Author Topic: LuckyOliver Enters Midstock Market - Allows Some Photos to Be Custom Priced (Read 21504 times)

GeoPappas · « **on:** April 20, 2007, 05:23 »

LO now allows artists with over 100 sales to custom price 25% of their portfolio. Artists with over 500 sales can custom price 50% of their portfolio.

Custom-priced images will be specially placed on a side bar called the "Sideshow".

Artists with over 100 images need to take advantage of this before July 19, 2007 or they will have to pay $1/image to custom price images.

Artists that don't have 100 images yet, but achieve that total after July 19, 2007 will have to pay $1/image to custom price images.

What do you guys & gals think?

See the following link for more info:

http://www.luckyoliver.com/info/sideshow

leaf · « **Reply #1 on:** April 20, 2007, 05:28 »

I think it is a good idea. There is however going to be a lot of images in the side show if artists with over 500 sales can have 50% of their portfolio in the sideshow! It is nice to be able to set certain images apart from the others though.

One thing I wish though is that the side show images weren't taken out of the regular search. Currently they only show up in the sideshow area. If there is 50 images in the side show the buyer is only ever going to see those last 43 images if they click on the sideshow link.

leaf · « **Reply #2 on:** April 20, 2007, 05:29 »

it will be interesting to see if customers go for it, or if they just search around to the other sites more?

what are others putting their side show images at? I have put mine at 5 tokens.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #3 on:** April 20, 2007, 05:33 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on April 20, 2007, 05:23

Artists that don't have 100 images yet, but achieve that total after July 19, 2007 will have to pay $1/image to custom price images.

My biggest complaint with the new feature is that it is geared towards members with uber-portfolios, since it is way easier to reach 100 downloads with 1000s of images.

Since most members have < 100 images online, they won't be able to take advantage of this new feature.

In other words, for members with smaller portfolios, they will need to pay to use this new feature.

I would have preferred to have seen the new feature implemented for images that were selling well. For example, all images that have over a certain # of sales could then be priced higher.

Although I don't have a large portfolio (it averages a little over 100 images between all of the sites that I am on), I am usually in the top 10% of sales on each site. Yet, I won't be able to participate in this new feature unless I pay (since I only have a few dozen sales at this point).

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #4 on:** April 20, 2007, 07:29 »

500 sales??? For me, at SS, IS and others, okay, no problem, I can do that... piece of cake.

but....at my current sales rate on LO.....? I'm 58 years old. It'll never happen in my lifetime. I'm disappointed.

Unless sales start to pick up..................

or.... Maybe I should hire a staff of 10 or 20 and start snapping away....

MODIFY: I DELETED MOST OF MY COMMENT... IT'S IRRELEVANT.

no 'happy face' posted. -tom

maunger · « **Reply #5 on:** April 20, 2007, 07:59 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on April 20, 2007, 07:29

and for the first time in my short carreer, I'm actually thinking about going exclusive.....

Say it ain't so tom!

I'll have more to say a little later today - but consider the Best Match search on IS - consider being able to actually influence what images appear on the first page - that would be a great advantage to photogs!

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #6 on:** April 20, 2007, 08:12 »

I agree, to decide to put one or two images on a special section is a really good idea, however, 25 or 50% of the portfolio in that section for the big contributers who have more than 100 and 500 Dls is quite a lot of images.
That special section won't be so special anymore.. Someone who has 4000 images probably has more than 500dls till July 19ths. He can place 2000 images in that section while I with my tiny portfolio probably won't reach hundred dls this year.

But the thought of the special section is really good.

leaf · « **Reply #7 on:** April 20, 2007, 08:32 »

I think it would be nice to have a max of 10% of ones portfolio in that section... It seems odd that the rate was set at 50%.. however luckyoliver also seems to know what they are doing, or don't generally seem to do things on a whim so hopefully they have thought through why they want such a large number.

Getting 50% of the sales from that section however is a very nice bonus.

maunger · « **Reply #8 on:** April 20, 2007, 09:22 »

Quote from: leaf on April 20, 2007, 08:32

I think it would be nice to have a max of 10% of ones portfolio in that section... It seems odd that the rate was set at 50%.. however luckyoliver also seems to know what they are doing, or don't generally seem to do things on a whim so hopefully they have thought through why they want such a large number.

Let's not forget that everyone's portfolio is not just simply based on one subject. i think all of us have images spread all over the tent (bad LO pun there!). That will spread things out.

And I doubt that a carney is going to just pick every image of a series of poses (as was mentioned by tom) to be in the sideshow so i doubt one photographer will be hogging a specific sticky word... there may be thousands of stickywords where images don't even appear in the sideshow.

And yes, LO has spent a lot of time discussing this

maunger · « **Reply #9 on:** April 20, 2007, 09:25 »

Quote from: leaf on April 20, 2007, 05:29

it will be interesting to see if customers go for it, or if they just search around to the other sites more?

what are others putting their side show images at? I have put mine at 5 tokens.

Indeed it will be interesting!

The pricing is another question all together - that's the hardest thing i can think of in this biz. LO isn't the first site to start this individual pricing thing tho but as far as i know, this sideshow is the first of its kind and should be a very interesting feature for LO.

Peiling · « **Reply #10 on:** April 20, 2007, 09:31 »

i wonder how many people have 100 downloads at LO.....its okie to have 100 downloads in other sites but at LO???

We can even do a poll and see who has 100 downloads at LO....that will be interesting

maunger · « **Reply #11 on:** April 20, 2007, 09:33 »

let's just make sure we understand the numbers...

first, to be able to price 25% of your portfolio and have them put in the sidebar, you must have over 100 downloads.

the 500 number comes later and let's you put 50% of your portfolio (which is a maximum by the way - you don't have to put any in there).

And the special allowance for those already over 100 let's LO get some images there in the sidebar quickly. Yes, that means those of us (like me) with less than 100 (i only have 41 at this point) may potentially have to pay token per image to get in the sidebar, but like on Google Adwords, you gotta pay something to get special treatment.

Think of 100 DLs as a goal. I'd love to get there quickly to be able to have my images in the sidebar - even if i don't use special pricing (i may just leave them at the LO pricing but want to have them highlighted?)

maunger · « **Reply #12 on:** April 20, 2007, 09:59 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on April 20, 2007, 07:29

500 sales??? For me, at SS, IS and others, okay, no problem, I can do that... piece of cake.

no 'happy face' posted. -tom

-tom

from the other thread here called 'pricing' - they are talking about Fotolia stuff... here's a snippet:

"For Standard Licenses:
If you are non-exclusive, then you can't change the prices on your images until you are an Emerald (which means that you have sold over 10,000 images).
If you are exclusive, you can change prices on your images starting at Bronze (which means you have sold over 100 images)."

wow - so it takes 10,000 Downloads over there - and you thought 100 was a lot? heehee

I've got just a few more DLs at fotolia than i do at LO and i've been at fotolia twice as long!

Just another perspective

nruboc · « **Reply #13 on:** April 20, 2007, 11:36 »

"After the initial 90-day complimentary period, eligible Carnies will pay one token to place one image in the sideshow, but the image will garner sideshow listing for every sticky word related to the image. In essence, for the cost of one token, you can get preferred Sideshow placement for your image in 25, 50, 100 or more searches, depending on the number of sticky words associated with the image."

Looks like Lucky Oliver is starting its Marketing effort - starting with you. Obviously this will make them money while putting the risk squarely upon yourselves - ala Google Adwords.

I find it funny that they're offering it free for 90 days but you need 100 downloads to participate. They know hardly anyone has 100 downloads, so not many will get the free placement. Thanks guys.

On a side note, I want to thank whoever here recommended Feature Pics - just got my first payout. Now there's a site I hope keeps growing.

maunger · « **Reply #14 on:** April 20, 2007, 12:11 »

Quote from: nruboc on April 20, 2007, 11:36

Looks like Lucky Oliver is starting its Marketing effort - starting with you. Obviously this will make them money while putting the risk squarely upon yourselves - ala Google Adwords.

I find it funny that they're offering it free for 90 days but you need 100 downloads to participate. They know hardly anyone has 100 downloads, so not many will get the free placement. Thanks guys.

I'm not sure i understand your logic.

There's no "risk" for those getting in in the first 90 days - they're getting good placement for nothing. Yes, after that, if you reach 100 DL's, you'll have to give up a token (you'll have 100 at that point), but it is only one token and it doesn't cost you per click as Adwords does... it is a one time cost. Is that a huge risk? Not like Getty that charges you $250 per image.

If you look, there are plenty of images already appearing in the sidebar... i don't know any stats, but there are obviously folks over 100DLs. Yes, i wish i was at 100 now to get in free, but i'll willingly pay 1 token to try to ensure i get my images some additional visibility.

nruboc · « **Reply #15 on:** April 20, 2007, 12:51 »

Quote from: maunger on April 20, 2007, 12:11

Quote from: nruboc on April 20, 2007, 11:36
Looks like Lucky Oliver is starting its Marketing effort - starting with you. Obviously this will make them money while putting the risk squarely upon yourselves - ala Google Adwords.

I find it funny that they're offering it free for 90 days but you need 100 downloads to participate. They know hardly anyone has 100 downloads, so not many will get the free placement. Thanks guys.

I'm not sure i understand your logic.

There's no "risk" for those getting in in the first 90 days - they're getting good placement for nothing. Yes, after that, if you reach 100 DL's, you'll have to give up a token (you'll have 100 at that point), but it is only one token and it doesn't cost you per click as Adwords does... it is a one time cost. Is that a huge risk? Not like Getty that charges you $250 per image.

If you look, there are plenty of images already appearing in the sidebar... i don't know any stats, but there are obviously folks over 100DLs. Yes, i wish i was at 100 now to get in free, but i'll willingly pay 1 token to try to ensure i get my images some additional visibility.

Well, considering you work for them, I don't expect you to understand my logic. In your eyes they can do no wrong. Just look at the poll, the vast majority are under 100 downloads, so they don't get the free placement. I did the "dog" search as recommended and see the same two dogs over and over, yeah as a designer that's what I want to see. As a designer looking for an image, that's the first and last time I would use that feature. I think it would be a lot better if LO handpicked the "best" shots to go in that area. But NO then they wouldn't make any money off of us.

It's funny that you and the CEO like to compare LO to Getty, justifying the low commission rate of 30% and now what they charge for placement, are you reading out of the same playbook? Getty sells images for $350 a piece so the comparisons are really few and far between.

stokfoto · « **Reply #16 on:** April 20, 2007, 13:05 »

I am not sure if it is really so important to set your own price because I don't think you will be able to sell them at the highest price you set there if they are also sold in other sites too.(ok may be tehre is a slight chance,which I think is very slim)I am sure many of the buyers know the fact that many of us upload to multiple sites and it won't take much effort them to find out where else we are

but the feature will be effective if your image is exclusive to the site then it will be a simmillar to what FT already offers IMO

maunger · « **Reply #17 on:** April 20, 2007, 13:24 »

Quote from: nruboc on April 20, 2007, 12:51

Well, considering you work for them, I don't expect you to understand my logic. In your eyes they can do no wrong.

Not understanding your logic has nothing to do with my feelings toward LO - as someone reading your post, i honestly didn't understand your point. I don't know where you get that "they can do no wrong" thing - just because I like LO and have commented in a positive way does not make me blind. Yes, I'm now a forum moderator but that doesn't close my eyes and I'm just as quick to provide them negative as well as positive opinions (tho i usually don't post negatives online - i do send them to LO directly).

Quote from: nruboc on April 20, 2007, 12:51

I did the "dog" search as recommended and see the same two dogs over and over, yeah as a designer that's what I want to see. As a designer looking for an image, that's the first and last time I would use that feature. I think it would be a lot better if LO handpicked the "best" shots to go in that area. But NO then they wouldn't make any money off of us.

Umm... the feature was just released today - give it time to even out. If you'll notice by the way, if there are more images than will fit on the first page of the sidebar, they will randomly rotate if you refresh the search.

Quote from: nruboc on April 20, 2007, 12:51

It's funny that you and the CEO like to compare LO to Getty, justifying the low commission rate of 30% and now what they charge for placement, are you reading out of the same playbook? Getty sells images for $350 a piece so the comparisons are really few and far between.

Getty happens to be a well recognized name, so it is easy to use their name as an example. My intent was not to compare LO and Getty as equals, i was just using the example that i believe Getty charges to host some images.

bryan_luckyoliver · « **Reply #18 on:** April 20, 2007, 13:53 »

Nruboc- Well, we can agree to disagree. It's been less than a day, so it will take some time for things to settle down. We're still an underdog, but we're going to continue to push forward and differentiate our offering.

The first 90 day offer is to get some of our most prolific Carnies the opportunity to play around with the feature to see what works. They are taking the risk with us, so it seems fair to help them out. Many of our early adopters of LuckyOliver will not be able to join in right away, but they'll still be able to use their tokens that they accumulated last year for uploading.

And Mitch? We tapped him on the shoulder because he seemed to give us both kudos and slaps on the wrist. He's very pragmatic- we felt this was important to shaping a forum that will benefit a lot of people.

As always, feel free to shoot me an email!

StockManiac · « **Reply #19 on:** April 20, 2007, 14:09 »

Quote from: maunger on April 20, 2007, 12:11

Quote from: nruboc on April 20, 2007, 11:36
Looks like Lucky Oliver is starting its Marketing effort - starting with you. Obviously this will make them money while putting the risk squarely upon yourselves - ala Google Adwords.

I find it funny that they're offering it free for 90 days but you need 100 downloads to participate. They know hardly anyone has 100 downloads, so not many will get the free placement. Thanks guys.

I'm not sure i understand your logic.

Then let me give it a shot.

This offer is pretty useless to 99% of the artists that submit to LO.

Only a handful of artists have over 100 downloads. And those artists are probably already onboard. For example, the #50 Top Photographer only has about 40 downloads.

For the rest of us, we will need to pay if we want to use this new service.

So they might as well have skipped the 90 days, and just said that it will cost in order for us to use the service.

Basically it was clever marketing...

EDITED to correct bad math and to protect the innocent...

StockManiac · « **Reply #20 on:** April 20, 2007, 14:11 »

I guess we now know why Bryan kept telling us that we would need our tokens!

Photoguy · « **Reply #21 on:** April 20, 2007, 14:25 »

I just wish sites would choose inclusive ideas rather than exclusive ideas............here is the list that LO is not giving me:

Beer mat
T Shirt
Side Show

Lucky O started GREAT, gave everyone of the early submitters tokens, it seemed LO was well on it's way to being a fair community for contributors, why not give everyone 10 spaces in the sideshow as a sign of good faith. Sure give the bigger portfolios more, they deserve it, but us little people pad out the bigger portfolios and make the site more visible.

Or how about every 5 comments gets 1 entry into the sideshow...........but 100 dl's, is a bit of a slap down to the vast majority of contributors, really Bryan.

leaf · « **Reply #22 on:** April 20, 2007, 15:14 »

I feel this is getting a bit blown out of proportion.

If you don't like the sideshow don't contribute to it. 100 downloads is peanuts for a site that is active.. hopefully lucky oliver will be active soon and all serious contributors will easily have the 500 downloads, let alone the 100 uploads.

Charging 1 token will keep the sideshow a little more exclusive and make people think about what they stick in there.

Keeping things inclusive - does that mean everything should be given away for free to 'include everyone' should fotolia give the highest percent to all uploades so they are all included or just give the premium percentage to the ones with the big sales?

I also think it is good to have something to work towards - advantages for more sales and such.

madelaide · « **Reply #23 on:** April 20, 2007, 16:44 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on April 20, 2007, 05:33

In other words, for members with smaller portfolios, they will need to pay to use this new feature.

Maybe we will be able to use our tokens? Then it would be perhaps a treat (though I haven't given much thought whether this is advantageous) to those who've been there from the start and have gained tokens.

Regards,
Adelaide

leaf · « **Reply #24 on:** April 20, 2007, 17:33 »

yes i believe that is the point. We can use our tokens that we have in our piggy bank. Many of use have hundreds or thousands to use up. If we have not tokens we can use our earnings.

fotografer · « **Reply #25 on:** April 21, 2007, 01:54 »

Or how about every 5 comments gets 1 entry into the sideshow...........but 100 dl's, is a bit of a slap down to the vast majority of contributors, really Bryan.
[/quote]

Whatever you do, don't do that or we will be back to the IS rating gang senario. Unless of course the ratings come from buyers.

Karimala · « **Reply #26 on:** April 21, 2007, 02:01 »

Quote from: StockManiac on April 20, 2007, 14:09

Only a handful of artists have over 100 downloads. And those artists are probably already onboard. For example, Karen Lau (aka karimala) is listed as the #50 Top Photographer, but only has 50 downloads.

Um...a little off topic here, but where does it say that I have 50 downloads? That's not right, so if there is a problem with my stats, I'd like to let LO know about it. And would you mind not posting my personal stats on public forums please? Thank you.

Back to the topic...

I'm planning on participating in the program as soon as I hit 100 DLs. I agree with Leaf 100% when he said

Quote

Charging 1 token will keep the sideshow a little more exclusive and make people think about what they stick in there.

Consciencious selection is what will make the section stand out from other sites, like 123RF, where contributors can add whatever they want to their "favorites" without much thought, extra compensation, or a real investment of any kind. The section will become one for serious buyers only, and that's a great thing.

maunger · « **Reply #27 on:** April 21, 2007, 05:35 »

Quote from: Karimala on April 21, 2007, 02:01

Quote from: StockManiac on April 20, 2007, 14:09

Only a handful of artists have over 100 downloads. And those artists are probably already onboard. For example, Karen Lau (aka karimala) is listed as the #50 Top Photographer, but only has 50 downloads.

Um...a little off topic here, but where does it say that I have 50 downloads? That's not right, so if there is a problem with my stats, I'd like to let LO know about it. And would you mind not posting my personal stats on public forums please? Thank you.

LO has a page that i don't think many people view - the sitemap - which shows some interesting stuff.
http://www.luckyoliver.com/sitemap

You're listed at the bottom of the "top photographers" list - i don't know if there are 50 in the list or not i didn't count. It also doesn't show your total downloads anywhere that i know of so i'm not sure where he decided you had 50.

thesentinel · « **Reply #28 on:** April 21, 2007, 05:44 »

If I was a designer and found that an image, for example, of some horses on the 'pasture' was 40 tokens / dollars on LO was readily available elsewhere using the same user name for about one sixth of the price and at a larger size to boot, I know where I'd buy.

Unless LO forces some exclusivity on these images surely such comparisons will surely damage, not enhance, their reputation. Midstock could be seen as Ripoffstock.

I see this ubiquity of image availability as the main reason why a 'midstock' pricing will have difficulty in taking off, if you want to charge a premium on your images you must control their availability. Uploading everywhere whilst also trying to up your prices ... just seems, to coin a daft phrase, like having your cake and eating it.

leaf · « **Reply #29 on:** April 21, 2007, 05:48 »

I think it is up to the photographer to price their images wisely. If you think you can price your images at 40 tokens/dollars when images elsewhere are listed at $2.00 you may be waiting a while for a sale.

If the photographer lists their image as exclusive then perhaps $40 is an allright price to try for.

My images aren't exclusive and I have priced them in the sideshow at 5 tokens. It seems others have set prices between 2-4.

Eco · « **Reply #30 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:23 »

Just a comment. The list of top 50 photographers on LO is merely based on the number of images online and not based on downloads or any other measure of their success there.

Regarding the LO SideShow feature, I am also one of the fortunate ones with more than 100 downloads and thus legible to add images to the SideShow. I do, however, have a problem deciding on the pricing. If I change the token price from 1 credit to 2 for a blog size image all the other prices change as well. My biggest concern is the price of the EL license which changes from 50 credits to 200 credits. If you change the credits of a blog size image to 3 the EL license go up to a whopping 450 credits. It will be very nice to sell an EL license at that price, but I doubt if you will sell many (if any) at that price. The Sideshow feature will definitely improve your exposure to potential clients, but as leaf said; if the prices are too high buyers may go elsewhere. I am seriously considering changing my prices back to the original 1 credit and only utilize the increased exposure of the SideShow feature. A possible solution is to allow the pricing of normal downloads to be changed independantly of the price of the EL-licence. What do you think?

thesentinel · « **Reply #31 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:29 »

Indeed it's up to the photographer, but that image is available on at least 4 of the top 6 sites at very much lower prices, and as a result it's Lucky Oliver as an agency that looks way too pricey rather than the photographer.

Quote from: leaf on April 21, 2007, 05:48

I think it is up to the photographer to price their images wisely. If you think you can price your images at 40 tokens/dollars when images elsewhere are listed at $2.00 you may be waiting a while for a sale.

If the photographer lists their image as exclusive then perhaps $40 is an allright price to try for.

StockManiac · « **Reply #32 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:08 »

Quote from: Karimala on April 21, 2007, 02:01

Quote from: StockManiac on April 20, 2007, 14:09

Only a handful of artists have over 100 downloads. And those artists are probably already onboard. For example, Karen Lau (aka karimala) is listed as the #50 Top Photographer, but only has 50 downloads.

Um...a little off topic here, but where does it say that I have 50 downloads? That's not right, so if there is a problem with my stats, I'd like to let LO know about it.

Everyone's stats are readily available on the site. All you need to do is look at someone's portfolio and take the time to add up all of the downloads. Almost every microsite lists the # of downloads someone has.

You are correct, my math was bad. It should have added up to about 40. I will correct the post above. I have also removed your name/monicker from the thread. Sorry to drag you into this.

My point was that even artists listed in the Top 50 Photographers on the site don't even come close to being able to participate in this new feature.

maunger · « **Reply #33 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:22 »

Quote from: thesentinel on April 21, 2007, 05:44

If I was a designer and found that an image, for example, of some horses on the 'pasture' was 40 tokens / dollars on LO was readily available elsewhere using the same user name for about one sixth of the price and at a larger size to boot, I know where I'd buy.

Unless LO forces some exclusivity on these images surely such comparisons will surely damage, not enhance, their reputation. Midstock could be seen as Ripoffstock.

I see this ubiquity of image availability as the main reason why a 'midstock' pricing will have difficulty in taking off, if you want to charge a premium on your images you must control their availability. Uploading everywhere whilst also trying to up your prices ... just seems, to coin a daft phrase, like having your cake and eating it.

There may be a few buyers who take the time to 'shop' the different sites... however most people i've ever seen comment on the subject who are designers/buyers say that they don't have time to 'shop' - if they find an image that fits their needs, they will buy it and move on.

It seems to me that this market is huge - there are lots of places to find images and I expect that the true number of buyers actually know all of the "top" sites and spend the time to shop around. I'd be willing to bet (not that we have a way to prove this) but I suspect that the number of people who buy images from microstock who actually visit more than 1 or 2 sites to buy is probably less than 10%. This market is FAR from saturated.

If i were eligible to be in the sideshow, I would probably initially leave the prices as they were - just hoping to get the additional exposure and additional purchases. Now, if i were a high flyer, that might be different, but for now, i just want more sales at the same prices.

Karimala · « **Reply #34 on:** April 21, 2007, 08:51 »

Quote from: Eco on April 21, 2007, 06:23

Just a comment. The list of top 50 photographers on LO is merely based on the number of images online and not based on downloads or any other measure of their success there.

Exactly. That's why I wasn't so thrilled when I saw my stats posted. Just because I have the 50th largest portolio sure doesn't mean I have the 50th highest amount of sales. My portfolio is just so-so and could use a lot of improved and cleaning up. But there are a lot of photogs with smaller higher quality portfolios who do have 100+ DLs.

Quote from: StockManiac on April 21, 2007, 07:08

Everyone's stats are readily available on the site. All you need to do is look at someone's portfolio and take the time to add up all of the downloads. Almost every microsite lists the # of downloads someone has.

That's kinda what I figured. Thanks for letting me know. There are some stats that are a bit screwy at the moment that I'll let Bryan know about, so I wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something else. Also...even though everyone's stats are available on various sites, only members can view them. That isn't the case on public forums, where the whole world can view them. Food for thought.

leaf · « **Reply #35 on:** April 21, 2007, 10:43 »

Quote from: Karimala on April 21, 2007, 08:51

Also...even though everyone's stats are available on various sites, only members can view them. That isn't the case on public forums, where the whole world can view them. Food for thought.

actually stats are viewable to everyone - on dreamstime anyhow, and i am pretty sure on most, if not all the other sites as well (that show stats)

my portfolio

log out of dreamstime and click on the link i posted there, you can see exactly how many sales i have had, or anyone else.

StockManiac · « **Reply #36 on:** April 21, 2007, 13:42 »

Quote from: Karimala on April 21, 2007, 08:51

Quote from: StockManiac on April 21, 2007, 07:08

Everyone's stats are readily available on the site. All you need to do is look at someone's portfolio and take the time to add up all of the downloads. Almost every microsite lists the # of downloads someone has.

Also...even though everyone's stats are available on various sites, only members can view them. That isn't the case on public forums, where the whole world can view them. Food for thought.

Sorry, but as leaf pointed out, that just isn't correct.

If I go to IS and check your portfolio, I can see how many uploads you have, how many downloads you have, how many ratings you have, etc. I can even see where you are located, what your business name is, and when you joined IS.

Most of the other sites contain similar info.

That is all searchable via Google, so the whole world could find those stats very easily.

CJPhoto · « **Reply #37 on:** April 21, 2007, 17:39 »

I am a bit late to the party but here is my view.

I see this as good advertising for you own photos so I would participate if I could. However, I dont think their buyer market is mature enough yet and may balk at paying higher prices.

bryan_luckyoliver · « **Reply #38 on:** April 21, 2007, 18:02 »

Hi guys- the discussion is great.

What we're doing is a bit of trail blazing- I understand that there is potential backlash, but we think there is an opportunity to make in-roads into an area that has been difficult to tap. Microstock as a whole is going to face change- the same change that traditional stock photographers faced when microstock entered into the market.

Midstock, like microstock, is less about a price point and more about how things are done. Longtail customers (people who buy one or two images a year) will pay a premium for the right type of image. They are not going to surf the web extensively to find the "right" price. For a shot of a dog, micro-type pricing is fine, but if you have a macro shot of a rare enzyme higher pricing won't change sales.

thesentinel says, "I see this ubiquity of image availability as the main reason why a 'midstock' pricing will have difficulty in taking off, if you want to charge a premium on your images you must control their availability." Perhaps this might be true, but when the entire web is your market, you'll no longer be able to control the availability like Getty. What if a photo sharing site with 1 billion images decides to sell images? Surely there are a million images that can compete with Getty, but now they have 999 million pages of marketing content.

We'd prefer that images be exclusive, but i think longer term it's about unique content that might get trapped in page 9 of the search results. I think the Sideshow will be good for people with unique content. A great shot of a business man against white may not be the type of image that works- the competition is tough.

The 90 day trial is in place for us to work out the kinks with a select group of artists. I'm sure parts of this will get some tweaks. The 100 download minimum is to keep things in check- many of our artists don't have experience pricing their work- top sellers in our system have some idea of sales. Longer term this barrier will not mean much once our traffic grows.

Thanks for the insights. We're making huge progress each month- thanks for hanging in there with us as we grow.

Void · « **Reply #39 on:** April 21, 2007, 23:03 »

Quote from: maunger on April 20, 2007, 07:59

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on April 20, 2007, 07:29

and for the first time in my short carreer, I'm actually thinking about going exclusive.....

Say it ain't so tom!

I'll have more to say a little later today - but consider the Best Match search on IS - consider being able to actually influence what images appear on the first page - that would be a great advantage to photogs!

if you belong to 123rf you can do it there with the new "faves" feature, check it out if you havent found it already.......

back to the sideshow....
still dont think paying a site to peddle my pictures is a good idea......everyone will be turning their earnings into tokens ....strange strange strange... think i will go buy a lottery ticket.....

CJPhoto · « **Reply #40 on:** April 22, 2007, 03:35 »

If I paid for premium placement, I would still want my image placed in teh normal section. You are actually payng to have your image taken away from the main search. Not good.

leaf · « **Reply #41 on:** April 22, 2007, 03:51 »

Quote from: CJPhoto on April 22, 2007, 03:35

If I paid for premium placement, I would still want my image placed in teh normal section. You are actually payng to have your image taken away from the main search. Not good.

agreed - that is my biggest gripe with the sideshow.

If it works i think the 1 credit price would be worth it. Of course it is impossibel to know if it works because they don't have many buyers yet. remember the commision also goes up to 50% with images in the side show.

leaf · « **Reply #42 on:** April 22, 2007, 03:53 »

Quote from: Eco on April 21, 2007, 06:23

If I change the token price from 1 credit to 2 for a blog size image all the other prices change as well. My biggest concern is the price of the EL license which changes from 50 credits to 200 credits. If you change the credits of a blog size image to 3 the EL license go up to a whopping 450 credits.

i think it was a programming error. I wrote to LO yesteray about it and it has been fixed to what would seem logical.
A credit setting of 3 gives an extended license price of 150 credits now.

madelaide · « **Reply #43 on:** April 22, 2007, 15:09 »

Quote from: CJPhoto on April 22, 2007, 03:35

If I paid for premium placement, I would still want my image placed in the normal section. You are actually payng to have your image taken away from the main search. Not good.

Perhaps a good compromise would be showing some of the special images in a separate (but prominent) area of the results page, with some attracting caption such as "check also these images from LO's special reserve". Or show them with some special sign so the buyer knows it's one of the specials.

I agree they must show in the search, otherwise they lose visibility.

Regards,
Adelaide

maunger · « **Reply #44 on:** April 22, 2007, 19:55 »

We may find thru experience that the way it works now may need to change, but, it is currently working like google adwords does and the images that match the search criteria are appearing in both the main section as well as the sideshow but they only appear once in either spot. I think it would be perceived as really strange results if duplicate images appear in both the main result area and the sideshow area.

Quote from: madelaide on April 22, 2007, 15:09

Perhaps a good compromise would be showing some of the special images in a separate (but prominent) area of the results page, with some attracting caption such as "check also these images from LO's special reserve". Or show them with some special sign so the buyer knows it's one of the specials.

I agree they must show in the search, otherwise they lose visibility.

Regards,
Adelaide

I'm confused - because it seems to me that is exactly what the SideShow is doing... the separate area is right there on the right side of the page and right there at the top, there's a logo and stuff for the SideShow... it seems to be exactly as you are suggesting... try this search to see.
http://www.luckyoliver.com/search/lady

my wife says maybe a different background color for the sideshow might help a bit, but it seems to me that they're already highlighted.

Mitch

madelaide · « **Reply #45 on:** April 22, 2007, 23:32 »

Mitch,

I hadn't tried the search myself, I had understood from others that the images were not showing up. I understand now how it works, but it looks like the right column would appear to the buyer as something else, not the search result (unless he finds something that he really likes there). It looks to me that it would be more friendly to have those special images in the search result, not separately, with something highlighting their status, such as a smaller version of the "LuckyO sideshow" logo.

Regards,
Adelaide

leaf · « **Reply #46 on:** April 23, 2007, 01:09 »

Quote from: maunger on April 22, 2007, 19:55

... but, it is currently working like google adwords does and the images that match the search criteria are appearing in both the main section as well as the sideshow but they only appear once in either spot. I think it would be perceived as really strange results if duplicate images appear in both the main result area and the sideshow area.

Mitch

The difference about google adwords is, if you buy an add spot - your link isn't taken out of the regular search results. Do a search for shutterstock for example in google. Shutterstock comes up in the google adwords (in the featured section no less) as well as coming up in the regular search results.

so the difference is.
With google adwords your link stays in the search results.
with lukcy oliver your image is taken out of the regular search results.

i know i have said this before, but since this is the point of this post I will say it again

I think it would be very nice to have the image in both areas. The sideshow area and regular search results.

maunger · « **Reply #47 on:** April 23, 2007, 05:01 »

Quote from: leaf on April 23, 2007, 01:09

The difference about google adwords is, if you buy an add spot - your link isn't taken out of the regular search results. Do a search for shutterstock for example in google. Shutterstock comes up in the google adwords (in the featured section no less) as well as coming up in the regular search results.

so the difference is.
With google adwords your link stays in the search results.
with lukcy oliver your image is taken out of the regular search results.

i know i have said this before, but since this is the point of this post I will say it again
I think it would be very nice to have the image in both areas. The sideshow area and regular search results.

I'm really just exploring this issue with the rest of y'all so please don't think i'm trying to argue about this... it is all new and an interesting concept so i'm trying to understand how it will work out as well. Good discussion.

I've thought of that Leaf, but shutterstock doesn't put in their ad in google's adwords to catch those people who put in the search term of 'shutterstock' - the put in their ad with a ton of different search terms hoping to get those people who are searching for something other than their name where google won't be putting their site at the top of the first page of the list of results. The point of adwords is to get your site into searches and get your site traffic in places where it normally wouldn't be seen... and that's part of the point of sideshow, but the sideshow also includes special options for pricing (which adwords doesn't have).

I agree that using adwords to get your site noticed doesn't remove you from the search results, but i think that in this case, we're talking about getting your site noticed when the search results may be in the hundreds of thousands or millions and the odds are your site isn't gonna be in the top 30. Adwords also works a bit differently than the sideshow in that you get to specify search terms that may not be 100% match to what you're trying to sell. Whereas the sideshow doesn't really let you pick the search terms.

I was more thinking of adwords for its precedence of putting special results on the right side of the page which is what the sideshow is doing.

So i'm still not thinking that images should be appearing in both spaces on LO (but i'm trying to think of places where it would make sense - i'm not closed on this idea

CJPhoto · « **Reply #48 on:** April 23, 2007, 05:38 »

Quote from: maunger on April 23, 2007, 05:01

So i'm still not thinking that images should be appearing in both spaces on LO (but i'm trying to think of places where it would make sense - i'm not closed on this idea

But what if your image would have been on the front page of the normal photos but is relegated to the second page of the slide shot images (for "business" etc this may happen a lot).

jacus · « **Reply #49 on:** April 23, 2007, 06:13 »

I really don’t like the idea to have to pay to sell more photos. Like a majority of us, I have only very few ( 8 ) downloads on LO what is nothing compared to downloads on IS, SS, DT, FT. I still upload on LO because I found this site “contributors friendly”. Now it’s a little bit different. I think that a big part of us is in microstock not only for the money. There’s also a part of competition, creativity, marketing ideas, chance (be in a good place in a good time), photo and post-processing technique, and simply pleasure … Better photographs and better keywording are the right rules for this “sport”. Money that we earn is some kind of measure how good we are. If we pay to sell more this measure will be false.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #50 on:** April 23, 2007, 07:42 »

If you allow the Sideshow to also encompass placement in the regular search, then you will end up with the uber-portfolios hogging the first pages of most searches. This would be the anti-thesis of one of LuckyOliver's main themes - to help the amateur photographer break into the microstock business.

I think that allowing Sideshow images to hog the first few pages of the sort order would be a death-knell to most of the other artists. In turn, many artists would probably just delete their portfolios (since they wouldn't have a chance of selling much).

leaf · « **Reply #51 on:** April 23, 2007, 09:08 »

Quote from: maunger on April 23, 2007, 05:01

I've thought of that Leaf, but shutterstock doesn't put in their ad in google's adwords to catch those people who put in the search term of 'shutterstock' - the put in their ad with a ton of different search terms hoping to get those people who are searching for something other than their name where google won't be putting their site at the top of the first page of the list of results.

I have to disagree

Since shutterstock purchased ads on the word 'shutterstock' they are obviously looking to catch people who type the word 'shutterstock' into google. Adwords only show up for words you specifically type in.

I agree somewhat with you geopappas about the fact that the side show people may hog too much space if they images were place in both areas - however being the fact that only 8 images are shown in the sideshow at a time - i don't feel like they are hogging too much room from the regular search results.

Pixart · « **Reply #52 on:** April 23, 2007, 09:42 »

Just wondering... Once you enter The Sideshow the image isn't removed from the regular search is it? Does it still appear in both places and rotate through The Sideshow?

I definitely like this feature - I may never have enough sales to participate though. Once LuckyO takes off, and I believe they will, I fear The Sideshow will become overpopulated though and it will be difficult to float to the top of a search though. Hopefully these images are still be in the regular search.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #53 on:** April 23, 2007, 10:32 »

Quote from: leaf on April 23, 2007, 09:08

I agree somewhat with you geopappas about the fact that the side show people may hog too much space if they images were place in both areas - however being the fact that only 8 images are shown in the sideshow at a time - i don't feel like they are hogging too much room from the regular search results.

But if you click on the "More Sideshow images" link, then you are taken to a full-page of Sideshow ONLY images which will display 50 images/page.

sharpshot · « **Reply #54 on:** April 23, 2007, 10:33 »

If LO take off, they could charge more for the sideshow photos. That would keep the numbers down.

I wonder if other sites will try this? Featurepics let me set my own prices for free and pay me 70%, so paying LO to get 50% doesn't seem like a good deal unless the sideshow photos sell much better than the main site.

leaf · « **Reply #55 on:** April 23, 2007, 12:16 »

Quote from: Pixart on April 23, 2007, 09:42

Just wondering... Once you enter The Sideshow the image isn't removed from the regular search is it? Does it still appear in both places and rotate through The Sideshow?

An image is either in the regular search or in the sideshow. It doesn't show up in both search areas.

If you put it in the side show you are taking it out of the regular search results.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: LuckyOliver Enters Midstock Market - Allows Some Photos to Be Custom Priced (Read 21504 times)

nruboc

nruboc

Photoguy

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors