MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Another victim...  (Read 6443 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 25, 2008, 12:53 »
0
I didnt know that they exist but Ive just found this:

http://www.naturallifestock.com/

It seems that microstock world is a risky business.

PS. Im sorry for the guys of the site


« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2008, 22:15 »
0
Yeah,  NLS went down a couple weeks ago.  I was heading for 500 pix there, 99% of which were 'nature/landscape' shots.  I had stuff there I did have on the other 12 sites.  I thought it might work, I was one of the first on....   over a year,  sold...  zip!!

It was supposed to be strictly nature.  Ended up with airplanes, buildings & architecture, cars, etc.... just like any other micro site....  and all priced at $6.  Problem too,  most of the pictures on NLS were available elsewhere for 25 and 30 cents.  I liked NLS... had hopes for it...   but, didn't make it.

There were a few MSG members on NLS.  8)=tom

« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2008, 23:35 »
0
not the type of subject matter that i shoot, but in this market, any "niche" site is likely to fail. All of those photos (as you said) are available for a fraction of the cost on SS, IS, etc...

The portfolios there (for the most part) are quite stunning. But when I have a greater choice for cheaper change, you know where the shoppers will buy.

Sad to see another one go but it is survival of the fittest.

« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2008, 05:19 »
0
I also had high hopes of NLS to start with and it might have worked if they had stuck to what they initially specified  - nature images with full latin names and the sort of detail you don't normally find on general stock sites but it ended up with all sorts of images and lost their specific niche

« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2008, 15:48 »
0

 Problem too,  most of the pictures on NLS were available elsewhere for 25 and 30 cents.  I liked NLS... had hopes for it...   but, didn't make it.



but who's to blame for that? definitely not the sites.
we submit what we want. if we mass submit to everyone, we shoot ourselves in the foot and this is what happens in the end.

something photographers and illustrators can learn...

which in a way explains why certainly exclusiveness has its place

« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2008, 17:24 »
0

 Problem too,  most of the pictures on NLS were available elsewhere for 25 and 30 cents.  I liked NLS... had hopes for it...   but, didn't make it.



but who's to blame for that? definitely not the sites.
we submit what we want. if we mass submit to everyone, we shoot ourselves in the foot and this is what happens in the end.

something photographers and illustrators can learn...

which in a way explains why certainly exclusiveness has its place

Joma,
  Are you blaming those who submit to many sites? The site failed because they didn't have what people wanted at the right price...or they didn't find those folks quick enough who would be their customers. It's as simple as that.

« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2008, 22:09 »
0

but who's to blame for that? definitely not the sites.
we submit what we want. if we mass submit to everyone, we shoot ourselves in the foot and this is what happens in the end.


To a degree I will agree...  but only a small degree.  The primary fault didn't lay with the photogs,  it was the site.   I understand your point completely, however,  it doesn't correlate with the fact that I can sell the same pic on SS for 30 cents,  50 cents on StockXpert and $2.50 on IS and $5.00 on Alamy      [ !!!!! MODIFIED: CORRECTION, I meant to say FP, NOT Alamy. Sorry ]     People are going to pay what they want.  Are there hard core 'shoppers' out there that'll jump site to site? Yeah, but most buyers are satisfied shopping in one place.  The buyers I know usually shop only at their fav one or two agencies. They don't look all over and they are happy to pay what they usually pay. They are looking for a specific image.
    On the other had if a guy publishing a book on the Grand Canyon wanted a quick and easy source for a variety of Grand Canyon pictures, dozens or even hundreds, he could have got them all in just my portfolio on NLS (or other photogs there).  I don't have a large Grand Canyon portfolio on SS, IS, DT, etc.  Why?  Because they don't want them.   "too many on site" "not stock material"  "not a big need for this".

NLS was supposed to be a 'nature' site.  It was supposed to cater to specific groups, a select target,... scientists, naturalists, environmental agencies, etc.  Not account execs at an ad agency.  They started out great, faithful to that niche, but soon,  everything started showing up there.  It quickly digressed into another something for everyone site. 

Photogs started uploading everything they had there simply because the site allowed it. They could have rejected a picture of a blond eating cheesecake,  a guy talking on a phone, a secretary typing on a computer  as...   "not NLS stock material"   "no need for this on NLS",  but they didn't and in a matter of weeks it started looking like SS, IS, DT, etc and worse,  not at 25, 30 or 2.50,   but $6 bucks. 

They shot themselves in the foot.  NLS wound up with photogs that weren't nature/landscape photographers at all.  It went from a site that had a lot of potential to serve the needs of exclusive communities that would pay more... to another upstart free-for-all with everything at a price that then became ridiculous.

Only they would know their financial condition.  But it is pretty much a well known fact that one year is not sufficient time to get a business like that operational,  let alone profitable.  12 months is not enough time to become an established provider of niche photography. 

To your point, that is why most of us have two different portfolios for micro and macro. Agree to your point, if a photog is placing the same pic  on micro and macro, yeah, that's not the best decision in MHO also.  It doesn't make business sense to have the same pix on both.  That is the photog shooting him/herself in the foot.  And really not professional  in their relationship with the organization that is now unknowingly featuring micro images on their macro site.
     But,  to have the same pix spread across the micro world...  makes perfect sense to me.  In the case of NLS, they wanted to be a boutique agency. They should have stuck to that. They should have policed what they accepted.  They didn't by choice, only known to them.

Again, they shot themselves in the foot. ..... I'm tired, hope that made sense.  8)=tom

Just to reiterate... I liked NLS.  I was disappointed to see the direction the company portfolio took and  I'm sorry to see they had to throw in the towel so soon.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2008, 10:26 by a.k.a.-tom »

« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2008, 22:46 »
0

Quote

 $5.00 on Alamy. 

? - Is that what RF prices are down to at Alamy? I sold one a year ago for $109

« Reply #8 on: April 27, 2008, 07:49 »
0
Quote
$5.00 on Alamy. 
? - Is that what RF prices are down to at Alamy? I sold one a year ago for $109

vividpixels....  I apologize.  You are correct.
    I am on Alamy...   What I meant to say was   FP..  Sorry to all for making a confusing statement.  Thanks for pointing that out to me...     
     Having the same pix at SS, IS, DT etc and too on Alamy would be contradictory to exactly what I was saying (as well as what joma was saying). Bad idea.
    FP... FP I meant FP.   8)=to
« Last Edit: April 27, 2008, 10:21 by a.k.a.-tom »

« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2008, 14:18 »
0
I had a feeling this site would be doomed from the start.  The owner was an amateur Nikon enthusiast who started the site after he and a handful of his forum buddies talked about how fun and easy it would be to start their own microstock site.  His forum (which he also owns) doesn't have a lot of traffic and didn't appear to be successful, so that didn't inspire a lot of confidence in me that this venture would be successful either. 

Just goes to show it's important that we find out who owns the new sites BEFORE we sign up and dedicate any time to them (like Albumo).  At least LO was backed by Bryan's already-successful consulting firm and a few investors.

RacePhoto

« Reply #10 on: April 28, 2008, 18:39 »
0
I can't see how a site can be so poorly funded that it can't stay alive without any business at all. Your expenses are running the site and bandwidth. If nothing sells you have no income and no payments to make. Maybe he just got tired of watching the site go nowhere and spending time on it?

I don't know if he invested in advertising and marketing. But the site was a nice idea and filled a popular niche. Too bad it went away from it's original intent and identity.

As for the other points. If he had stayed a purely nature site, there's at least a niche market and it could have attracted people looking for Nature and natural photos. It would have had a limited audience or buyers, but may have attracted some regulars who needed this material on a continuing basis?

The fact that everything was probably on every other micro site, didn't help. That's the way it works. people want to upload to everyplace that they can sell, so why would a photographer only list their images on one site and not have them on the others that they participate at?

http://microstockphoto.com/ has been running since 2005! I doubt if it will ever take off and the site looks pretty dormant to me. Someone can fill me in if I'm wrong.



« Reply #11 on: April 29, 2008, 07:42 »
0
Learn, study, and know your agency.

It is a long term relationship, not a one night slam blam thank you mam stand.

« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2008, 05:55 »
0
it appears that the site is back up!

However, they've changed their goals

"NaturalLifeStock is not a Microstock or Royalty Free site! All images have limited use licenses. Click below to read the Licensing terms. Thank you!"

maybe the owner is only selling his own images? I don't see anything about other sellers and my old login doesn't work.

« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2008, 15:42 »
0
Whoa!!

 I just checked it out and I am pretty sure that's all Darrell's work.  I sent an email off to him asking some details.
    Such as if he will be asking in other photogs.... who knows.. he may be wanting to keep it exclusive this time around....

if he mails me back, maunger,  I'll let you know.   8)=tom

RacePhoto

« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2008, 18:09 »
0
This is good news, because it's the second interest that I have in photography. Strange combination, racing/cars/motors/speed/noise... :D and second? Natural history, archeology, nature, peace and quiet.

Quote
NaturalLifeStock does NOT license Royalty Free stock. The image license you are purchasing is good only for ONE project and 100,000 copies maximum. A new license must be purchased after that usage limit has been reached.

If this is true, I can drop some more micro sites.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
24 Replies
5356 Views
Last post January 04, 2009, 06:38
by qwerty

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results