You're starting up about 12 years too late.  Apart from Pond5 and Depositphotos all of the top nine agencies in the poll results on the right of this page were in business by the end of 2005. Hardly anybody bothers with those lower down on the list, there's scarcely any return to be had.

Hi Baldricks,

You can't get anywhere unless you start .

Thanks for your reply.
Lifeographies Team.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 11, 2017, 17:49

You're starting up about 12 years too late.  Apart from Pond5 and Depositphotos all of the top nine agencies in the poll results on the right of this page were in business by the end of 2005. Hardly anybody bothers with those lower down on the list, there's scarcely any return to be had.

Hi Baldricks,

You can't get anywhere unless you start .

Thanks for your reply.
Lifeographies Team.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I agree, if you can take just 1% of Shutterstock's business, then you'll still be turning over more than $1m a year... so it could be a profitable little business. Although, as a contributor... if I was to make 1% of what I'm making at Shutterstock, then I'd probably give it a miss. And that could be the issue... getting enough content to be in a position to take that 1% from Shutterstock. 

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 11, 2017, 15:35

"Contributors are required to keep at least seventy (60%) percent of their portfolio online with Lifeographies.com for a period of at least one (1) year. You may disable all files older than six months from the date of review at any time. You will be allowed to disable a total of thirty (40%) percent of your total Media submitted within the past one (1) year. Media that was disabled and then enabled again will be counted as new submissions, no matter of their original upload date."

Come on.  Really?

Hi Sean,

Yes it is true.
Thanks for your reply.

Lifeographies Team.


Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Excellent. I won't be uploading. Thanks for being unrealistic.

Just to be clear, can you expose point by point why I should spend time to upload my images on your site?

What advantages do you propose compared to competitors like Shutterstock or AdobeStock?

How do you think to emerge in the microstock industry?

Why a customer should buy on your site the same content he can find in Shutterstock or AdobeStock?

I'm not sure how many new sites have tried to get going but have been a complete waste of time, must be at least 500 by now?  I used to join many of them but now I'm very wary.  I don't see the point in new sites paying less than 50% because we already have sites paying that and there's no way I want to help increase their competition.

Quote from: Lifeographies on May 11, 2017, 20:00

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 11, 2017, 17:49

You're starting up about 12 years too late.  Apart from Pond5 and Depositphotos all of the top nine agencies in the poll results on the right of this page were in business by the end of 2005. Hardly anybody bothers with those lower down on the list, there's scarcely any return to be had.

Hi Baldricks,

You can't get anywhere unless you start .

Thanks for your reply.
Lifeographies Team.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I agree, if you can take just 1% of Shutterstock's business, then you'll still be turning over more than $1m a year... so it could be a profitable little business. Although, as a contributor... if I was to make 1% of what I'm making at Shutterstock, then I'd probably give it a miss. And that could be the issue... getting enough content to be in a position to take that 1% from Shutterstock.

I agree with your point..however they will have a smaller number of contributors so for example IF they only had 1% of the contributors as SS you would make the same. given that ss claim customer retention of 92% then unless you have something game changing to offer you would be looking to take one 1/8 of those customers....very improbable.

Quote from: Lifeographies on May 11, 2017, 20:00

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 11, 2017, 17:49

You're starting up about 12 years too late.  Apart from Pond5 and Depositphotos all of the top nine agencies in the poll results on the right of this page were in business by the end of 2005. Hardly anybody bothers with those lower down on the list, there's scarcely any return to be had.

Hi Baldricks,

You can't get anywhere unless you start .

Thanks for your reply.
Lifeographies Team.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I agree, if you can take just 1% of Shutterstock's business, then you'll still be turning over more than $1m a year... so it could be a profitable little business. Although, as a contributor... if I was to make 1% of what I'm making at Shutterstock, then I'd probably give it a miss. And that could be the issue... getting enough content to be in a position to take that 1% from Shutterstock.

Yes, that's my point, really.
It's probably not too hard for a new agency to pull in $1,000 a month for its owner, but if there's 20% commission spread between 100 contributors everybody else is making $2 a month. Everybody doing this at all seriously (and non-exclusively) probably has a few hundred files on each of a handful of low earners which hardly ever deliver a payout.
What does a new entrant have to offer buyers that isn't already there 20-times over? And how much effort is it for us to go and add our files to their site? I'm just having a bad experience with Fotoarabia, who don't seem to be there to pay me now that I've got to payout.  I sent hundreds of files to Cutcaster when they came asking us to support their exciting new site, and I've not seen a penny back from that effort. 
So what's the incredible draw to bring buyers in that will mark this out as being different from all the others, rather than just another site looking for a few crumbs from the big boys' table? And what's the attraction for photographers etc to persuade them to waste devote their time to uploading?

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on May 11, 2017, 20:30

Quote from: Lifeographies on May 11, 2017, 20:00

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 11, 2017, 17:49

You're starting up about 12 years too late.  Apart from Pond5 and Depositphotos all of the top nine agencies in the poll results on the right of this page were in business by the end of 2005. Hardly anybody bothers with those lower down on the list, there's scarcely any return to be had.

Hi Baldricks,

You can't get anywhere unless you start .

Thanks for your reply.
Lifeographies Team.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I agree, if you can take just 1% of Shutterstock's business, then you'll still be turning over more than $1m a year... so it could be a profitable little business. Although, as a contributor... if I was to make 1% of what I'm making at Shutterstock, then I'd probably give it a miss. And that could be the issue... getting enough content to be in a position to take that 1% from Shutterstock.

Yes, that's my point, really.
It's probably not too hard for a new agency to pull in $1,000 a month for its owner, but if there's 20% commission spread between 100 contributors everybody else is making $2 a month. Everybody doing this at all seriously (and non-exclusively) probably has a few hundred files on each of a handful of low earners which hardly ever deliver a payout.
What does a new entrant have to offer buyers that isn't already there 20-times over? And how much effort is it for us to go and add our files to their site? I'm just having a bad experience with Fotoarabia, who don't seem to be there to pay me now that I've got to payout.  I sent hundreds of files to Cutcaster when they came asking us to support their exciting new site, and I've not seen a penny back from that effort. 
So what's the incredible draw to bring buyers in that will mark this out as being different from all the others, rather than just another site looking for a few crumbs from the big boys' table? And what's the attraction for photographers etc to persuade them to waste devote their time to uploading?

If anything the small players/startups are declining faster for me than the bigger sites. Cutcaster, Yay, Graphic Leftovers, Feature Pics haven't produced sales for months and are so far down my priority list that I doubt I will get round to uploading there ever again but even so I doubt I would prioritize an additional site. It would be great to see a start up break into the market but they need innovation and technical excellence.

Here we go again!

Blah-Blah-Blah.... AKA "Nothing ground-braking - Nothing exciting... We Just want your pictures to gamble"

Being there - Done that...

The site shows the how many times individual images are downloaded. Perfect for the copy cats of the world to steal your ideas.

Customers have no benefit from download numbers, because the files could have thousands of downloads on other agencies, even if it shows as zero downloads on your site.

This is why visible download numbers have been removed on most agencies and macrostock never had it anyway.

it just leads to endless copies and duplications in the collection.

I can�t see anything interesting or new from a buyers perspective.

Why should I buy from your place?

I am in for 3 months and by now Lifeographies is on 5th position by monthly revenue, in my 10 top, above 123RF, Bigstock or Depositphotos.

I am wondering why nobody is mentioning the poor quality of the images... or am I wrong?