MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Have your LO sales ground to a halt?  (Read 11798 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2007, 09:19 »
0
I am giving them until Christmas to improve my sales and to make my portfolio more visible.  There are far to many images with no views at the moment. 

What is the point in deleting a portfolio though?  It is sensible if the site is likely to vanish, like some have but I don't see LO doing that.  I have seen some people delete their portfolios and then upload them again later.  Isn't it more sensible to just leave the site alone and check to see if there is any progress in a few months?


w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2007, 11:24 »
0
I'm giving them until the end of the year to show some signs of life.  I've noticed my images with the highest views on LO are the same ones that are selling well elsewhere (SS, IS, DT) which seems to make a certain amount of sense.  But on LO, zero sales.  Are people looking at LO, but then going and buying elsewhere?  I stopped uploading new stuff to them a few months back.  If I don't see activity on some of my best selling images, why waste time uploading more, only to have them languish in obscurity.  If between now and the end of the year things pick up, fine.  I can easily upload more.  But if it continues as it has for over a year now, I'll probably pull out and concentrate on those sites that give me at least some return for my time invested.

« Reply #27 on: October 13, 2007, 12:11 »
0
What is the point in deleting a portfolio though?


I did it very rarely. Galastock because of fraud for instance. LO, because of the high view count and the large unprotected thumbs. I thought it was only so for the high-key shots, but can anybody tell me what watermark is so annoying on this giant "thumb"? Takes me 5 sec in Photoshop to un-annoy it, et voila ;-)
If I want to put up shots for grab, I do it at Flickr and with my own shots... and not with shots that are on sale at *selling* MS sites too. LO stepped way out of line doing this.


« Reply #28 on: October 13, 2007, 13:27 »
0
I had hoped we would be offered a good alternative watermark but I didn't like the changes.  Here's an example http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/2199673/

All I wanted was something similar to SS,IS,DT etc.  Now if I can't see the watermark, the photo gets deleted.

« Reply #29 on: October 13, 2007, 13:31 »
0
That's the other extreme of poor watermarking.  Why can't LO find a more suitable one?  They work fine in most sites (FT before the change).

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #30 on: October 14, 2007, 11:03 »
0
Had my first LO extended license sale recently, other than that, sales are pretty slow, but then, I've got less than 200 images there. A little slow to join in, not much time to contribute to so many sites.

Thankfully, LO's submission process is relatively painless.

« Reply #31 on: October 14, 2007, 22:09 »
0
Lately I have been crying the blues about my very, very limited sales versus high views at LO.  I've been away this past week on a shoot down in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Tenn & NC).... returned tonight, checked out all my sales and low & behold... not only did I have a few sales on LO this past week, I also got my first EL there.  So today, I'm a happy carny!! 
    I sure would like to see LO generate the same sales I experience especially on IS & SS.  I've got over a year into LO now, I'm still hanging in there. I sure would like to get some sideshow action going there!
 8)-tom

« Reply #32 on: October 15, 2007, 00:17 »
0
I had hoped we would be offered a good alternative watermark but I didn't like the changes.  Here's an example http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/2199673/


This one's looking very well protected to me.

digiology

« Reply #33 on: October 15, 2007, 11:27 »
0
Are people looking at LO, but then going and buying elsewhere? 

Possibly yes - especially since they downsize images so drastically. For instance:
Original 10mp - 3872x2592 = 12.9x8.64 (inches @300dpi)
LO Downsampled - 2709x1813 = 9x6 (inches @300dpi)


« Reply #34 on: October 15, 2007, 13:18 »
0
Digiology, they do sell the original size in the Extended License.  The problem though, if the buyer doesn't know, or doesn't click through to purchase, they will never know.  I've mentioned on their forum that they should consider adding the dimensions on the original public page, and I was led to believe they added on their to do list.  LO does seem to sell a disproportionately high number of EL's.  I found out my large files were only available as EL by accident - so it cannot be immediately clear to buyers either.  I think they may lose sales because it is not immediately clear to buyers.

However, I just checked one of my images, 2592 x 3872 and it states 9.6 mp, by my math it should be 10.03.  Minisclue difference in size, but less than 10 mp for some reason makes it look more consumer, less pro.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2007, 13:20 by Pixart »

digiology

« Reply #35 on: October 15, 2007, 14:58 »
0
Pixart - I never realised the original size is available as EL. That's good to know. Thanks



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2134 Views
Last post March 31, 2011, 12:48
by lisafx
iStock fails to recover ground

Started by Cogent Marketing « 1 2 ... 10 11 » iStockPhoto.com

253 Replies
40019 Views
Last post December 03, 2011, 10:33
by helix7
22 Replies
4611 Views
Last post March 31, 2013, 18:08
by Firewall
41 Replies
8805 Views
Last post July 21, 2015, 11:56
by madman
11 Replies
3808 Views
Last post January 11, 2018, 12:04
by dpimborough

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results