Author Topic: My stategy for making money off new microstock sites... (Read 9068 times)

eppic · « **on:** November 11, 2009, 11:30 »

This is just a humourous musing, but something to think about:
With a new site seeming to pop up every week, I think the money to be made with these new sites is to register as many domains as possible with the word "photo" or "stock"in it and then just squat on those domains so you can sell the new upstarts the domain they want for a profit.
At 2.99 per .com domain you can get a pretty exhaustive list registered without breaking the bank.

nruboc · « **Reply #1 on:** November 11, 2009, 11:38 »

That is, until they start picking name like Lucky Oliver.

Perry · « **Reply #2 on:** November 11, 2009, 12:37 »

Quote from: eppic on November 11, 2009, 11:30

This is just a humourous musing, but something to think about:
With a new site seeming to pop up every week, I think the money to be made with these new sites is to register as many domains as possible with the word "photo" or "stock"in it and then just squat on those domains so you can sell the new upstarts the domain they want for a profit.

You are at least 10 years too late with your idea...

Quote from: nruboc on November 11, 2009, 11:38

That is, until they start picking name like Lucky Oliver.

Or Dreamstime....

eppic · « **Reply #3 on:** November 11, 2009, 13:01 »

Admittedly the timing is abit off and sites like "Cutcaster" are, well how does one think ahead for names like that.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #4 on:** November 11, 2009, 13:11 »

Quote from: eppic on November 11, 2009, 13:01

Admittedly the timing is abit off and sites like "Cutcaster" are, well how does one think ahead for names like that.

Or "Cluster...." whatever???

stockastic · « **Reply #5 on:** November 11, 2009, 16:17 »

If they were publicly held companies we could make money by shorting their stock, and that's about it.

Kone · « **Reply #6 on:** November 11, 2009, 19:26 »

Quote from: eppic on November 11, 2009, 11:30

This is just a humourous musing, but something to think about:
With a new site seeming to pop up every week, I think the money to be made with these new sites is to register as many domains as possible with the word "photo" or "stock"in it and then just squat on those domains so you can sell the new upstarts the domain they want for a profit.
At 2.99 per .com domain you can get a pretty exhaustive list registered without breaking the bank.

You are too late with your idea
There are people making businesses of it
But on the other hand, microstock agencies are too cheep and I don't think they will pay more than $2.99 for domain

Just my 2 cents

Kone

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #7 on:** November 11, 2009, 19:53 »

I would think the easiest way to make money on new sites is to use the time you would use uploading and checking for wishful downloads to flip burgers somewhere. Think of it, guaranteed money. Easily more than you would make on most new sites. I should get a finders fee just for coming up with the idea.

vonkara · « **Reply #8 on:** November 11, 2009, 21:32 »

I take Dreamtime.com Stockphoto.com Shuterstock.com Photolia.com

I think those will come up in the search easily

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #9 on:** November 11, 2009, 21:59 »

Are we trying to start a Fantasy Photography League?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #10 on:** December 01, 2009, 22:07 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on November 11, 2009, 21:59

Are we trying to start a Fantasy Photography League?

OK I'll take "microstock-group.com" which doesn't exist.

My sales site will be "CrapStock" where only exclusive photos are license for $1 (pay 33c to artist) may not be hosted anywhere else, and are required to have proof of being rejected at, at least one of the big seven sites. I keep reading how rejects are best sellers, I want a piece of that!

eppic · « **Reply #11 on:** December 02, 2009, 05:42 »

Quote

My sales site will be "CrapStock" where only exclusive photos are license for $1 (pay 33c to artist) may not be hosted anywhere else, and are required to have proof of being rejected at, at least one of the big seven sites. I keep reading how rejects are best sellers, I want a piece of that!

LOL! Or we could begin an image database where image ranking is based upon how many times a given image was rejected by one of the "big 6"; the more it was rejected, the higher the ranking!