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

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.     

You are right Maunger. This kind of thing is impossible at LO... LO's best seller have 42 downloads

ZING!   

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.

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.