MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => Sites that no longer exist => LuckyOliver.com => Topic started by: vphoto on November 15, 2007, 15:10

Title: doubts about LO
Post by: vphoto on November 15, 2007, 15:10
they have a very nice interface, they are friendly, but with 290 images online and no sales,
i am beginning to have doubts in their future. How others are doing at LO?

vphoto
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: leaf on November 15, 2007, 15:17
i have a few sales now and then, and they do seem to be one of the best newcomers ... (i guess you can see with the stats on the left) ... but they are still pretty slow.... I am wondering when things are going to pick up.  When looking at alexa other sites such as dreamstime, shutterstock, fotolia all rose quite quickly in site traffic, but lucky oliver is rising quite slowly.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: sharpshot on November 15, 2007, 15:35
It will be interesting to see the new look site.  The bits that were previewed in the blog looked good.

I am 5 downloads away from using the sideshow.  I hope that will boost sales.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: leaf on November 15, 2007, 15:40
It will be interesting to see the new look site.  The bits that were previewed in the blog looked good.

I am 5 downloads away from using the sideshow.  I hope that will boost sales.

new site?! ohh.. i guess i saw that but didn't pay much attention.  I think their 'old' site which still seems new to me, is top notch.  I still give them top grades in site design. I hope the next version is just as good.  I still have high hopes for them and they would get my bet for the site to kick the bottom big 6'er out of it's place,....... but that's only hoping.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Kngkyle on November 15, 2007, 15:46
Very slow, and has only been getting worse for me, despite uploading more and more. Sharpshot, I see the blog post for the new site, but I don't see any previews for it?

I like LuckyOliver, and I really hope it starts to pick up, but so far it is just dead for me. Crestock, Snapvillage, and Canstockphoto are all outselling them this month. (I suppose it's not hard to beat 0 though!)
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: sharpshot on November 15, 2007, 15:48
This is the blog entry that previews a new feature.  Looks good to me.
http://www.luckyoliver.com/blog/267/feature_preview_keepers_and_shoeboxes
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Kngkyle on November 15, 2007, 15:50
This is the blog entry that previews a new feature.  Looks good to me.
[url]http://www.luckyoliver.com/blog/267/feature_preview_keepers_and_shoeboxes[/url]


Ah yes, I saw that long ago. I think that is the old design though. (or at least it is very similar)
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Pixart on November 15, 2007, 16:03
They have the highest acceptance rate out of them all ('cept Mostphotos who doesn't inspect).  In some ways, accepting more than the other agencies is a good thing, they certainly have a database that cannot be found on IS, StockXpert or SS.  And I do like the let the buyer determine what is best approach.

Searches really need to be improved.  New images are NEVER seen any more.  It seems the only way to get any attention is to swap image comments.   So, even the crappiest snapshot with lots of comments floats to the top of searches.

I'm just not so sure if buyers accustomed to the quality at Istock would be enticed to switch agencies.  I hope they don't give LO a chance only to be turned off by their first couple of searches.

We do most of our purchasing at DT - mostly because the have quite a good database and the contributer in me is impressed that they give 50% to those who make their agency possible.  The IS database is YEARS ahead of everyone, but I hate throwing them business unless I have to for the opposite reason I like to give it to DT. 
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: sharply_done on November 15, 2007, 16:53
... Crestock, Snapvillage, and Canstockphoto are all outselling them this month. ...
Crestock is beating LO? Egad, things must be downright horrible there. Why are they redesigning the site? Seems to me that buyers are needed more than a fresh interface at this point.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: sharpshot on November 15, 2007, 17:00
I think that buyers might like the extras they are adding.  Other sites have more to offer buyers at the moment.

LO have done well with attracting contributors.  I am sure the design of the site has had a positive effect.  If they can do as well with buyers, they have a good chance.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Rozmaryna on November 15, 2007, 17:08
Pixart:
Thanks (speaking as a photographer :-)


I, personally, do not really care about the $ percentage I get from sold photographs as long as there are enough photographs sold... :-)

I am generally new to the microstock thing (having registered with the first one - DT - just about a month ago) and have started uploading to LO today, so I cannot make any conclusions yet - all I have at the moment is hope and faith :-) LO are definitely fun and their uploading environment is pleasant - with IPTC data, it is possible to submit basically straight away (no additional work time for me), so I am giving them and myself a chance...
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: a.k.a.-tom on November 15, 2007, 17:29

I like LO and I have from the start, been there since august 2006.  Sales are low and slow.... I did have one EL  recently...

I'm hanging in there. See what develops. 





Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: leaf on November 15, 2007, 17:30
... Crestock, Snapvillage, and Canstockphoto are all outselling them this month. ...
Crestock is beating LO? Egad, things must be downright horrible there. Why are they redesigning the site? Seems to me that buyers are needed more than a fresh interface at this point.

where do you see that?

from the poll it goes bigstock - canstock, then lucky oliver.

oh .. wait i see, you are looking on the full results page :)
well taking into account that only 20 people voted on the crestock rating, I would take it with a grain of salt.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Kngkyle on November 15, 2007, 17:41
... Crestock, Snapvillage, and Canstockphoto are all outselling them this month. ...
Crestock is beating LO? Egad, things must be downright horrible there. Why are they redesigning the site? Seems to me that buyers are needed more than a fresh interface at this point.

where do you see that?

from the poll it goes bigstock - canstock, then lucky oliver.

oh .. wait i see, you are looking on the full results page :)
well taking into account that only 20 people voted on the crestock rating, I would take it with a grain of salt.

I was just referring to my own stats this month. Crestock, Canstock, and even Snapvillage has made me more than LO this month. (I have not had a single DL on LO this month)
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: bryan_luckyoliver on November 15, 2007, 17:54
It will be interesting to see the new look site.  The bits that were previewed in the blog looked good.


Hey Stephen, just for clarification, this is an architecture upgrade- users won't see much difference.  In order to continue to meet the traffic and search demands we needed to overhaul the backend-it's been causing us some hiccups the past 3-6 months. In this release we're also increasing our server power by 2.5x.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Elenathewise on November 15, 2007, 18:09
My sales on LO is almost payout a month (was something like $96 for October). I am very impressed with the site design and sales rate for a new site like this, and, having met Bryan when he was in Toronto recently, with him as well:) Making sure that the site can handle traffic and search demands *before* trying to increase that traffic is something that any internet based business should do. It's common sense, but we have seen so many examples of the opposite:) Good luck Bryan with your upgrade - hope it goes smoothly.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Lee Torrens on November 15, 2007, 19:29
I love Bryan's style. As Elenathewise says, he's preparing things in a logical order. He has his eye on the long term rather than cashing out now, and I'd guess he's not at all aiming to be in the "top 6", but rather hoping to provide a unique offering in the marketplace - something the others haven't thought about.

LO are one of my lowest earners too, but they're the agency I'm most excited about for the future. They invented the term 'midstock' and were one of the first selling in the midstock price range. And as Bryan often explains, midstock is not just about pricing, but about creating a buyer experience in the middle ground between doing an online search (microstock) and phoning a rep (macrostock). We haven't seen the last of Bryan and his team's innovation.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Karimala on November 16, 2007, 02:37
I hit my second payout this month. 

The main thing I'm impressed with is the frequency of ELs.  I've never had one at DT or BigStock, only one at 123RF, and yet I've have had several at LO since July.  Plus, in July, LO was my #5 earner behind SS, IS, DT and StockXpert!  So, at least for me, LO is already showing signs of knocking on the Big 6's doors. 
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: sharpshot on November 16, 2007, 03:00
It will be interesting to see the new look site.  The bits that were previewed in the blog looked good.


Hey Stephen, just for clarification, this is an architecture upgrade- users won't see much difference.  In order to continue to meet the traffic and search demands we needed to overhaul the backend-it's been causing us some hiccups the past 3-6 months. In this release we're also increasing our server power by 2.5x.

So when are we going to see the updates to the shoe box that were previewed in the blog? 

I have been asking for a choice of a better watermark for a long time now.  It is hard to get views for newer files and I would like to see more ways for these files to be viewed.  More portfolio search options might help.  The sites that sell well all have more than LO do.   

It is understandable that the architecture upgrade takes priority but it would be good to know that some improvements to the site are going to happen.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: null on November 17, 2007, 14:39
The main thing I'm impressed with is the frequency of ELs.  I've never had one at DT or BigStock, only one at 123RF, and yet I've have had several at LO since July.  Plus, in July, LO was my #5 earner behind SS, IS, DT and StockXpert!  So, at least for me, LO is already showing signs of knocking on the Big 6's doors.

Don't forget to mention you are employed by LO as a reviewer, so this hurrayh LO message should be read in context. For an exceptional photographer as yourself, it's not that difficult to get some sales, even at LO. I bet you make much more at SS or at any other site.

For mere mortals as myself, with a modest portfolio, LO has been a debacle and an utter waste of time. The CEO Chief Instigator has been like acting on Prozac for the past year, partying (or Balloohing) all over Ca, promising a real take-off the next quarter, but never delivering on his promises.

The best part of LO are the reviewers bouncers who seem to be great for beginners. The community approach and the commenting game is silly, because we have a (much better) Flickr for that. Recent uploads don't get any views any more, probably because the previous views all came from random Google traffic, not from buyers. IMHO the strategy of LO is basically wrong. It doesn't translate into sales.

It's great some people seem to have sales on LO, so I wish them the best with it. LO works for them. Not for me. So be it. I stopped uploading and will jump out as soon as I hit the next 10$ to convert to credits, and make some people happy with a download. As to EL, I got 3 in a row on DT alone this month, so I hope not all my shots are crap.

And finally, it's great to post here, where threads aren't closed and messages don't get removed because they are "bashing LO". That's why I left TalkMicro.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: thesentinel on November 17, 2007, 15:05
Oh lordy, as one thread gets locked elsewhere over here comes the wagon of circus hype :(
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Kngkyle on November 17, 2007, 15:12
The main thing I'm impressed with is the frequency of ELs.  I've never had one at DT or BigStock, only one at 123RF, and yet I've have had several at LO since July.  Plus, in July, LO was my #5 earner behind SS, IS, DT and StockXpert!  So, at least for me, LO is already showing signs of knocking on the Big 6's doors.

Don't forget to mention you are employed by LO as a reviewer, so this hurrayh LO message should be read in context. For an exceptional photographer as yourself, it's not that difficult to get some sales, even at LO. I bet you make much more at SS or at any other site.

For mere mortals as myself, with a modest portfolio, LO has been a debacle and an utter waste of time. The CEO Chief Instigator has been like acting on Prozac for the past year, partying (or Balloohing) all over Ca, promising a real take-off the next quarter, but never delivering on his promises.

The best part of LO are the reviewers bouncers who seem to be great for beginners. The community approach and the commenting game is silly, because we have a (much better) Flickr for that. Recent uploads don't get any views any more, probably because the previous views all came from random Google traffic, not from buyers. IMHO the strategy of LO is basically wrong. It doesn't translate into sales.

It's great some people seem to have sales on LO, so I wish them the best with it. LO works for them. Not for me. So be it. I stopped uploading and will jump out as soon as I hit the next 10$ to convert to credits, and make some people happy with a download. As to EL, I got 3 in a row on DT alone this month, so I hope not all my shots are crap.

And finally, it's great to post here, where threads aren't closed and messages don't get removed because they are "bashing LO". That's why I left TalkMicro.

I agree to a lot of what you said. I do, however, continue to upload since it is very easy, and I hope Bryan will start to make LO a success instead of a fish out of water, which is what it seems to be for me at least... LO is my lowest earning site, and the $100 payout limit will take forever...

The worst part is, I was making more on LO 5 months ago than I have been in oct and nov.

Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: leaf on November 17, 2007, 19:31
Ok, heated debate is fine, and it is good to get some strong arguments for or against sites and how you think they are producing or not producing or taking too long to start earning $$, but just as a reminder personal attacks and name calling isn't welcome.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: leaf on November 17, 2007, 19:34
.. and in an attempt to try and keep things transparent  - here is a little notice at a moderation ...

one post has been deleted from this thread which didn't offer much to the conversation except mild name calling and 'egging on' of other members.


I hope to keep this forum as 'unmoderated' as possible so all opinions can be expressed, but I feel that editing or removing posts that resemble personal attacks doesn't detract from the conversation of microstock and keeps the forums a little more 'friendly' despite our disagreements  :)
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: melking on November 18, 2007, 15:15
the site is so slow!!!!!  I just cannot take it to look for photos on here and I just give up!
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: madelaide on November 18, 2007, 17:01
the site is so slow!!!!!  I just cannot take it to look for photos on here and I just give up!

Funny, I don't find LO particularly slow.  Is it in any special aspect, like searches?  On the other hand, IS is slow for me when I open an image.  The page loads with all the info, but the image takes years to load.

Regards,
Adelaide
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: a.k.a.-tom on November 19, 2007, 16:46
the site is so slow!!!!!  I just cannot take it to look for photos on here and I just give up!

Funny, I don't find LO particularly slow.  Is it in any special aspect, like searches?  On the other hand, IS is slow for me when I open an image.  The page loads with all the info, but the image takes years to load.

Regards,
Adelaide

Slow for me too.. I just left there before coming here today.. I was trying to comment on a few pictures. It was taking so long..... I stopped. My time is too valuable.    I've got a kick-butt machine here that speeds my fanny around the web at a touch of the mouse! I've got highspeed broadband...    but  LO really drags somedays, today was one of them.

I'm still hanging on a bit more... I've been hanging on for over a year now....   I can give it a little more time....  but I fear that I am day by day falling off the LO map.  The same portfolio is bringing me cash out after cash out elsewhere.  Of the agencies that I've been with for over a year...  I have had repeated cashouts at all except  LO and 123rf.... and I can't complain about 123 as I only have about 50-60 pix there. 

I'm hanging on....... but it may be all in vain.  At this rate, I'll never get a sideshow and I may never reach payout in my life.....   and views on all the work submitted in the last couple months are ..in some cases, still zero to two.  That doesn't even account for my mother looking at them...
 Hey, Wait a minute!!!   Maybe she isn'..................  :o   LOL

hanging in New Jersey ....   8)-tom
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: sharpshot on November 19, 2007, 17:21
I hope the new version of the site will be faster.

I had my 100th download yesterday and while this is slower than a lot of sites, I am more concerned that they are taking a long time to come up with an improved watermark and they have stuck with the $100 minimum payout.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: null on November 19, 2007, 21:30
one post has been deleted from this thread which didn't offer much to the conversation except mild name calling and 'egging on' of other members.

IMHO, noticing some vested interests is not name calling. I made it quite clear on another forum I appreciate the LO bouncers reviewers in general a lot, and Kari in particular. I converted my earnings to credits already, and before I leave LO (quite soon) I buy some of her shots I really like, as a small token of appreciation. At least somebody will be happy ;-)

Off-topic: LO isn't slow here at all, but I'm in the Shanghai-Manila time zone so I'm probably checking it in off-peak hours.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: leaf on November 20, 2007, 02:37
just so you know Flemish Dreams it wasn't your post that was a problem, it was the post after yours which was deleted.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: null on November 20, 2007, 04:43
Ah, well. I'm on a lousy 2kbps phone modem in the jungle, and between electricity brownouts in, I prefer to take shots (batteries still work) instead of reading intrigues on forums. Missed that one. If I want a good name-calling fight, I go to my fav political forum :-p
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: maunger on November 20, 2007, 08:08
no doubt LO's site is slow right now - and the speed goes up and down sometimes, but I'm having the same problem with IS - it is often just as slow if not slower than LO.

the beta site for LO is running very fast, but it doesn't have the load on it either. Hopefully, the architects know what they're doing :)

Disclaimer - yes, i am the moderator at LO, but that doesn't make me a blind fool.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: souper on November 20, 2007, 10:40
yeah.... we love that way the site is... friendly and sweet.

but really, we need da green! and they ain't givin' the green

it's sort of becoming a joke.... we laugh about how bad the dl rate is there.

also, reviewing has slowed down.

not to pile it on .... but

Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: digiology on November 20, 2007, 11:14
Yes the site has become very slow for me also - and I can no longer connect via FTP for some reason.

Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Pixart on November 20, 2007, 11:19
They have disabled uploading while they are upgrading.  It was in the blog, I can't remember when they expect to enable it again.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: digiology on November 20, 2007, 11:24
Oh OK. I have not read their blog lately (connecting is so painful - i just give up and move on)

I thought maybe I needed to reset my password (which I did and then it timed out on me)
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: souper on November 20, 2007, 13:33
we just uploaded 46 images last night?

well actually 2 uploads one had 46 the other had 6.... the 6 got reviewed and are on-line, the 46 are sitting

Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: bryan_luckyoliver on November 20, 2007, 14:00
Hey guys.

We're in the final stages of moving the site over to the new platform.  All submissions have now been halted. We're aiming to make the final switch tomorrow.

Unfortunately our site traffic has also jumped a bunch in the last week, so we're battling more traffic on the old system while we make the transition. Things might be a little rocky over the next day.  We apologize for the problems- we're focusing the bulk of our attention to the new site as it will solve most of our aching pains.  Thanks for hanging in there.

Bryan
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: kamera on November 23, 2007, 00:00
People have been demanding a lower payout minimum on LO for a long time, but the site bosses are playing deaf to this frequent request. Crestock listened to its contributors recently and lowered their payout minimum to 50.-. What's the problem with LO?
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: null on November 25, 2007, 07:03
People have been demanding a lower payout minimum on LO for a long time, but the site bosses are playing deaf to this frequent request.

You didn't mention the better watermark, on which request we were ridiculed. Well it's like that I guess, and it's their site. Love it or leave it, and vote with your feet.
I just sent my cancel account email, so LO is past tense for me from now on. I'm just sorry for this gigantic waste of time. As a token of appreciation to the great reviewers, I download a nice shot of Kari with my converted tokens. Time to move on and charm other snakes.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: maunger on November 25, 2007, 07:27
You didn't mention the better watermark, on which request we were ridiculed. Well it's like that I guess, and it's their site. Love it or leave it, and vote with your feet.
I just sent my cancel account email, so LO is past tense for me from now on. I'm just sorry for this gigantic waste of time. As a token of appreciation to the great reviewers, I download a nice shot of Kari with my converted tokens. Time to move on and charm other snakes.

I'm sorry you're leaving

I will disagree with you on your claim about the watermark. Not only were you not ridiculed - people of different opinions voiced their differing opinions, but LO has indeed told us they are working on a different watermark... as well as stating that they are considering lowering the payout (but they won't consider it until after the first of the year due to working on current traffic issues).

I've gotten two payouts on LO. I've only gotten one on Fotolia and I've been with them longer. Each site has its own market and customer base and things work differently on each site. Some have more success for individuals than others.

I'm sticking with LO (and yes, i'm forum moderator there) because I love the management and their communication with the contributors and buyers. For me, LO is worth the time.

Again, i'm sorry your experience hasn't been as good and that you're leaving.
Mitch
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Kngkyle on November 25, 2007, 09:14
It seems LO staff are the ones getting tons of sales, but the mere mortals are suffering. 2 payouts compared to only 1 on Fotolia?? Fotolia outsells LO 50:1 for me, and most others I'm sure.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: leaf on November 25, 2007, 09:27
well it would depend on your portfolio on both places.  If you have way more images on LO then maybe they might outperform another site.  I have gotten a couple payouts on LO but they are far from outperforming any of the big 6 sites.  My experience is on par with the average submitter who has taken the earnings poll.... putting LO in around canstock, scanstock, and crestock.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: epixx on November 25, 2007, 09:40
LO is grinding towards a halt for me. haven't had a sale there since 9 October. Actually, I hardly have views there anymore. I've had twice as many views at Snapvillage, still in beta, in two months as at LO in a year.

Actually, my earnings at Featurepics are four times those at LO, and FP isn't exactly the Speedy Gonzales of this business.

The fact that some have good sales there while others have next to none, makes me suspicious. Since I'm selling well at other agencies, the reason must be in their search engine and the way it promotes photos.

Sorry to say, but for me, LO sucks big time.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Karimala on November 25, 2007, 11:26

Quote
You didn't mention the better watermark, on which request we were ridiculed. Well it's like that I guess, and it's their site. Love it or leave it, and vote with your feet.
I just sent my cancel account email, so LO is past tense for me from now on. I'm just sorry for this gigantic waste of time. As a token of appreciation to the great reviewers, I download a nice shot of Kari with my converted tokens. Time to move on and charm other snakes.


I'm sorry to see you leave, too, and just wanted to say "thank you" for the nice surprise you left me this morning.  :-)
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Karimala on November 25, 2007, 12:13
Something I find very interesting about the smaller sites as a whole is how everyone has such different experiences. 

Getting a sale at FP is like pulling teeth for me.  I've been with them since February 2006 and have only 20 sales and zero $50 payouts, while others with smaller portfolios and less time there have received multiple payouts.  And yet at LO, which I joined in August 2006, I've reached two $100+ payouts and had 26 sales last month alone, while others don't see any sales at all.

These differences in experiences lead me to believe in the simple rule of thumb: that different sites appeal to different buyers, and what sells on one site doesn't necessarily sell on another.  Until the smaller sites attract more buyers, the exaggerated differences in our experiences will likely continue. 

With only 20 sales at FP, it's difficult for me to gauge what kinds of buyers they attract or what they are buying.  But at LO, I can see from my sales they are attracting young creative buyers with a penchant for good food and creating retro/grunge/vintage designs.  I'm also guessing most of their buyers are American, too, because ever since the housing/mortgage crisis started making the news, my photos of houses have started selling like crazy.  I also sell a decent number of American travel photos at LO.   
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: louoates on November 25, 2007, 12:29
One thing I can say about LO is that at least the search engine seems to work just fine. Fotolia's is broken, probably beyond repair, at least for older images before V2. And Istock's "Best match" remains a bad joke that in my opinion favors exclusives and shuts out the best images from non-exclusives. In fact the best match sort seems to eliminate many non-exclusive images entirely. I would recommend never using best match there, only "age" or "downloads".  Try it yourself with your best keywords on on-exclusive images. Maybe I'm just paranoid.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: sharply_done on November 25, 2007, 14:08
...
These differences in experiences lead me to believe in the simple rule of thumb: that different sites appeal to different buyers, and what sells on one site doesn't necessarily sell on another. ...
Although I don't use LO, I can attest to that.
My airplane shots sell well on all sites except for DT - although aircraft make up about 60% of my portfolio there, they contribute less than 25% of my sales. I've implemented a few tactics to place my images higher in the DT search engine, but sales have not improved.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: dbvirago on November 25, 2007, 15:50
For me, FP is strange. Sales aren't great, but steady. Strange part is they sell pix that don't sell at other sites, and sales come in spurts. Nothing for a few days, then heavy traffic for a couple, then repeats
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: null on November 26, 2007, 00:34
I've gotten two payouts on LO. I've only gotten one on Fotolia and I've been with them longer. Each site has its own market and customer base and things work differently on each site. Some have more success for individuals than others.

That's very true and my feeling is also it has to do with the parameters of the search engine. I don't think customers browse further down than page 10 or so. For me LO was rather unlucky, but SS, DT, BigStock and even FP make up largely for it. No need to bash anybody, since this is a small world and we probably meet again sooner or later. I wish them all luck.

Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: null on November 26, 2007, 00:36
I've implemented a few tactics to place my images higher in the DT search engine

Ah? Let me guess. Adding "sexy" to the tags and replace "fuselage" by "body" ;-)
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: null on November 26, 2007, 01:23
I'm sorry to see you leave, too, and just wanted to say "thank you" for the nice surprise you left me this morning.  :-)

Will reply the PM my night, later. I love that shot for the crunchy fresh feeling with the sparkling droplets, and the tender yellows that would match an overall yellow web design very well.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: a.k.a.-tom on November 26, 2007, 16:17
LO is grinding towards a halt for me. haven't had a sale there since 9 October. Actually, I hardly have views there anymore. I've had twice as many views at Snapvillage, still in beta, in two months as at LO in a year.

Actually, my earnings at Featurepics are four times those at LO, and FP isn't exactly the Speedy Gonzales of this business.

The fact that some have good sales there while others have next to none, makes me suspicious. Since I'm selling well at other agencies, the reason must be in their search engine and the way it promotes photos.

Sorry to say, but for me, LO sucks big time.

Well...   I'm stopping short of that.... but I figure sooner or later I have to wake up and smell the coffee and assume it's me and my folio sucks with LO customers.

I open up a bag of mixed emotions when I read the LO threads.  Some folks... two, three and more cashouts... I'm sure the  Uber-shops have much more than that....   and then there are the rest of us with little to no..... views even.   I agree that the customer bases will vary site to site...  but when I'm running comparable sales on comparable folio's across the board.... and zippo at LO...       Is it that LO's customer porfile is  THAT MUCH different?  I find that hard to believe. 

I'm still in there for awhile longer.  I've been listening to Bry and the gang for over a year now.... to hang in , hang in... soon, soon... ....  I'm just starting to wonder...  when that might be.   Will it be the new image?    we'll see....             ............... I'm hanging guys..... my fingers are hurtin, but I'm still hangin a while longer......     8)=tom   

P.S.  I've got 71 tokens sitting here... what the heck can I do with them?  I don't buy pix!  How about I get to cash them in to bring me closer to a sideshow???
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: nruboc on November 26, 2007, 18:09
I don't get LO, you have companies like Fotolia and Albumo who were also fairly late to the Microstock party, who pay contirbutors to submit their photos, offer generous commissions (Fotolia a sliding scale, and Albumo 50%). You also have a majority of the other Microstock's paying 50% commission, and along comes LO and offers an insulting 30% and then devises a plan to charge contributors for exposure in their side show. Am I the only one who hope LO falls flat on it's arse.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: epixx on November 26, 2007, 18:21
Am I the only one who hope LO falls flat on it's arse.

You can't fall if you're lying down   ;)
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Pixart on November 26, 2007, 19:33
They might be considering a lower payout.  Stay tuned next year....


 bryan 3 days ago (on Odditorium)

 shiyali is quoted as saying...
A lot of talk without addressing the request made by many in this thread for a lower payout minimum.


Yali, sorry, I was just following the last comment. We're working on trying to get things fixed up on the site right now. We read the request. Right now we want a stable site to increase downloads.

We'll take a look at payouts again in the beginning of next year. We're not avoiding the topic!
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: maunger on November 27, 2007, 06:18
I don't get LO, you have companies like Fotolia and Albumo who were also fairly late to the Microstock party, who pay contirbutors to submit their photos, offer generous commissions (Fotolia a sliding scale, and Albumo 50%). You also have a majority of the other Microstock's paying 50% commission, and along comes LO and offers an insulting 30% and then devises a plan to charge contributors for exposure in their side show. Am I the only one who hope LO falls flat on it's arse.

As i recall, FT and AL only paid for uploading in a specific goal to get a ton of images... at LO's beginning, they were flooded with uploads and people were complaining about the inspection time. If you were LO, would you pay for uploads in that situation?

You're missing the point of the sideshow in my opinion. It is to get your images more exposure to the customers - imagine what would happen if IS would let people pay to get in the first page of the best match! People would jump all over it! I know i would (and the 'buying gang' has proven that as well). I've been able to put images in the sideshow for about a week and i've been rewarded already with my first sideshow download and the commission was very nice indeed.

The sideshow is working (i'm not the only one who's saying that).

Oh, and everyone complains about LO's 30% - yet the market leader is still only paying 20% to newbies.

(disclaimer - yes i am the forum moderator at LO but i do have my own mind)
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: leaf on November 27, 2007, 06:28


Oh, and everyone complains about LO's 30% - yet the market leader is still only paying 20% to newbies.


Yeah i like the sideshow as well and think it is a good idea.

But your istock argument giving only 20% misses the point.  If istock were to start out today, it would never fly.  20% commisions and the worst uploading system of all the sites is not very tempting.  The only reason they are able to make a go of it is because they were first, and because they have great sales.  For new companies to give photographers something they don't allready have, they have to offer us something new or better.... which obviously nruboc doesn't think they are doing.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: StockManiac on November 27, 2007, 07:01
You're missing the point of the sideshow in my opinion. It is to get your images more exposure to the customers - imagine what would happen if IS would let people pay to get in the first page of the best match! People would jump all over it! I know i would (and the 'buying gang' has proven that as well). I've been able to put images in the sideshow for about a week and i've been rewarded already with my first sideshow download and the commission was very nice indeed.

Sorry, but I whole-heartedly disagree with this sentiment.  I think that the sideshow is a horrible idea.  Yes, it might benefit some contributors by giving them higher royalties, but it only benefits them at the disadvantage of other contributors and it is a slippery-slope to what can really happen in this industry.

First, the images that are in the sideshow are marketed as "midstock".  But in reality they are just the same old microstock images with a different label.    Almost all of the images in the sideshow can be found on other microstock sites at much lower prices.  What type of message does that give the buyer?

Second, the idea of a contributor having to pay for placement of images is where this idea has really derailed.  It has started a horrible trend that will (unfortunately) probably continue with other sites.

Imagine that another site allows you to "buy" placement in the Best Match algorithm.  At first it might start out as a low fixed cost, but eventually it will turn into a bidding system where the highest bidder gets the top placement.

As contributors we should be against any system that puts us at a disadvantage (as a majority).  While a small minority may profit from a system like this, in my opinion it is no better than what the buying-gangs and ratings-gangs are up to (trying to get better placement in the Best Match).  In other words, it is just legalized gaming.  When contributors figure out a way to game the system on their own, they are branded as fugitives.  But when a stock site legalizes this sort of behaviour, it is called brilliant.  Go figure.

Sidebar on the Sideshow:  If the system that LO put into place (the Sideshow) was truly about "midstock" photos, then I would be all for it.  In other words, if the images that were in the sideshow were not found on other microstock sites, then it would make sense to me (since the term "midstock" would apply better in that case).  But the current scheme allows members that have passed a certain level to take their already-approved microstock images and turn them into "midstock" images.  So the images that are in the Sidebar are just glorified microstock images.  To me, that is lying to the buyer and is just plain wrong.

Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Cooper on November 27, 2007, 08:04
I really like LO.  It's easy to upload to, the reviews are reasonably quick and the site looks great.

Having said all that though, my sales and views there have taken a nosedive over the past few weeks.  Sales were never brilliant but the views were ticking over nicely.  This all seems to have stopped in the past few weeks.  I'm not sure but it seemed to correspond with their site changes.

I really hope it picks up again.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: maunger on November 27, 2007, 08:06
First, the images that are in the sideshow are marketed as "midstock".  But in reality they are just the same old microstock images with a different label. Almost all of the images in the sideshow can be found on other microstock sites at much lower prices.  What type of message does that give the buyer?

Gee, what message does a buyer get when they can buy gasoline at one station at 2.95/gal and another has it for 2.75? Gee, i can get coffee at any quickstop for $1 but i can go to starbucks and get coffee for $4 -- sure, buyers can shop around looking for the same image at a lower price point if they want, but in most cases they don't - they see what they need and if the price is right they buy it.

And how could anyone possibly define any difference between a midstock image and a microstock image? What's really the difference between starbucks coffee and stuff i can buy for 1/4 the price? (I don't drink coffee and i'm sure someone will tell me there's a difference, but gee, it can't be worth 4x the price - it is all about the atmosphere!)

Second, the idea of a contributor having to pay for placement of images is where this idea has really derailed.  It has started a horrible trend that will (unfortunately) probably continue with other sites.

Imagine that another site allows you to "buy" placement in the Best Match algorithm.  At first it might start out as a low fixed cost, but eventually it will turn into a bidding system where the highest bidder gets the top placement.

As contributors we should be against any system that puts us at a disadvantage (as a majority).  While a small minority may profit from a system like this, in my opinion it is no better than what the buying-gangs and ratings-gangs are up to (trying to get better placement in the Best Match).  In other words, it is just legalized gaming.  When contributors figure out a way to game the system on their own, they are branded as fugitives.  But when a stock site legalizes this sort of behaviour, it is called brilliant.  Go figure.

I guess google is insane for allowing advertisers to pay more for placement in the google ads on the sidebar of their search? It puts other advertisers at a disadvantage so they should be ashamed (sarcasm)

By the way, at IS, i can somewhat buy better placement in the best match search by being exclusive. At FT, (if i'm not mistaken) i can get better placement by having sold xxxx photos. Other sites have similar functions too i believe. Granted it isn't paying $ for placement, but it is a way of 'gaming' the system.

EVERYONE is always looking for ways to get their product in front of the customers hoping for a sale, that is the way business works. Why should this business be any different? With millions of images in the libraries of current stock sites, the best match searches are in fact making or breaking contributors. It was different a year ago when every image had a better chance of being seen, but with the number of photos literally doubling in the last year, how is the customer to find my stuff? It will only get worse as time goes on and more and more images fill up the libraries.

And why shouldn't i be able to highlight some of my better images? And if that service is available, why shouldn't the stock site be able to make a little $ off of me? It is called business.

And, if i'm not mistaken, there are several sites out there that allow the photographers set their own prices... so they can put an image on one site and it sells for a buck but on another, the photog can price it at $5 if they want - is that fair to the buyers?

Sorry, but i feel your arguments against this don't hold water.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: maunger on November 27, 2007, 08:09
I really like LO.  It's easy to upload to, the reviews are reasonably quick and the site looks great.

Having said all that though, my sales and views there have taken a nosedive over the past few weeks.  Sales were never brilliant but the views were ticking over nicely.  This all seems to have stopped in the past few weeks.  I'm not sure but it seemed to correspond with their site changes.

I really hop it picks up again.

Guess you haven't been reading the info on the site about the site changes... they indeed turned off the view counters while they were doing the upgrades... the numbers have been saved and will be put back into your photos when they get everything else cleaned up.

The chart that Bryan posted earlier showed that the traffic to the site has picked up dramatically so views and sales hopefully will be kicking up as well.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: StockManiac on November 27, 2007, 09:02
First, the images that are in the sideshow are marketed as "midstock".  But in reality they are just the same old microstock images with a different label. Almost all of the images in the sideshow can be found on other microstock sites at much lower prices.  What type of message does that give the buyer?

Gee, what message does a buyer get when they can buy gasoline at one station at 2.95/gal and another has it for 2.75? Gee, i can get coffee at any quickstop for $1 but i can go to starbucks and get coffee for $4 -- sure, buyers can shop around looking for the same image at a lower price point if they want, but in most cases they don't - they see what they need and if the price is right they buy it.

And how could anyone possibly define any difference between a midstock image and a microstock image? What's really the difference between starbucks coffee and stuff i can buy for 1/4 the price? (I don't drink coffee and i'm sure someone will tell me there's a difference, but gee, it can't be worth 4x the price - it is all about the atmosphere!)

Sorry, but there are a few things that you forgot in your analogy.

First, the difference in pricing is much more pronounced.  If the difference was only 0.20 (as in your gas price analogy), then there would be less of a problem.  But the truth is that it is more like buying gas for $1 at one gas station vs. buying gas for $10 at another gas station just down the block.  If you do a search, you will see that many of the images in the Sideshow start at $10 for a measly blog size.  The pricing then goes up from there.  So a buyer could be paying $100 or more for an XLarge size, when they could be getting the same image on another site for $10 or less.

Second, Starbucks coffee has a different formula than other coffees, thus the reason for the higher price.  The reason Starbucks does so well is because they have good coffee.  If the same Starbucks coffee was available at $1 at one store and $4 at another store down the street, I'm sure there would be complaints from the customers.  Like I said, the images that are in the Sideshow are the SAME images that were previously NOT in the Sideshow.  They are also the SAME images that are available at other microstock sites which are just a mouse click away (in the majority of cases).  There is no difference between the images.  If there was a difference between the images in the Sideshow and images available elsewhere, then I would think that would be fine (because then the images would have a valid reason to be charged at a higher rate).

So, yes, I do think that it a slap in the face to the buyers.  And when buyers catch on to this switch-and-bait tactic, I guarantee that it will be the last sale from them at LO.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: maunger on November 27, 2007, 09:34
So, yes, I do think that it a slap in the face to the buyers.  And when buyers catch on to this switch-and-bait tactic, I guarantee that it will be the last sale from them at LO.


Come on... bait and switch? Where is there any deception going on? the buyer can plainly see what the prices are and they aren't being mislead in any way shape or form.

You cannot tell me that Starbucks coffee is 4 times (or more) better formula than any other coffee. It is all about believing you're getting better coffee. It is smoke and mirrors. A quick search on google shows me that there are plenty of opinions out there and everyone has one and Starbucks rarely wins the polls. "different formula" yea right.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: leaf on November 27, 2007, 09:42
So, yes, I do think that it a slap in the face to the buyers.  And when buyers catch on to this switch-and-bait tactic, I guarantee that it will be the last sale from them at LO.


Come on... bait and switch? Where is there any deception going on? the buyer can plainly see what the prices are and they aren't being mislead in any way shape or form.

You cannot tell me that Starbucks coffee is 4 times (or more) better formula than any other coffee. It is all about believing you're getting better coffee. It is smoke and mirrors. A quick search on google shows me that there are plenty of opinions out there and everyone has one and Starbucks rarely wins the polls. "different formula" yea right.


well although i don't agree with stockmaniac totally, he does make a valid point... just not sure i agree with it... :)

His point was that the star bucks coffee isn't sold at two different price points in different stores side by side.

If the sideshow had exclusive images, it would be like starbucks.  Basically the same images - except different ones... maybe a little better (matter of opinion), sold at a premium.... this stockmaniac thought was fine.

Having the same images in the sideshow sold at a higher price at the same time as they are sold for cheap on another site is what stockmaniac didn't like - and what starbucks doesn't do.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: maunger on November 27, 2007, 09:57
Like I said, the images that are in the Sideshow are the SAME images that were previously NOT in the Sideshow.  They are also the SAME images that are available at other microstock sites which are just a mouse click away (in the majority of cases).  There is no difference between the images.  If there was a difference between the images in the Sideshow and images available elsewhere, then I would think that would be fine (because then the images would have a valid reason to be charged at a higher rate).


Buyers are not being deceived at LO. Prices are right in front of them and yet they're buying.

Fotolia.com allows the photographer to set their own prices (under certain conditions)... why aren't you mad about that? They also charge higher prices for some images than others... why isn't that "deception" to the buyer?

Dreamstime.com has pricing set up such that when a photo is downloaded more than 100 times, then the price automatically goes up - even if the image is on another site at a lower price. Is that "baiting and switching" a user?

Here's an image on fotolia for $1 for the small and on dreamstime for $5 for the small (because of the more than 100 sales the price went up).... (edit to add - yes they are slightly different crops of the same image but you get my point) - oh and other similar images on DT are priced at $1

http://us.fotolia.com/id/1723985
http://www.dreamstime.com/sexy-fashion-girl-image1220745

So, please feel free to jump all over dreamstime and fotolia and others for charging more and baiting and switching the buyers because they charge more for that image than they do for other similar images on their site and that image is available for lower cost if the buyer shops around...

So, based on your comments about LO, once buyers realize Dreamstime and Fotolia "catch on", then they'll be leaving in droves from there too. Right? I don't see any evidence of that.


Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: maunger on November 27, 2007, 09:59
by the way, it took me less than 5 minutes to find that example in my post above... so it isn't like that is a rarity.

ETA: here's the same image on IS for $2 for the 'small' size
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/hair/hair_colour/brunette_hair/1833880_sexy_glamour_girl.php?id=1833880

so there's 3 different price points if the buyer wants to search around. So how can DT get away with asking $5 for it? There have been 38 buys for it over the first 100 (when i believe the price went up).
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: dbvirago on November 27, 2007, 10:15
None of this matters if customers can't get to the site. I have tried and given up three times this morning. How many times to paying customers try before going someplace else?
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: maunger on November 27, 2007, 10:15
well although i don't agree with stockmaniac totally, he does make a valid point... just not sure i agree with it... :)

His point was that the star bucks coffee isn't sold at two different price points in different stores side by side.

If the sideshow had exclusive images, it would be like starbucks.  Basically the same images - except different ones... maybe a little better (matter of opinion), sold at a premium.... this stockmaniac thought was fine.

Having the same images in the sideshow sold at a higher price at the same time as they are sold for cheap on another site is what stockmaniac didn't like - and what starbucks doesn't do.

Ok, so my analogy of Starbucks sucks... my post of a few minutes ago gives an exact example of the same thing going on at DT that he's complaining about happening at LO... and nobody's complaining about DT.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: hospitalera on November 27, 2007, 10:26
And btw, as soon as you start submitting to more then one site your images will be always priced slightly differently, depending if it a subscription/ per picture site and also as maunger already said: on some sites like Dreamstime and I think also Fotolia it depends on your downloads how your images are priced. SY (and yes, I am also a reviewer at Lucky Oliver)
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: leaf on November 27, 2007, 10:35
perhaps it comes down to what sort of pricing you decide to use in the sideshow.

I have been putting my sideshow images in at 5 credits for small.  Probably a bit more than dreamstime sells them for after 100 sales, but not too much.

However if i were to put those images in at 100 credits... perhaps there would be a bit more of a discrepancy.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: rene on November 27, 2007, 10:39
After one year with LO I earned only 95$. No payout, no slideshow. My last download was a month ego. Funny that my downloads stopped just before 100$. I'm unlucky future ex-Carnie.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: rene on November 27, 2007, 11:07
Like I said, the images that are in the Sideshow are the SAME images that were previously NOT in the Sideshow.  They are also the SAME images that are available at other microstock sites which are just a mouse click away (in the majority of cases).  There is no difference between the images.  If there was a difference between the images in the Sideshow and images available elsewhere, then I would think that would be fine (because then the images would have a valid reason to be charged at a higher rate).

Buyers are not being deceived at LO. Prices are right in front of them and yet they're buying.
.
.
Dreamstime.com has pricing set up such that when a photo is downloaded more than 100 times, then the price automatically goes up - even if the image is on another site at a lower price. Is that "baiting and switching" a user?

You are right Maunger. This kind of thing is impossible at LO... LO's best seller have 42 downloads ;D
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: StockManiac on November 27, 2007, 12:15
Fotolia.com allows the photographer to set their own prices (under certain conditions)... why aren't you mad about that? They also charge higher prices for some images than others... why isn't that "deception" to the buyer?

Dreamstime.com has pricing set up such that when a photo is downloaded more than 100 times, then the price automatically goes up - even if the image is on another site at a lower price. Is that "baiting and switching" a user?


OK, let's compare pricing on the various agencies.

Here is an image that is on LO:
https://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/1673270/business_people_cheering_holding_briefcas

Here is the same image on FT:
http://www.fotolia.com/id/3001257

And the same image on DT:
http://www.dreamstime.com/business-people-cheering-image2047006

And the same image on StockXpert:
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=view&id=717538

But now notice the pricing.

On FT, the prices range from 1 to 5 credits.

On DT, the prices range from 2 to 5 credits.  If this image had sold over 100 times, then the prices would range from 5 to 8 credits.

On StockXpert, the prices range from 1 to 10 credits.

I couldn't find this image on IS, but if the same image was on IS, the prices would range from 1 to 15 credits.

Up until now, the price range is pretty consistent.  It generally ranges from 1 to 10 credits.  IS would charge 15 credits for the largest size, but they generally charge the most (and give the lowest royalties) since they are the biggest microstock agency.

On LO, the prices range from 20 to 400 credits!  So the smallest size (< 0.5 MP) goes for 20 credits.  You could buy the largest size (> 16 MP) at IS (the most expensive agency) and still go get yourself a coffee at Starbucks to boot!

If I was a buyer and ended up buying an image for 400 credits at LO, and then found out that I could have gotten the same image for between 5 and 15 credits, I would be pretty pissed.

How can LO call that image "midstock", when it is obviously microstock on all of the other sites?  How can LO justify charging so much for that image when the exact same image can be found for 10-20x less on all of the other sites?
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: maunger on November 27, 2007, 12:51
OK, let's compare pricing on the various agencies.
On LO, the prices range from 20 to 400 credits!  So the smallest size (< 0.5 MP) goes for 20 credits.  You could buy the largest size (> 16 MP) at IS (the most expensive agency) and still go get yourself a coffee at Starbucks to boot!

If I was a buyer and ended up buying an image for 400 credits at LO, and then found out that I could have gotten the same image for between 5 and 15 credits, I would be pretty pissed.

How can LO call that image "midstock", when it is obviously microstock on all of the other sites?  How can LO justify charging so much for that image when the exact same image can be found for 10-20x less on all of the other sites?


Well, you completely ignored my point of previous posts and that's what i expected. I gave you a scenario that is almost identical to the thing you're upset about with LO, but you managed to try to twist it another way. It seems to me you have some kind of issue with LO and no matter what is said, they will just be the bad guy.

Why aren't you upset that DT is charging 5x for the image i showed you than what FT is charging for the same image??? Would a DT customer who bought that be mad that they could have gotten it for 20% of the price they could have paid on FT?

The photo you've picked out was priced by the photographer. He/she decided to ask the price range you pointed out. They could have picked a lower price but that is the price that they've decided they want when purchased thru LO. Why don't you ask them why they are doing it that way????

Maybe the buyers will run away from that image on LO and go searching other places (if they even happen to know of the other sites)... maybe this photographer has priced their image too high. Maybe not.

You're beating your head against the same issue that happens with buyers for any product. What do you do when you buy something in one store and find it for a lower price in another? Happens every day.

Why aren't buyers running away from Getty full steam? Heck they're paying $500 for images that they could find similar and better over on IS for $10?

The market is full of inconsistencies and this is nothing that is specific to LO or any other MS site. I've shown you how other sites do something similar so it isn't just LO you should be mad at.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: leaf on November 27, 2007, 13:02
well i still think stockmaniac has a valid point.

Dreamstime does boost the price of the image but only up to a max of 8 credits for images with over 100 sales and highest resolution.  That is perhaps within 'acceptable' price range from site to site.

What stockmaniac is concerned about is the difference between an image being priced from 5 credits to 500 credits on two different sites
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: hospitalera on November 27, 2007, 13:05
The main point is that the contributor sets the price for his/ her side show images at Lucky OIliver, like they do on FeaturePics for all images and btw how many people here sell the same images on Alamy like on microstock??? SY
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: leaf on November 27, 2007, 13:37
how many people here sell the same images on Alamy like on microstock??? SY

I was wondering when that was going to come up..... i feel it is basically the same arguement which has a lot of people strongly for or against it.
The slight difference with alamy though is that a sale there is basically like an extended license, so it SHOULD be priced quite a bit higher.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: StockManiac on November 27, 2007, 14:21
Well, you completely ignored my point of previous posts and that's what i expected. I gave you a scenario that is almost identical to the thing you're upset about with LO, but you managed to try to twist it another way. It seems to me you have some kind of issue with LO and no matter what is said, they will just be the bad guy.

I haven't ignored anything.

You first made comparisons between microstock and other industries (the oil industry and coffee industry to name two).  It didn't make sense to me to compare other industries, but I went along and showed that there were inconsistencies with your argument.

Now you have chosen an example that is clearly not an apples-to-apples comparison.

First, you chose an image that has sold well at one agency but not at others.  That skews the results (in your favor of course).  At DT, the image you chose sold 132 times.  At FT, the image sold 1 time.  At IS, the image sold 3 times.  So, yes, at DT the image will have a higher sale price because their business model is to increase the sale price as the image achieves higher sales.  By the way, having buyers pay more for big selling items is a pretty common practice in the business world.  The image that I chose in the example above sells about the same at all of the sites.

Second, you chose an image that doesn't sell in the LO Sideshow.  As a matter of fact, I don't believe it sells at LO at all (at least I couldn't find it).  Kind of weird that you would choose an image that isn't even on LO isn't it?  The image that I chose sells on all of the sites, except for IS (but I still put in stats for IS).

Third, I don't have a problem with DT selling some images for higher prices because these are proven, top-shelf images.  I believe that an image that sells over 100 times should have some benefits.  Like I stated a few other times in this thread already, I wouldn't have a problem if the images in the LO Sideshow were special in some way.  But the images that are in the LO Sideshow are not special.  On top of that, LO calls these images "midstock" as if they are something special (which they aren't).

Fourth, I don't have a problem with different prices on different sites, as long as they are within the vicinity of each other.  An image that is 1 credit on one site or 5 credits on another is still within a few credits.  In the example that I gave, the largest size of the LO image was selling for 385 credits more than any other site.  Now that is a huge difference that would matter to me.

Fifth, Bryan (from LO) has stated many times that the Sideshow is supposed to hold special images, but that has not proven to be true. 
Here is one statement from Bryan: "The Sideshow has been created specifically to appeal to those photographer who may have been 'holding back' some of their best images from the microstock market, simply because they knew the images were ones that should earn them a higher margin."  You asked previously "Where is there any deception going on?".  Well, when the top dog at LO states that the Sideshow is supposed to contain images that are not on microstocks and then it contains just the opposite, that (to me) is deception.

The images that are in the Sideshow (for the most part) are not special in any respect.  They can be found on other sites for much less.  And the images that are in the Sideshow are already chosen from the Circus :) (or whatever you call the regular microstock area on LO).

Finally, and probably most importantly, I have a problem with the Sideshow because it is an additional cost.  LO pays only 30% royalties, which is near an industry low.  Which means that we already pay LO 70% for their "services".  Now LO is asking for more money in order for our images to place better in their search results.  What next?

LO could have created the Sideshow for free, but they decided to charge for it.  They could have let everyone participate, but they decided to let only those few individuals with > 100 downloads participate.

(And for the record, I am a current contributor to LO)

Quote from: maunger link=topic=2956.msg27003#msg27003
The photo you've picked out was priced by the photographer. He/she decided to ask the price range you pointed out. They could have picked a lower price but that is the price that they've decided they want when purchased thru LO. Why don't you ask them why they are doing it that way????

I do get upset when contributors stab each other in the back.  I get upset when I see a new agency open which only offers 20% or 30% and contributors beat down their doors submitting images.  I get upset when other agencies try to undercut each other and contributors applause their efforts.  I get upset when subscriptions are offered on XLarge sizes and we only get a .25 or .30 royalty.

I believe that the Sideshow is something that we (as contributors) shouldn't be a part of.  I believe that it is bad for the industry (because it creates a race-to-the-bottom environment).  LO is the first in the industry with charging a fee for sort order placement.  I don't see that as a positive milestone.  Who will be next?  Pretty soon everyone will be doing it.  And who gains from this?  The agencies will definitely gain (because they now have an additional revenue source for image placement).  A very small amount of contributors will gain (from higher placement in the sort order).  But for the most part, the majority of contributors will lose.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: StockManiac on November 27, 2007, 14:24
leaf:

BTW, thanks for restating some of my arguments.  I'm glad that at least one person understands what I am trying to say.  Sometimes I wonder if my points are coming across properly.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: leaf on November 27, 2007, 14:31


I believe that the Sideshow is something that we (as contributors) shouldn't be a part of.  I believe that it is bad for the industry (because it creates a race-to-the-bottom environment).  LO is the first in the industry with charging a fee for sort order placement.  I don't see that as a positive milestone.  Who will be next?  Pretty soon everyone will be doing it.  And who gains from this?  The agencies will definitely gain (because they now have an additional revenue source for image placement).  A very small amount of contributors will gain (from higher placement in the sort order).  But for the most part, the majority of contributors will lose.


I find it interesting that you see this as a race to the bottom - when you could also see it as the opposite.  Granted we are asked to pay to get the images in the sideshow (but i do have several thousand credits i don't have anything else to do with so it is basically free for those of use who uploaded when luckyoliver started out) ....
So - the opposite part i was talking about is that when an image is in the sideshow it gets the photographer 50% commisions, and a better price for the image.  if the photographer wants to keep the pricing as microstock or low midstock then i feel it would also still be a 'fair' buy.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: maunger on November 27, 2007, 14:39
I haven't ignored anything.

I give up. DT and other sites are selling image at 5 times the price of other sites but that's ok you say. It is bad if LO allows it but ok for DT and anyone else.

I see the sideShow as a wonderful opportunity to get my images seen and hopefully make more sales. You see it as a horrible negative. Ok, we disagree. Time will tell.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: GeoPappas on November 27, 2007, 14:53
DT and other sites are selling image at 5 times the price of other sites

maunger:

DT doesn't sell images at "5 times the price of other sites".  For the most part, they are in line with all of the other agencies.  Most of their images start at 1 credit and go to 4 credits.  That is within the normal range of microstock pricing.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: leaf on November 27, 2007, 14:53
I haven't ignored anything.

I give up. DT and other sites are selling image at 5 times the price of other sites but that's ok you say. It is bad if LO allows it but ok for DT and anyone else.

I see the sideShow as a wonderful opportunity to get my images seen and hopefully make more sales. You see it as a horrible negative. Ok, we disagree. Time will tell.

His point was - put simply (as I understood it)

DT offers images for a max of 8 credits at max size.

Lucky oliver offers images at 500 + credits at max size.

The 8 credits is an acceptable variation in price ... the 500 credits is not which is why the DT pricing is OK and the LO pricing is not.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: maunger on November 27, 2007, 15:09

His point was - put simply (as I understood it)

DT offers images for a max of 8 credits at max size.

Lucky oliver offers images at 500 + credits at max size.

The 8 credits is an acceptable variation in price ... the 500 credits is not which is why the DT pricing is OK and the LO pricing is not.

And again - this one example is a photographer who has set a high price. it isn't "LO pricing" and not all Sideshow images are 500 + credits!

DT pricing at the small size on my example was 5 times the price of Fotolia. But that is OK it seems.

The market will decide what is acceptable and so far nobody (except for here) is running away from LO screaming about price gouging. In fact, I'll bet there have been plenty of images purchased from the sideshow and the customers are quite happy.

So let's give it another year and see how it plays out.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: StockManiac on November 27, 2007, 15:10
I find it interesting that you see this as a race to the bottom - when you could also see it as the opposite.  Granted we are asked to pay to get the images in the sideshow (but i do have several thousand credits i don't have anything else to do with so it is basically free for those of use who uploaded when luckyoliver started out) ....
So - the opposite part i was talking about is that when an image is in the sideshow it gets the photographer 50% commisions, and a better price for the image.  if the photographer wants to keep the pricing as microstock or low midstock then i feel it would also still be a 'fair' buy.

leaf:

Yes, a contributor can do as you said.  They can use their tokens to "buy into" the Sideshow and sell images at the same price as in the Circus (or whatever it is called).  This would allow a contributor to "buy" a higher royalty (50% vs 30%).

But that is not the original intent of the Sideshow.  If you read Bryan's comments on Midstock, you will find that it was supposed to be an area for unique images at a unique price point (between microstock and macrostock).  But that is not how they have implemented it.  They have implemented it as an overpriced area for microstock images.

If they had implemented it as you have discussed, then it would have been better.  I would have also recommended allowing everyone to participate, and not just those with over 100 sales (which is a very small and elite group).  The current system just creates a larger gap between those that have sales and those that don't.  In other words, if you didn't have many sales before the Sideshow, then you probably have even less now.  That's because there is less room in the search results for normal microstock images.  As we all know, the further back your images show in the results, the less sales you will probably have.  So if you image used to be on page 3, then it is now probably on page 5 or 6.  And if you had good sales before, then you probably have better sales now (because of higher royalties and better search engine placement).  So it essentially becomes a snowball effect.

I understand why some people like it (because they benefit greatly from it), but I don't think that it is good for the industry - at least the way it is currently implemented.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: madelaide on November 27, 2007, 17:15
And again - this one example is a photographer who has set a high price. it isn't "LO pricing" and not all Sideshow images are 500 + credits!

The price was set withing LO rules, I believe? The idea behind stockmaniac's and leaf's argument, as I understand it, is that the site should not allow such a high difference.  So it's the photographer's choice, but with LO consent.

I also don't agree it's good business to have such different prices, unless there was a difference in the license terms (is there?).

It's the same discussion about having the same images in micro and macrostock sites.

Regards,
Adelaide
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Pixart on November 27, 2007, 17:43
But, what happens when we are all snake charmers and buy into Sideshow, then nothing from the sideshow comes up on the first 10 pages anyway?  Isn't it only a single column down the right, isn't it?  Wouldn't it be natural that those new to the sideshow will likely fall farther back in the results (I'm thinking due to less popular photos)?
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: leaf on November 27, 2007, 18:09
But, what happens when we are all snake charmers and buy into Sideshow, then nothing from the sideshow comes up on the first 10 pages anyway?  Isn't it only a single column down the right, isn't it?  Wouldn't it be natural that those new to the sideshow will likely fall farther back in the results (I'm thinking due to less popular photos)?

the sideshow comes up in random order all the time... and yeah, there was a bit of discussion once on what would happen when there was 100's or 1000's of images in the sideshow.. if it would loose it's 'specialness' or not.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on November 27, 2007, 18:52
they have a very nice interface, they are friendly, but with 290 images online and no sales,
i am beginning to have doubts in their future. How others are doing at LO?

vphoto

I've had a few sales and like the site. The design should attract designers who tend to like creativity and visuals more than simply functional logic and generic design.

Attracting photographers, technical infrastructure, and measuring traffic seem to be their short term concerns. I'm curious to know what the end goal for LO is. Become one of the Biggies (Big 6?)? Become a midstock site? Grow image library and get acquired?
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: hospitalera on November 27, 2007, 19:07
Just one more point: The site show is still completely free, I didn't get any tokens deducted for the images I put in there. And for the records, my highest price is set at 5token/ credits, can somebody point us to the overpriced image please? SY
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: le_cyclope on November 27, 2007, 19:08

the sideshow comes up in random order all the time... and yeah, there was a bit of discussion once on what would happen when there was 100's or 1000's of images in the sideshow.. if it would loose it's 'specialness' or not.

Then why not charging more for a photo to show earlier in the 'random' order? or showing twice?

I can see the point of stockmaniac, how would everybody feels if one could buy  the «Image of the week» status on IS ???

It opens the door to strategies that I don't like...

Claude

Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: maunger on November 27, 2007, 20:07
Then why not charging more for a photo to show earlier in the 'random' order? or showing twice?

I can see the point of stockmaniac, how would everybody feels if one could buy  the «Image of the week» status on IS ???

It opens the door to strategies that I don't like...

Claude

Great ideas! If i could get higher in the best match or the sideshow i'd be willing to pay for it... it works for Google why not Microstock?

Let's think about it... if the price was right and it brought it more sales, wouldn't the cost benefit be in your favor? (no, i wouldn't buy the IOTW, but i would love to have more images in the front of the best match!)

the SideShow on LO is intended to cost you $1/image to add to the Sideshow. Why? For one reason, it will make you really think about which images should be getting more attention... which images you think the customer would pay more for etc. Just like Adwords for google, you need to determine how much you're willing to put into it in order to make more (higher priced ads get higher placement in searches on Google). So, even if you were eligible to put 100 images in the sideshow, you wouldn't maybe be willing to pay $100 to do it now would ya? But if being in the sideshow brings higher sales and higher commission, then maybe indeed it is worth it!

Obviously someone will come along and say that LO's sales don't justify it yet... but hopefully that will change soon.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: le_cyclope on November 27, 2007, 21:12
Maunger, I can understand your point of view but, with all respects, I don't agree!

I am a (part time) photographer.  I'm not in the business of selling photos.  That's why I trust (microstock) agencies to sell my photos for me, keep a commission and send me my money.  That's why I pay them via the money they keep from selling my photos.

Now if my agent cashes some money from others photographers to sell their photos prior to mine, the rules are changed in a way that I don't like...  It has the same effect of «bargaining» my commissions with an agent.  Paying to sell more photos is like lowering my commissions with an agent.  And I'm not ready to do it... Again, I take photos and they sell them for me.

We'll see if that trend spreads on all sites...

Claude
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Karimala on November 27, 2007, 21:13
What I like about the Sideshow is its a step up from microstock, which is something I'm looking for as my distaste for the whole microstock game continues to grow.  I went full-time a year ago and have found the constant need to create an ever increasing amount of photos just to break even to be more of a burden than the joy it used to be.  So slowly but surely, I am moving some of my photos out of microstock and into mid- and macrostock...and the Sideshow is the first place where I'm making the move.  At some point, I will start removing these photos from the micros where so many are now just sitting there collecting dust. 

The Sideshow also makes good business sense for me.  I don't have to waste my time removing the photos that I determined are worth a higher price.  I can just shift them over to the Sideshow and price them accordingly, while still maintaining my microstock portfolio that is currently on LO.  And it's good business for LO, because they will not be losing me as a contributing photographer...while some of the other sites will. 

I've been really frustrated with sites like DT and Albumo where the number of downloads determines whether or not a single photo is worth a higher price.  I want to make that decision for myself, because only I know how much any given photo cost me to produce.  LO provides everyone with that opportunity.  I didn't have to sell 100 copies of a single photo to earn $5 on the smallest size, like at DT, or 50 copies of a single photo just to be able to earn the ability to even sell it at the smallest size, like at Albumo.  All I had to do was sell 100 images period.  And those 100 sales gave me the opportunity to ask for a fair price above common microstock values a lot faster than DT or Albumo and on a much larger portion of my portfolio.

In these times when we're seeing more and more sites offering subscriptions with pitiful 30 cent commissions for XL photos or asking us to donate free images, it's nice to see one site moving in the opposite direction.     

Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Peiling on November 28, 2007, 00:50
yah....lucky oliver has been pretty disappointing...i wonder what is wrong? its a great set up and the interfaces are cool and it is so different from the rest....teh potential was limitless and now ah....i will be happy if i get a download a month....i am still waiting for my first $100 payment.....it will be a long while before i get into the slideshow thingy
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: DanP68 on November 30, 2007, 01:30
You are right Maunger. This kind of thing is impossible at LO... LO's best seller have 42 downloads ;D

ZING!   :D

I don't think there is any "bait and switch" going on here.  The bottom line for all of us willing to contribute to LO is performance.  Whether you blame their price points, their marketing, or whatever, it really doesn't matter much to me.  I just want some return on my efforts.

Over the last 2 months I have made $310 in microstock.  I have made $0.30 at Lucky Oliver.  That type of performance just doesn't get it done for me.  I won't wait forever before placing my efforts elsewhere.  Nothing personal, it's just business.

Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Tim Markley on January 14, 2008, 21:06
I like a lot of others really like the site and the review process is the best around but sales have just not been there. Iam not sure why. I am a part timer at this with the average portfolio between 150-and 250 on most sites. I will keep uploading but because it is easy but I have little hopes for sales.

Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: epixx on January 14, 2008, 21:31
I've given up uploading, but will let my portfolio stay, at least for now. One sale in three months with a portfolio of 572 photos just doesn't cut it. Nice design and easy uploads won't pay my dinner.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: DanP68 on January 15, 2008, 01:16
I have had 3 sales at LO since the end of September, versus several hundred sales at Shutterstock.  I've noticed my Views are picking up lately, even if it isn't translating into sales yet.  So I will give it a little longer.

My biggest problem however is the 30% commission.  For a new site trying to attract contributors, this seems pretty meager.  Also, all of my sales have been $1 sales.  Which means I have netted all of 90 cents over nearly 4 months. 

I realize the Sideshow and EL's offer a higher percentage of the share.  But a base 30% doesn't encourage me to contribute indefinitely.  Let's hope things pick up.  I appreciate the feedback I get in my reviews, and I like that the site is not overburdened with graphics and tends to zip right along.  That's important for people looking to upload in a hurry, and for those looking to buy and get out.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: nruboc on January 15, 2008, 01:41
Hmmm....low sales on LO and low sales on FeaturePics, now let's think about this, I know it's tough math and all but I think I'm going to have to go with FeaturePics 70% and setting my own prices versus the sad, pathetic, insulting 30% at LO and charging to put images in the almightly "side show". LO can't die quick enough for me, leave, adios see ya LO.

Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Clivia on January 15, 2008, 03:07
I have not had a sale there since November 16th, on a portfolio of 562.
I have list for the order in which I upload to the sites, the most profitable for me at the top, down to the least return per image at the bottom. The last few sites only get submissions if I have a lot of spare time, something that does not happen often! LO is way down the list.
Its sad because they seemed like a breath of fresh air when they first started, but without sales they are not worth the effort.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: nicemonkey on January 15, 2008, 03:57
I really like LO, its just soo easy to upload to. Also I have seen an increase in sales over the last 3 months and normally get at least one sale a day, not much I know in the grand scheme of things but I still believe LO has a future.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: rjmiz on January 15, 2008, 03:57
It's my understanding that LO still commands the loyalty of a few good photographers.
Some Photographers sing the praises of LO, while still others are bailing out the troubled waters of LO.

For those who love LO as a contributor I hear the songs praise for the reviewers politeness, attention
to details, and the unique way they powers to be conduct their business.

I for one jumped ship at LO about 9-10 months ago. I had been sitting on quite a few of my images for nearly
a year, and only attracting enough buyers to produce about $10-15. (I don't recall the exact amount).
I left LO on friendly terms, and bid them "Good Luck" as I waived goodbye and walked off into the Sunset.

I am sorry to hear That photographers at LO are drowning in their own patience, hoping the site will revive itself.
LO appeared to be on footsteps of good fortunes in the very beginning, but now appears at the back door of the local undertaker.


It's sad to say but I think that site is doomed to failure.

The MIZ
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: mjp on January 15, 2008, 04:25
Very low sales there.. I have been member about 1year and 4 months similar. Now I have over 1100 images online and only got ~50 sales (60$ or similar). I have over 500 credits from their upload campaign but can't use them on side sales because I need another 50 sales.. Only 2 sales within last 30 days (60 cents total). Even the Snapvillage have this much sales with few images online :). The LO site is great but the sales are very low. I will keep my images there to get payout later on this year. I do not have time and skills to write massive amounts of comments which eventually drive traffic also to your own portfolio as well. I hope they stay in business long enough to get my first payout:).

br, MJP
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: maunger on January 15, 2008, 06:07
On a positive note... I have had over 100 DLs at LO and have had 2 payouts. Not the kind of start that I wanted, but right now, for me (for whatever reason) LO is doing much better than Fotolia.

I don't know why people would bail on LO once putting images up there... and it is absolutely painless to upload to with FTP. I have a script set up for all of the sites that allow FTP (which leaves all but one LOL!) - i put images in a specific folder for each site, and overnight, they get uploaded. The next morning i go to the site and finish the upload... with LO that means a whopping 2 clicks i think... most of the other sites that require categories and such requires much more effort.

Anyway, I see LO taking off eventually so I won't bail out unless they have to shut their doors and i don't see that happening.

Disclaimer: yes, i am the LO forum moderator.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: rene on January 15, 2008, 07:33

I don't know why people would bail on LO once putting images up there... and it is absolutely painless to upload to with FTP.
A painless upload is not valid argument. What for ?
For 30%  from one sale a month ? 30% commission is not acceptable
For sideshow in 2010 ? If slideshow is so great why not to give us a possibility to test it immediatly ?
For payment in 2009 ? 100$ limit for slow earners is not acceptable.
We should support sites that are good for us and boycott others. There is no other way to be respected. If everybody upload everything to all sites we will never have better commissions.
Buyers will not disappear with a site...
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: DanP68 on January 15, 2008, 07:39
I do not have time and skills to write massive amounts of comments which eventually drive traffic also to your own portfolio as well.

Exactly.  That's not a good way to drive traffic to a portfolio.  Has anyone considered that it tilts heavily toward Americans, who are chatting together and leaving comments for each other, as opposed to people from other countries who may be producing brilliant imagery?  But even so, why should folks pairing up on the message board to write comments for each other be allowed to gain added spotlight?  It seems more like a scheme than it does a relevant search result.

And why should "Views" play a role in portfolio exposure anyhow?  A View without a Sale is totally useless.  In fact I would go as far as to say a high ratio of Views to Sales suggests prospective buyers are clicking on your images, and determining that it doesn't meet their standards.

Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: maunger on January 15, 2008, 08:31
I do not have time and skills to write massive amounts of comments which eventually drive traffic also to your own portfolio as well.

Exactly.  That's not a good way to drive traffic to a portfolio.  Has anyone considered that it tilts heavily toward Americans, who are chatting together and leaving comments for each other, as opposed to people from other countries who may be producing brilliant imagery?  But even so, why should folks pairing up on the message board to write comments for each other be allowed to gain added spotlight?  It seems more like a scheme than it does a relevant search result.

And why should "Views" play a role in portfolio exposure anyhow?  A View without a Sale is totally useless.  In fact I would go as far as to say a high ratio of Views to Sales suggests prospective buyers are clicking on your images, and determining that it doesn't meet their standards.

You're all assuming that the comments are a massive sway in the search results (you know what happens when you assume!)... we don't know exactly how much it weighs in the search algorithm... you don't know what goes into any site's "best match" - some include views (contrary to your comment above, but it does happen), some add weight for recent views, some include sales, some include ratings (who knows why), some include voodoo.

LO is trying to build a community with some user involvement... this is one way to encourage that.

By the way, it must not be a huge factor as i post all the time (since i'm forum moderator) but yet do a search and my images are NOT usually at the front of the results.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: michealo on January 15, 2008, 08:58
Too be fair to LO upload is slick and fast. If you have a fast pipe you could upload thousands of images in a day ...
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: louoates on January 15, 2008, 10:46
I'm probably in the middle of the LO field with 172 uploads and 54 downloads in about 18 months, one payout.

Certainly poor performance all around when compared with the top ten. But many of us are in the hopeful camp. I do continue to upload new work there because it's so quick and easy. If LO was as difficult to upload to as iStock I would have been long gone.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Pixart on January 15, 2008, 11:18
Times are changing. I've had 2 sales this year (woo-hoo, 60 cents).   I've also had 2 rejections - that wouldn't be surprising, but these photos are on SS, FT, StockXpert, 123 (still in cue elsewhere).  I don't keep track so I might be a little off, but I think that makes 5 photos rejected of about 289 submitted.   Maybe they've reached a certain mass and now are tightening up standards a little bit?   (That's A-Okay with me, and how I prefer it....)
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: Fred on January 15, 2008, 13:38
Well I have yet to see any evidence that comments lead to sales on LO.  My own experience does not bear it out and I have gone through the 25 recent downloads on several occasions and never seen more than two of the 25 commented - and those could have come as a result of their being in the recent download list (as is obvious with the single commented image in the current recent downloads list there).  Hear a lot of huffing and puffing on here about comments and downloads but very little hard evidence.

LO's problem is it has far too many contributors chasing far too few buyers.  Until they address those problems it will not improve there.  fred
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: pelmof on January 15, 2008, 14:45
I agree with Fred. There is something seriously wrong with the search system at LO. I know this is dredging up another LO concern, but as an example of "wrongness" I have 668 images uploaded, 10,358 views, and one image has 2,516 views with 2 downloads. The next closest image for views has 114. I have a whopping $33.00 earned, and not a single download for several months. I'm really disappointed with LO.

My more recent work is far superior to the images which receive views--that one with 2,516 views is a very early image and really not equal to my most recent work which seems to get no views.

I have stopped uploading to LO. Doubt I'll ever be able to partake in the sideshow because I have no interest in (or time to play) the comments game if that's what it takes to get sales. That's just plain annoying and insulting. I upload images to a site so they will market them. I shouldn't have to do that along with the work of creation.

Seriously annoyed,

P__
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: massman on January 15, 2008, 15:08
Here are my figures from LO for the past 18 months or so.

Portfolio - 154
Views - 235056
Sales - 114 (including 1 EL)
Received comments - 16
Given comments - 5

One file in particular has done very well for me with 208698 views and 54 downloads

Who knows how it works.

Make of it what you will, but as others have said, with such an easy upload system and a friendly review team, it's no hassle to upload.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: bryan_luckyoliver on January 15, 2008, 15:16
Just to address some of the comments:

nruboc- Well, I've agreed to do disagree with you...but to just set the record straight from an older reply:

2. To clarify the payout structure that sharpshot highlighted (it's not really apples to apples), our non-exclusive rate is .30 cents per token spent (but on volume purchases of tokens we absorb the discount, so the actual % is higher). We pay .50 cents per token spent for extend license and buyouts (we actually get a fair amount of extended license purchases). We also run image drives in which payouts on images are up to .60 cents per token spent.

The Sideshow is a free market system that allows artists to price their own work and also receive .50 cents per token spent. We don't charge for this feature now.

3. Exclusive images are .60 cents per token spent.  While our volume isn't quite there yet, longer term it's important to reward people for only having images at LuckyOliver.  It's not for everyone, but we have a lot of artists that want to earn money with only one company.

Right now our pricing is still higher than most other places, which mean the $ is higher per image.

rjmiz-
Well,  for a company that just hired another engineer, brought on a marketing person and a direct sales person, I'm not sure I would call that "doomed to fail". We also just expanded our technology by 4x.  That's an odd bet if we're looking to fail.

pelmof-
Comments play no direct factor in our search.  Google on the other hand likes comments.  An image with 2,516 views probably has direct traffic from Google. I wouldn't read too much into the views.

As always, feel free to chat with me, I'm available to talk. We appreciate the feedback.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: mjp on January 15, 2008, 15:28
Here are my figures from LO for the past 18 months or so.

Portfolio - 154
Views - 235056
Sales - 114 (including 1 EL)
Received comments - 16
Given comments - 5

One file in particular has done very well for me with 208698 views and 54 downloads

Who knows how it works.

Make of it what you will, but as others have said, with such an easy upload system and a friendly review team, it's no hassle to upload.

How to hell you get some many views ;) ? I have had only total of 4747 views so far:) and only 52 sales.

#  Portfolio  (1147)
# Comments (11)
# Received Comments (28)
# The Odditorium (6)

So something is wrong with my images.

I LO site is neat and fast nowdays, but I hope sales will pick up some day...I will continue to upload new images and hope for the best.

br, MJP



Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: massman on January 15, 2008, 15:53
I think I just got lucky with that one image.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: epixx on January 15, 2008, 19:03
Here are my figures at LO for the past 14 months.

Portfolio - 572
Views - 1500
Sales - 16
Received comments - 5
Given comments - 0

At a small, local agency like Scanstock (I believe they mostly sell in Norway), I have 5 times the downloads and almost 10 times the earnings during roughly the same time period.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: madelaide on January 15, 2008, 19:44
Member since Jun 29, 2006
Portfolio - 343
Views - 63618
Sales - 53
Received comments - 79
Given comments - 103

Regards,
Adelaide
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: DanP68 on January 17, 2008, 01:16

By the way, it must not be a huge factor as i post all the time (since i'm forum moderator) but yet do a search and my images are NOT usually at the front of the results.


Devil's Advocate, Mitch.  If it doesn't play much of a role in the results, why include it all?  Again, as echoed in the other thread, if it has nothing to do with image quality or best match, why include it?

That other sites are including "voodoo" or whatever into their algorithm does not make it right.  I thought you guys want to be different?  Give the buyers what they are looking for, and only what they are looking for.  Based on what everyone in these independent board threads seem to be saying, LO is not delivering a whole of sales for their efforts.  Clearly something isn't working.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: DanP68 on January 17, 2008, 01:31
Bryan and Mitch -

I should clarify.  The concerns I have raised in these threads are due to my support of Lucky Oliver and hope in its future.  If I had no hope for the future, I wouldn't bother to raise a concern at all...what difference would it make?  I continue to upload, and I see 2008 as make-or-break. 

I'm willing to remain patient, but I do not wish to go another 4 months with 3 sales at LO vs. Several hundred at SS.  Especially when I am making 30c per sale at LO, which is essentially a subscription level payout.  I can get that at SS, and with 2 orders of magnitude in greater volume.

There seems to be a lot of confusion over what the Sideshow will be, and how it will work.  Maybe you could lend some more information about it so we understand it better?   ;)
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: DanP68 on February 05, 2008, 01:16
Hey, I just had my first non-blog sale.  60 cents!   Well, that sale alone makes February 2008 a BME for me at LO.  Let's hope things are picking up.   8)
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: null on February 05, 2008, 02:01
I have had over 100 DLs at LO and have had 2 payouts.

1 + ....

Disclaimer: yes, i am the LO forum moderator.

... 1 = 2  :P

I don't know why people would bail on LO once putting images up there... and it is absolutely painless to upload to with FTP.

That's a great argument. Driving at 3am to Timbuktu is easy coz no traffic jams, so let's all drive to Timbuktu then... err... what should I do in Timbuktu? Uploading to Flickr is easy too.

If most people find out that they don't sell at LO with a portfolio that sells like cake everywhere else, then it must be the search engine. So my guess is that everybody _not_ a reviewer _not_ a forum moderator comes after page 20 of the search results.

Whatever, I'm gone. No regrets. May the force always be with LO.
Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: sharpshot on February 05, 2008, 06:32
I still like LO and I am not a reviewer :)  Easy upload good reviews and sales have increased lately.  Designers do seem to like the site and are starting to download more often.  I didn't see much happen after using the sideshow but last month was a BME.  Still below other sites at $18.40 but a big improvement.  This is a chart of my average earnings per day excluding 2 EL's.  I hope it continues in this direction.

(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/4882/lohq5.jpg)

Title: Re: doubts about LO
Post by: vikavalter on February 07, 2008, 07:47
I did some maths today.
I'm about 13 months on LO and by now I have 70$ so therefore 13/70=x/100 where x=18 months. so I need 5 more months till my first payout. I think I'm quitting my day job already. ah...Portfolio (821)