Author Topic: goony promotion (Read 4841 times)

Greg Boiarsky · « **on:** August 24, 2006, 11:37 »

Let me start by saying I'm a fan of Lucky Oliver. I hope the site goes well, which is why I've uploaded 150 or so images there.

However, they need to realize that goofiness will kill their site--and fast. I recognize that they're trying to differentiate themselves from other sites by being more friendly and inviting, but using terms like "pinky swear" just makes no sense. What professional designer in his/her right mind would use a site that insists on grammar-school phrases?

Now comes their latest "LOAFer" promotion. Among other things in this prize package, they're offering a pre-wrapped bologne sandwich. Other than the obvious yuck factor here is how insulting I find this to be. If they want to offer promotions to improve sales and uploads, fine; but, they should at least make it a real promotion, something of value to the photographer. What . do I need with this "prize"?

I'm sorry to be so irate, but with the microstock business already having an image problem, this is the last thing we need.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 24, 2006, 12:28 »

Right on Prof.

Right on.

No one wants to be a carney, or an oliver, or a half-wit. And if you buy into the carney/oliver propaganda, you tend to be viewed as a half-wit. They are differentiating themselves on stupid things like this, where the model is exactly the same as everyone else. Nothing special, just a brown site with pictures surrounded by other shades of brown. Unless my monitor is not calibrated. Then its another colour with many shades of the same colour.

I think they have a great upload system. The recent reviews seem a bit off, but the system is great. I've already decided that its time for me to stop uploading to a few sites due to poor performance - Featurepics, BigStock are the two for now.

Their way of saying thank you - those stupid useless tokens - should be there way of saying "here's 30 cents for contributing" and Bryan's previous post was incredibly evasive of the call to convert those tokens to some useful coin.

I will upload a bit more and then I will see how it goes after a long hiatus from uploading. If things change, then sure, otherwise "me out"....I pinkyswear.

Like Amanda from IStock pointed out, contributing to too many sites makes it very difficult to control your images. It also is time consuming. So, that sparked me to really look at who's producing and who isn't. And those that don't can go - no matter how amazing their uploading is. Another thing is that these sites may be knew and only God knows what they do with your photos off the site - I'm not accusing anyone but suspicious sites like TotallyPhotos and others tend to scare me. The 80 cents in 6 months of earnings and time that I save from not uploading to these sites is probably going to make me better off than the small little rewards that I would get otherwise.

maunger · « **Reply #2 on:** August 25, 2006, 09:49 »

let me start by saying... i'm a fan of LO and i hope they blow thru the roof and yes i'm a 'carney'

a couple of comments on this thread... and just take it as another way of looking at things...

my opinion is that it is nice to have feelings about a site, but if you want to help the site take off, then maybe you should consider biting your fingers instead of posting (what i perceive to be) negative comments. There are a lot of people reading here and if some of them are considering uploading to places like LO and they read comments like some of what i've read here today, then they may certainly think that they shouldn't join up.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have these feelings, but why not just write to Bryan directly? He responds to all the emails i've sent him and he's seemingly open to support as well as criticism. Venting here only keeps people away from the site.

again, that's my opinion and not meant to hurt anyone's feelings - just maybe a different way of thinking about public posting about new sites like luckyoliver.

let's not forget that iStock was the leader in smarty pants comments on their site as well as in emails - so it isn't just LO. And IS kept it up for years and years (tho they have scaled that back a bunch in the last 1/2 year).

lastly, it seems to me that designers are a spunky bunch and many of them are younger and i think aiming a site with a bit of a style will indeed draw many people in - it may scare some away too but you never know - the stodgy boring sites may scare away some designers as well. Time will tell if the 'big top' theme will work.

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #3 on:** August 25, 2006, 10:02 »

I have written to Bryan directly--several times. He is always very responsive and very complimentary about my portfolio (maybe he has bad taste?

).

My point is this: It is a good idea to differentiate yourself from the competition, but you need to do so intelligently. It is unclear to me who the target audience is for this site. Is it designers? If so, they want images, not a site "feel." They want a product that they can use for a decent price. This is definitely the case with Lucky Oliver. However, I think they also want a site that treats them as if they are intelligent, which they are. Humour is one thing, but it needs to be humour that fits into the professional environment.

As to complaining publicly, I did so on purpose. It is important for Bryan and the other founders of LO to get feedback. By posting a complaint here, I was hoping to generate a conversation that would be useful to LO as they get a handle on marketing, promotion, and site design. If a lot of people had chimed in with, "Yeah. This stuff is juvenile," then I'd say Bryan and company would have something to think about. If people had said, "We love the site as it is," then LO also has important information.

Just because a comment is negative doesn't mean it shouldn't be said publicly.

maunger · « **Reply #4 on:** August 25, 2006, 10:13 »

Quote from: Professorgb on August 25, 2006, 10:02

As to complaining publicly, I did so on purpose. It is important for Bryan and the other founders of LO to get feedback. By posting a complaint here, I was hoping to generate a conversation that would be useful to LO as they get a handle on marketing, promotion, and site design. If a lot of people had chimed in with, "Yeah. This stuff is juvenile," then I'd say Bryan and company would have something to think about. If people had said, "We love the site as it is," then LO also has important information.

Just because a comment is negative doesn't mean it shouldn't be said publicly.

If your intent was to spark conversation, then i suggest maybe you should try something different in your posting. The initial post in this thread was just a negative comment - which tends to spur more follow on negative comments. It might have been better if you said something like "i don't care for the style of the LO site, what do you all think?" -- to me, that sparks conversation... what you said doesn't and in my opinion doesn't help anyone - it just drives people away from possibly contributing - both to the conversation and to LO as contributors. Again, just trying to propose a different style.

I agree that the conversation should be promoted. I'm not exactly sure i buy into the style of the site either, but i do believe it will differentiate them to a big degree and i'm willing to go with it. What do others think?

StockManiac · « **Reply #5 on:** August 25, 2006, 10:23 »

Quote from: Professorgb on August 25, 2006, 10:02

Just because a comment is negative doesn't mean it shouldn't be said publicly.

I totally agree with this. This forum is for open discussion. It is not for only positive "Woo Yahs". We are here to discuss the pros AND cons of the industry and the sites.

Quote from: maunger on August 25, 2006, 10:13

There are a lot of people reading here and if some of them are considering uploading to places like LO and they read comments like some of what i've read here today, then they may certainly think that they shouldn't join up.

I don't think that finding photographers will be a problem for any new start up site. There are plenty of people that want to get started in microstock that are not yet up to the standards at IS and SS that will submit to LO. There are also plenty of people that already submit to other sites (including IS and SS) that will submit to LO. Lack of photos is definitely not the major issue for any microsite. The lack of buyers is the major problem.

Granted, you need photos to attract buyers, but just give it some time.

And I also agree that the promotional was a little off base. At first it made me laugh, but then I looked at some of the ingredients and wondered about it...

Amanda · « **Reply #6 on:** August 26, 2006, 12:33 »

Quote from: Professorgb on August 25, 2006, 10:02

It is unclear to me who the target audience is for this site. Is it designers? If so, they want images, not a site "feel." They want a product that they can use for a decent price. This is definitely the case with Lucky Oliver. However, I think they also want a site that treats them as if they are intelligent, which they are. Humour is one thing, but it needs to be humour that fits into the professional environment.

As a graphic designer I can say that's not entirely true. We are very critical of how a site feels and looks. Yes, quality images for good prices are definitely a big plus, but we also look at how well the site looks. Why? We're designers silly! This is what we do! We create websites, design print ads, layout brochures - of course it matters if the site is well designed. For us, a well designed website with a creative concept is like porn! We're hardly the stodgy, all-dressed in black, with lattes in hand, designers. We like concepts. We like creativity. We like something out of the mainstream. Gasp, we even have a sense-of-humor!

kacper · « **Reply #7 on:** August 26, 2006, 16:30 »

Quote from: maunger on August 25, 2006, 10:13

I agree that the conversation should be promoted. I'm not exactly sure i buy into the style of the site either, but i do believe it will differentiate them to a big degree and i'm willing to go with it. What do others think?

I think maunger you should stop acting like a moderator in a free speech democratic forum. If anyone has the right, it would be Leaf.

Profs and ichiro's comments are to the point. They bring out problems in LO, but that's called "constructive criticism". We all want LO to succeed, because it will bring US money. Collectively we know what sells, when it sells and how it sells. Between all the users of this forum we've probably sold a million images (Phil probably accounting for 990,000 of them

).

So:

What I like about LO:

1. Great upload system, FTP fast, submission process great
2. Fast review times (obviously that might change with popularity)
3. Fact that they are new (I like the new guys, the underdogs)
4. The admins: Bryan and others are very informative

What I'm neutral on about LO:

1. Tokens: nice, but useless for photographers. I've suggested in another thread a trade-in system for stuff
2. The layout: I agree with Ichiro that it's a bit weird, but I actually like it. But I don't know how the world feels about it

What I don't like about LO:

1. The names/levels are idiotic. Word up! I mean why not: 1. a git, 2. a prat, 3. a prig, 4. a wanker
2. Affiliate program: make it percentage plus a fee like Fotolia had for a while. $1 for signup + 10% of their sales for 5 years. Not just $5 for credits, but 10-20% of the sale. If I bring someone who buys a $415 package I'll feel totally ripped off with just $5

About the LOAF package... I think it's meant to be a gag. Considering I currently reside in the middle of * nowhere it would cost Lucky Oliver about $400 to send that bologna sandwitch to me by UPS Global Priority before it went off...

maunger · « **Reply #8 on:** September 02, 2006, 07:45 »

Quote from: kacper on August 26, 2006, 16:30

I think maunger you should stop acting like a moderator in a free speech democratic forum. If anyone has the right, it would be Leaf.

Thanks for your comments... tho i'll use my right to free speech if i may

Quote from: kacper on August 26, 2006, 16:30

About the LOAF package... I think it's meant to be a gag. Considering I currently reside in the middle of fiddle sticksing nowhere it would cost Lucky Oliver about $400 to send that bologna sandwitch to me by UPS Global Priority before it went off...

I'm guessing from the lack of entries in this contest that people aren't too impressed with the gag part of the prize. I'm thinking they'll have to rethink the gag part of the future contests in order to get more participation

I'm partially hoping I don't win - don't know if i want all that stuff delivered to my house because most of it won't get used.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: goony promotion (Read 4841 times)

Greg Boiarsky

ichiro17

maunger

Greg Boiarsky

maunger

StockManiac

Amanda

kacper

maunger

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors