At 11:11 AM 11/24/2009, you wrote:

>I don't think anyone was asking that.
>
>Sean L.

Sorry!  I assumed we were having a conversation about selling stock
photography.  My bad.

Tina

Tina Manley
www.tinamanley.com

Brian,
I have around 4000 photos with mauritius and I have regulary sales with them so
I can´t complain. But I must say that their prices dropped significantly in the
last three years.I have although photos with AGE but for me absolutely no
comparison with mauritius in terms of revenue.


--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Yarvin" <brian@...>
wrote:
>
> > Nothing modest about Mauritius in sales. Kinda like Amana, better to be big
in a
> > territory that sells at good rates than AGE say who tends to sell well in at
much
> > lower price territories. Even AGE USA I find second rate for sales.
>
> Geoff:
>
> There is a whole universe of stock photo agencies that make great sales for
serious
> professional contributors and both Amana (which I've never dealt with) and
Mauritius (which I
> contributed to for many years) are part of it. All have a core business and
are great for
> somebody.
>
> And if you find that AGE sales are "second rate," I can be almost perfectly
sure that you don't
> shoot Hispanic-themed lifestyle images, because if you did, you'd think they
were the
> greatest.
>
> These agencies are like that; perfect for somebody, and of no interest to most
people out
> there.
>
> Brian Yarvin
> Author, Educator, Photographer
> http://www.brianyarvin.com
>

--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, Tina Manley <images@...>
wrote:
>>I would never
> advise a photography student to plan on making a living from stock
> alone unless the market changes drastically.
>
> Tina
>
> Tina Manley
> www.tinamanley.com
>

I don't think anyone was asking that.

Sean L.

At 09:44 PM 11/23/2009, you wrote:
>Again, none of the big micros pay "10 cents per download". Another
>unclear statement is "you can get $100 or more per use", since
>plenty get much less than that. On the Alamy forum, they are
>constantly complaining about discounted RM licenses netting them under $10.
>
>Sean L.

The lowest price I've ever gotten from Alamy is $33 and that is very
much the exception.  The highest I've ever gotten is $4232.16 - also
an exception.  My average price from Alamy is well over $100.  All of
my photos are RM, or L as Alamy calls it.  The price is for one time
use only.  Several have been leased repeatedly and paid each
time.  Microstock seems like far too much work for far too little
money to me.  It also devalues all photography in the mind of the
buyers.  I'm sticking to my limit for leasing directly at never going
below $250 per use but it's getting harder these days.  I would never
advise a photography student to plan on making a living from stock
alone unless the market changes drastically.

Tina

Tina Manley
www.tinamanley.com

> Nothing modest about Mauritius in sales. Kinda like Amana, better to be big in
a
> territory that sells at good rates than AGE say who tends to sell well in at
much
> lower price territories. Even AGE USA I find second rate for sales.

Geoff:

There is a whole universe of stock photo agencies that make great sales for
serious
professional contributors and both Amana (which I've never dealt with) and
Mauritius (which I
contributed to for many years) are part of it. All have a core business and are
great for
somebody.

And if you find that AGE sales are "second rate," I can be almost perfectly sure
that you don't
shoot Hispanic-themed lifestyle images, because if you did, you'd think they
were the
greatest.

These agencies are like that; perfect for somebody, and of no interest to most
people out
there.

Brian Yarvin
Author, Educator, Photographer
http://www.brianyarvin.com

Brian,

Nothing modest about Mauritius in sales. Kinda like Amana, better to be big in a
territory that sells at good rates than AGE say who tends to sell well in at
much lower price territories. Even AGE USA I find second rate for sales.

One of my collections, part of PL, stayed outside their (PL) German site
distribution just to stay on Mauritius.

Geoff.






--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Yarvin" <brian@...>
wrote:
>
> > Many thanks for the answers, about Lonely Planet I have a friend who is not
to
> > happy with them. I choose Robert Harding because they deliver to
Getty,Corbis and
> > Mauritius. I haven´t seen any other agency which delivers to all big three
in
> > Europe.
>
>
> Michael:
>
> I've never heard the phrase "big three in Europe" before. Mauritius is a
modest tradtional
> agency in Germany and gets good sales there. But isn't AGE larger? Maybe four
or five in
> Milano? How about London and Paris?
>
> Also...at some point or other everybody is unhappy with the agencies that
represent them
> and we need to know the specific issue and what's behind it.
>
> Brian Yarvin
> Author, Educator, Photographer
> http://www.brianyarvin.com
>

> Many thanks for the answers, about Lonely Planet I have a friend who is not to
> happy with them. I choose Robert Harding because they deliver to Getty,Corbis
and
> Mauritius. I haven´t seen any other agency which delivers to all big three in
> Europe.


Michael:

I've never heard the phrase "big three in Europe" before. Mauritius is a modest
tradtional
agency in Germany and gets good sales there. But isn't AGE larger? Maybe four or
five in
Milano? How about London and Paris?

Also...at some point or other everybody is unhappy with the agencies that
represent them
and we need to know the specific issue and what's behind it.

Brian Yarvin
Author, Educator, Photographer
http://www.brianyarvin.com

> *** Hmmmmmm..."lurking" sounds somewhat sinister...let's leave my CIA and Mob
> connections out of the discussion, OK?

Paul:

If you say "sinister," then sinister it is.

Brian Yarvin
Author, Educator, Photographer
http://www.brianyarvin.com

--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Gubbins" <snokids@...>
wrote:

> Shooting for stock is not like shooting for anything else...

> Bob

How about shooting craps?  :-)

Dennis Hallinan

--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, John <PhotosbyJohn@...> wrote:
>
> Alix,
> I am sending you this email in hopes you joint. This email leads you to some
of the
> best INFORMATION about Photography you will ever find. Web site for
Photographer's
> and training/sending site.......
> Hope to see you and hear from you...
> Good Shooting and God Bless you and your family.
> John
>
> web site: www.apertureimages.ning.com
>
>
>

Boy, if that doesn't sound like spam and a scam, I don't know what does.  I
wouldn't even click on that.

Sean L.

I am not with Robert Harding but I have a friend who has been shooting for them
for a long time. He is not satisfied with the keywording or the sales. He also
shoots for Lonely Planet, and seems to find that a lot more better source of
income. The shooter in question is very experienced and takes high-quality
travel photos, but is still submitting slides and doesn't know anything about
digital technology/photography, and has chosen to stay with Harding for these
reasons.

Peter Forsberg

--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "michaelrunkel"
<michaelrunkel@...> wrote:
>
> I wonder if there is anybody out there who has experiences with Robert
Harding. They contribute to Getty, Corbis and mauritius. Therefore it would be
great to get some information about your experiences.
> Many thanks
>
> Michael
>

--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Yarvin" <brian@...>
wrote:
>
> > I wonder if there is anybody out there who has experiences with Robert
Harding.
> > They contribute to Getty, Corbis and mauritius. Therefore it would be great
to
> > get some information about your experiences.
>
>
> Michael:
>
> I believe that Paul Henning is lurking on this list and with a bit of prodding
could step up and
> comment. He ran the place for a while if I remember correctly.
>
> Brian Yarvin
> Author, Educator, Photographer
> http://www.brianyarvin.com
>

*** Hmmmmmm..."lurking" sounds somewhat sinister...let's leave my CIA and Mob
connections out of the discussion, OK?

I was Acting Managing Director at Robert Harding in '99 and 2000.  Robert has
stood the test of time and made smart moves to downsize his agency and make it
run more efficiently throughout this decade.

There are about 30 agencies around the globe that are decent and focus on
travel; of those, there are about a half dozen that outshine the rest, and I'd
include Harding in that group.

phh

PAUL H. HENNING
Founder/Owner Stock Answers LLC
www.stockanswers.com

Recently I discovered that my images are being sold by Getty Images. It turns
out that an agency in the UK, which used to represent my images, had placed them
with an agency in South Africa, which then placed them with Getty Images. It
appears Getty Images pays just 20% of my pictures' earnings to the agency which
submitted the images. Why only 20%? Because Getty Images dominates the market
and many photo agencies, in desperation, have agreed to these extraordinary
terms. The agency in South Africa then pays 50% of their earnings to the agency
in the UK, and they (in breach of their contract with me) pay me 40% of the
money they receive. This means that when one of my images sells through Getty
Images, I earn 4% of the license fee.

I find this so sickening that I would ask you, if you have any respect for
photographers, please do not buy my photos from Getty Images. This is a Quote
from whom I am Doing business
www.runwiththewild.com
Kathleen Chute

>Hi David!
>
>Thanks for your input.
>
>What photo buyer is looking for "girl" or "boy"?
>
>You have a niche' and I am a generalist with very few images online.
>I am a full time assignment photographer and you are a full time
>stock photgrapher.
>
>Apples and Oranges.
>
>The way you guys with a focused niche' can market is completely
>different than the way I would have to market.
>My only real option is to put my variety of images in with a general
>collection.
>
>If I wrote a photo buyer of a kids magazine to say that I have 3
>pictures of a young boy "lying" in the grass... would anyone hear
>them hit the junk mail button?
>
>You have a library to market, which is fantastic and full of
>applicable and beautiful imagery.
>
>Would my few pictures sell better on micro?
>Could be that you are exactly right in that nobody is being exposed
>to them anywhere and it's a total numbers game. If nobody sees your
>imagery, does it make a sale?


Hi Chuck

What I was suggesting is that  a person that is a general shooter
would perhaps do better if they worked towards creating their own
niche.  Given the tremendous  competition out there I think self
marketing or even driving traffic to your images at an agency is
important and easier to do if you specialise.

If you wrote to the editor of a kids magazine and said you specialise
in model released child pictures and have an online library of
"childhood the early years"  with several thousand pictures you may
well peak their interest.

I do not have the luxury of just shooting stock I too do some
assignment work.  For anyone interested in seeing a sample of my
assignment work you can link to a portfolio through
http://www.photobar.ca


David B
--
__________________________________________

David Barr  519 846 8827

Simplify your search at http://www.photobar.com

--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Goodenough <chuck@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Sean!
> It looks like 5 of the 7 micros Jack is on, with his 6000+ images
> have an average per image payout of less than 10˘ and the 6th is at 11˘.
>
> Only istockphoto is above that at 30˘.
>
> It's not fair to say that most micros pay less than 10˘ average per
> sale?
>
> Enlighten us!
> Chuck
>

No it isn't, because that is not what that chart represents.

Tina said "Instead of 10 cents per download, you can get $100 or more per use."

Just as if Tina sold one RM image for $100 in a month, and she has 1000 images
online, we cannot say she gets an average of $.10 per download.  Obviously she
gets an average of $100.  You cannot figure in your images that do not sell into
that number.

The figure on that page is the total income per agency divided by the number of
images online.  You could say it is a good representation of the agency to sell
the contributor's content.  A higher "RPI" would show a more successful agency.

Again, none of the big micros pay "10 cents per download".  Another unclear
statement is "you can get $100 or more per use", since plenty get much less than
that.  On the Alamy forum, they are constantly complaining about discounted RM
licenses netting them under $10.

Sean L.

--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, Tina Manley <images@...>
wrote:
>
> At 07:42 PM 11/23/2009, you wrote:
>
> >Tina, what agency gives you $.10 per download?
> >
> >Sean L.
>
> I'm not into micro-stocks so none of them give me $.10 per download,
> but I was actually being generous.  Most are less than $.10:
>
> <http://www.microstockdiaries.com/>http://www.microstockdiaries.com/
>
> Tina
>
> Tina Manley
> www.tinamanley.com
>

Sorry Tina, none of the big micros pay less than $.10 per download.  Gotcha.

Sean L.

Best offer I've had all day....I was hoping for Charlize T's phone number
but.........

Geoff.

--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Goodenough <chuck@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Geoff,
> Are you available for dating?
> Perhaps I could just send you flowers?
>
> Chuck