MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Painful Banners  (Read 5233 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DanP68

« on: April 10, 2008, 05:03 »
0
I just came across a post on the LO boards regarding some very strange looking banners from LO.  Check some of these out:














Hey, I have a sense of humor as much as anyone.  But there comes a point in business when you have to put your best foot forward.  Do you see a large corporate account signing on after seeing these ads?  Who exactly are they marketing to?

As I posted in the thread, I've had it with the lack of sales and the promises of better days.  This "marketing" gives me zero confidence. 


« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2008, 05:40 »
0
Nice and professional, these ads really get the message across about their midstock pricing. Good job guys, you did real good, real good.

My mama don't buy no photos for a bucky and she don't do no steal'n either.


« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2008, 10:52 »
0
Dan, I'm guessing you didn't see the other thread on LO forums about this but Bryan has already addressed this issue:

"Hey guys, how about this...

Our banners are a tad out of date... we'll do a fresh batch and solicit your feedback. You guys can give a critique and we'll see how it goes from there.

We still have our widget to release after Allen pushes the latest backend update.

Thanks for the feedback!

Bryan"

And by the way, those banners were created for us to put on our own sites - they aren't the "marketing" that is being used. Granted, it will be nice to have some other banners to choose from and we're all waiting for the sales to kick in :)

Do i need to restate that i'm the LO forum moderator?
« Last Edit: April 10, 2008, 10:56 by maunger »

DanP68

« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2008, 14:19 »
0
No, I missed the second thread.  My critique is that they are unprofessional, actually flat out embarassing.  There you go.

They are also inconsistent with whatever Lucky Oliver is supposed to be.  Midstock?  Then why advertise that you are selling images "for a bucky?"  That's cheaper than most microstock sites these days.

I know you are a reviewer, and not admin, Mitch.  But I can't look past this stuff.  A lot of highly ranking photographers have already given up and left LO, whereas I have continued to wait out the lack of earnings.  There is nothing about these banners that makes me think LO is capable of getting its sales in gear.

And today is yet another day where I have made more earnings in 8 hours at Shutterstock than I have in 7 months at Lucky Oliver.  Where would you put your future efforts?
« Last Edit: April 10, 2008, 14:21 by DanP68 »

« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2008, 18:50 »
0
to me it is not a bad line to take, obvisously not aimed at large corporate customers. plenty of people still out there who think google images is the answer to their problems.  hitting people who just rip images off because they think it will cost them a fortune isn't too bad a tactic (as part of a whole marketing campaign). not sure about your mama bit?

DanP68

« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2008, 22:47 »
0
I see where you are going with that clearview.  But if they want to head in that direction, they should dump the "midstock" moniker and go straight for the "cheapest online" route.  Because the people those ads are trying to target aren't going to pay more than $1 per image anyhow.

« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2008, 23:05 »
0
to me it is not a bad line to take, obvisously not aimed at large corporate customers. plenty of people still out there who think google images is the answer to their problems.  hitting people who just rip images off because they think it will cost them a fortune isn't too bad a tactic (as part of a whole marketing campaign). not sure about your mama bit?

Well it wouldn't be so bad if they were doing other things but as far as I can tell this is the only advertising/marketing they are doing.

 fred

« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2008, 23:17 »
0
I know you are a reviewer, and not admin, Mitch.
I believe Mitch is the forum moderator, not a reviewer.

« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2008, 06:59 »
0
I see where you are going with that clearview.  But if they want to head in that direction, they should dump the "midstock" moniker and go straight for the "cheapest online" route.  Because the people those ads are trying to target aren't going to pay more than $1 per image anyhow.

good point

« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2008, 08:34 »
0
"Better than grabbing a photo off google images ... and more legal"

For me this mean that images are not perfectly legal, but just more legal than those find on google images.   Does more legal, mean completely legal?  I mean... if I grab images off google images, this is more legal than acking a photographer computer, but this don't mean it's legal.

Maybe it's only a bad translation in my mind... ???

« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2008, 02:23 »
0
I know you are a reviewer, and not admin, Mitch.
I believe Mitch is the forum moderator, not a reviewer.

That's true.  Mitch moderates the forums, but doesn't review any images.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1445 Views
Last post April 27, 2009, 22:08
by kingjon
4 Replies
3576 Views
Last post December 09, 2010, 08:49
by Microstock Posts
3 Replies
2319 Views
Last post February 09, 2014, 05:59
by Pauws99
1 Replies
1183 Views
Last post November 24, 2018, 16:58
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results