments (48)

17 September 2007 at 15:11 Andrew

17 September 2007 at 16:07 John

17 September 2007 at 16:27 Bob Croxford

17 September 2007 at 17:14 HermanM

17 September 2007 at 17:17 Arni katz

17 September 2007 at 17:31 Rolf georg

17 September 2007 at 19:02 Bill brooks

17 September 2007 at 19:21 Simon stanmore

17 September 2007 at 20:01 Ian murray

17 September 2007 at 20:39 Arni Katz

17 September 2007 at 21:00 nina buesing

17 September 2007 at 21:15 nina buesing

17 September 2007 at 23:03 Fabian gonzales

17 September 2007 at 23:18 Nic cleave

18 September 2007 at 03:30 Phil Scalia

18 September 2007 at 03:55 Gary

18 September 2007 at 09:46 Bob croxford

18 September 2007 at 10:16 Jon Arnold

18 September 2007 at 10:58 Bob croxford

18 September 2007 at 12:14 ViDra

18 September 2007 at 13:05 José elias

18 September 2007 at 13:14 Paul panayiotou

18 September 2007 at 13:22 Mark Scheuern

18 September 2007 at 13:34 José elias

18 September 2007 at 13:53 Cristina

18 September 2007 at 14:32 José elias

18 September 2007 at 15:06 Tony collins

18 September 2007 at 15:20 Ed Endicott

18 September 2007 at 15:51 Jon arnold

18 September 2007 at 16:04 Michael howard

18 September 2007 at 17:19 Ashley

18 September 2007 at 17:29 nina buesing

18 September 2007 at 17:35 Paul panayiotou

18 September 2007 at 18:18 nina buesing

18 September 2007 at 19:14 Clive sawyer

18 September 2007 at 19:26 Bob croxford

19 September 2007 at 08:44 photomamp

19 September 2007 at 08:48 Michael howard

19 September 2007 at 09:49 Tony watson

19 September 2007 at 11:04 Ian murray

19 September 2007 at 14:25 Michael howard

19 September 2007 at 15:15 Ian murray

19 September 2007 at 15:41 Michael howard

19 September 2007 at 20:25 Ken norton

20 September 2007 at 00:24 Big Daddy

20 September 2007 at 19:50 Ladi Kirn

06 October 2007 at 05:00 Peter phipp /travelshots

18 October 2007 at 23:42 lisa valder