Author Topic: LuckyOliver Enters Midstock Market - Allows Some Photos to Be Custom Priced (Read 24141 times)

fotografer · « **Reply #25 on:** April 21, 2007, 01:54 »

Or how about every 5 comments gets 1 entry into the sideshow...........but 100 dl's, is a bit of a slap down to the vast majority of contributors, really Bryan.
[/quote]

Whatever you do, don't do that or we will be back to the IS rating gang senario. Unless of course the ratings come from buyers.

Karimala · « **Reply #26 on:** April 21, 2007, 02:01 »

Quote from: StockManiac on April 20, 2007, 14:09

Only a handful of artists have over 100 downloads. And those artists are probably already onboard. For example, Karen Lau (aka karimala) is listed as the #50 Top Photographer, but only has 50 downloads.

Um...a little off topic here, but where does it say that I have 50 downloads? That's not right, so if there is a problem with my stats, I'd like to let LO know about it. And would you mind not posting my personal stats on public forums please? Thank you.

Back to the topic...

I'm planning on participating in the program as soon as I hit 100 DLs. I agree with Leaf 100% when he said

Quote

Charging 1 token will keep the sideshow a little more exclusive and make people think about what they stick in there.

Consciencious selection is what will make the section stand out from other sites, like 123RF, where contributors can add whatever they want to their "favorites" without much thought, extra compensation, or a real investment of any kind. The section will become one for serious buyers only, and that's a great thing.

maunger · « **Reply #27 on:** April 21, 2007, 05:35 »

Quote from: Karimala on April 21, 2007, 02:01

Quote from: StockManiac on April 20, 2007, 14:09

Only a handful of artists have over 100 downloads. And those artists are probably already onboard. For example, Karen Lau (aka karimala) is listed as the #50 Top Photographer, but only has 50 downloads.

Um...a little off topic here, but where does it say that I have 50 downloads? That's not right, so if there is a problem with my stats, I'd like to let LO know about it. And would you mind not posting my personal stats on public forums please? Thank you.

LO has a page that i don't think many people view - the sitemap - which shows some interesting stuff.
http://www.luckyoliver.com/sitemap

You're listed at the bottom of the "top photographers" list - i don't know if there are 50 in the list or not i didn't count. It also doesn't show your total downloads anywhere that i know of so i'm not sure where he decided you had 50.

thesentinel · « **Reply #28 on:** April 21, 2007, 05:44 »

If I was a designer and found that an image, for example, of some horses on the 'pasture' was 40 tokens / dollars on LO was readily available elsewhere using the same user name for about one sixth of the price and at a larger size to boot, I know where I'd buy.

Unless LO forces some exclusivity on these images surely such comparisons will surely damage, not enhance, their reputation. Midstock could be seen as Ripoffstock.

I see this ubiquity of image availability as the main reason why a 'midstock' pricing will have difficulty in taking off, if you want to charge a premium on your images you must control their availability. Uploading everywhere whilst also trying to up your prices ... just seems, to coin a daft phrase, like having your cake and eating it.

leaf · « **Reply #29 on:** April 21, 2007, 05:48 »

I think it is up to the photographer to price their images wisely. If you think you can price your images at 40 tokens/dollars when images elsewhere are listed at $2.00 you may be waiting a while for a sale.

If the photographer lists their image as exclusive then perhaps $40 is an allright price to try for.

My images aren't exclusive and I have priced them in the sideshow at 5 tokens. It seems others have set prices between 2-4.

Eco · « **Reply #30 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:23 »

Just a comment. The list of top 50 photographers on LO is merely based on the number of images online and not based on downloads or any other measure of their success there.

Regarding the LO SideShow feature, I am also one of the fortunate ones with more than 100 downloads and thus legible to add images to the SideShow. I do, however, have a problem deciding on the pricing. If I change the token price from 1 credit to 2 for a blog size image all the other prices change as well. My biggest concern is the price of the EL license which changes from 50 credits to 200 credits. If you change the credits of a blog size image to 3 the EL license go up to a whopping 450 credits. It will be very nice to sell an EL license at that price, but I doubt if you will sell many (if any) at that price. The Sideshow feature will definitely improve your exposure to potential clients, but as leaf said; if the prices are too high buyers may go elsewhere. I am seriously considering changing my prices back to the original 1 credit and only utilize the increased exposure of the SideShow feature. A possible solution is to allow the pricing of normal downloads to be changed independantly of the price of the EL-licence. What do you think?

thesentinel · « **Reply #31 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:29 »

Indeed it's up to the photographer, but that image is available on at least 4 of the top 6 sites at very much lower prices, and as a result it's Lucky Oliver as an agency that looks way too pricey rather than the photographer.

Quote from: leaf on April 21, 2007, 05:48

I think it is up to the photographer to price their images wisely. If you think you can price your images at 40 tokens/dollars when images elsewhere are listed at $2.00 you may be waiting a while for a sale.

If the photographer lists their image as exclusive then perhaps $40 is an allright price to try for.

StockManiac · « **Reply #32 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:08 »

Quote from: Karimala on April 21, 2007, 02:01

Quote from: StockManiac on April 20, 2007, 14:09

Only a handful of artists have over 100 downloads. And those artists are probably already onboard. For example, Karen Lau (aka karimala) is listed as the #50 Top Photographer, but only has 50 downloads.

Um...a little off topic here, but where does it say that I have 50 downloads? That's not right, so if there is a problem with my stats, I'd like to let LO know about it.

Everyone's stats are readily available on the site. All you need to do is look at someone's portfolio and take the time to add up all of the downloads. Almost every microsite lists the # of downloads someone has.

You are correct, my math was bad. It should have added up to about 40. I will correct the post above. I have also removed your name/monicker from the thread. Sorry to drag you into this.

My point was that even artists listed in the Top 50 Photographers on the site don't even come close to being able to participate in this new feature.

maunger · « **Reply #33 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:22 »

Quote from: thesentinel on April 21, 2007, 05:44

If I was a designer and found that an image, for example, of some horses on the 'pasture' was 40 tokens / dollars on LO was readily available elsewhere using the same user name for about one sixth of the price and at a larger size to boot, I know where I'd buy.

Unless LO forces some exclusivity on these images surely such comparisons will surely damage, not enhance, their reputation. Midstock could be seen as Ripoffstock.

I see this ubiquity of image availability as the main reason why a 'midstock' pricing will have difficulty in taking off, if you want to charge a premium on your images you must control their availability. Uploading everywhere whilst also trying to up your prices ... just seems, to coin a daft phrase, like having your cake and eating it.

There may be a few buyers who take the time to 'shop' the different sites... however most people i've ever seen comment on the subject who are designers/buyers say that they don't have time to 'shop' - if they find an image that fits their needs, they will buy it and move on.

It seems to me that this market is huge - there are lots of places to find images and I expect that the true number of buyers actually know all of the "top" sites and spend the time to shop around. I'd be willing to bet (not that we have a way to prove this) but I suspect that the number of people who buy images from microstock who actually visit more than 1 or 2 sites to buy is probably less than 10%. This market is FAR from saturated.

If i were eligible to be in the sideshow, I would probably initially leave the prices as they were - just hoping to get the additional exposure and additional purchases. Now, if i were a high flyer, that might be different, but for now, i just want more sales at the same prices.

Karimala · « **Reply #34 on:** April 21, 2007, 08:51 »

Quote from: Eco on April 21, 2007, 06:23

Just a comment. The list of top 50 photographers on LO is merely based on the number of images online and not based on downloads or any other measure of their success there.

Exactly. That's why I wasn't so thrilled when I saw my stats posted. Just because I have the 50th largest portolio sure doesn't mean I have the 50th highest amount of sales. My portfolio is just so-so and could use a lot of improved and cleaning up. But there are a lot of photogs with smaller higher quality portfolios who do have 100+ DLs.

Quote from: StockManiac on April 21, 2007, 07:08

Everyone's stats are readily available on the site. All you need to do is look at someone's portfolio and take the time to add up all of the downloads. Almost every microsite lists the # of downloads someone has.

That's kinda what I figured. Thanks for letting me know. There are some stats that are a bit screwy at the moment that I'll let Bryan know about, so I wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something else. Also...even though everyone's stats are available on various sites, only members can view them. That isn't the case on public forums, where the whole world can view them. Food for thought.

leaf · « **Reply #35 on:** April 21, 2007, 10:43 »

Quote from: Karimala on April 21, 2007, 08:51

Also...even though everyone's stats are available on various sites, only members can view them. That isn't the case on public forums, where the whole world can view them. Food for thought.

actually stats are viewable to everyone - on dreamstime anyhow, and i am pretty sure on most, if not all the other sites as well (that show stats)

my portfolio

log out of dreamstime and click on the link i posted there, you can see exactly how many sales i have had, or anyone else.

StockManiac · « **Reply #36 on:** April 21, 2007, 13:42 »

Quote from: Karimala on April 21, 2007, 08:51

Quote from: StockManiac on April 21, 2007, 07:08

Everyone's stats are readily available on the site. All you need to do is look at someone's portfolio and take the time to add up all of the downloads. Almost every microsite lists the # of downloads someone has.

Also...even though everyone's stats are available on various sites, only members can view them. That isn't the case on public forums, where the whole world can view them. Food for thought.

Sorry, but as leaf pointed out, that just isn't correct.

If I go to IS and check your portfolio, I can see how many uploads you have, how many downloads you have, how many ratings you have, etc. I can even see where you are located, what your business name is, and when you joined IS.

Most of the other sites contain similar info.

That is all searchable via Google, so the whole world could find those stats very easily.

CJPhoto · « **Reply #37 on:** April 21, 2007, 17:39 »

I am a bit late to the party but here is my view.

I see this as good advertising for you own photos so I would participate if I could. However, I dont think their buyer market is mature enough yet and may balk at paying higher prices.

bryan_luckyoliver · « **Reply #38 on:** April 21, 2007, 18:02 »

Hi guys- the discussion is great.

What we're doing is a bit of trail blazing- I understand that there is potential backlash, but we think there is an opportunity to make in-roads into an area that has been difficult to tap. Microstock as a whole is going to face change- the same change that traditional stock photographers faced when microstock entered into the market.

Midstock, like microstock, is less about a price point and more about how things are done. Longtail customers (people who buy one or two images a year) will pay a premium for the right type of image. They are not going to surf the web extensively to find the "right" price. For a shot of a dog, micro-type pricing is fine, but if you have a macro shot of a rare enzyme higher pricing won't change sales.

thesentinel says, "I see this ubiquity of image availability as the main reason why a 'midstock' pricing will have difficulty in taking off, if you want to charge a premium on your images you must control their availability." Perhaps this might be true, but when the entire web is your market, you'll no longer be able to control the availability like Getty. What if a photo sharing site with 1 billion images decides to sell images? Surely there are a million images that can compete with Getty, but now they have 999 million pages of marketing content.

We'd prefer that images be exclusive, but i think longer term it's about unique content that might get trapped in page 9 of the search results. I think the Sideshow will be good for people with unique content. A great shot of a business man against white may not be the type of image that works- the competition is tough.

The 90 day trial is in place for us to work out the kinks with a select group of artists. I'm sure parts of this will get some tweaks. The 100 download minimum is to keep things in check- many of our artists don't have experience pricing their work- top sellers in our system have some idea of sales. Longer term this barrier will not mean much once our traffic grows.

Thanks for the insights. We're making huge progress each month- thanks for hanging in there with us as we grow.

Void · « **Reply #39 on:** April 21, 2007, 23:03 »

Quote from: maunger on April 20, 2007, 07:59

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on April 20, 2007, 07:29

and for the first time in my short carreer, I'm actually thinking about going exclusive.....

Say it ain't so tom!

I'll have more to say a little later today - but consider the Best Match search on IS - consider being able to actually influence what images appear on the first page - that would be a great advantage to photogs!

if you belong to 123rf you can do it there with the new "faves" feature, check it out if you havent found it already.......

back to the sideshow....
still dont think paying a site to peddle my pictures is a good idea......everyone will be turning their earnings into tokens ....strange strange strange... think i will go buy a lottery ticket.....

CJPhoto · « **Reply #40 on:** April 22, 2007, 03:35 »

If I paid for premium placement, I would still want my image placed in teh normal section. You are actually payng to have your image taken away from the main search. Not good.

leaf · « **Reply #41 on:** April 22, 2007, 03:51 »

Quote from: CJPhoto on April 22, 2007, 03:35

If I paid for premium placement, I would still want my image placed in teh normal section. You are actually payng to have your image taken away from the main search. Not good.

agreed - that is my biggest gripe with the sideshow.

If it works i think the 1 credit price would be worth it. Of course it is impossibel to know if it works because they don't have many buyers yet. remember the commision also goes up to 50% with images in the side show.

leaf · « **Reply #42 on:** April 22, 2007, 03:53 »

Quote from: Eco on April 21, 2007, 06:23

If I change the token price from 1 credit to 2 for a blog size image all the other prices change as well. My biggest concern is the price of the EL license which changes from 50 credits to 200 credits. If you change the credits of a blog size image to 3 the EL license go up to a whopping 450 credits.

i think it was a programming error. I wrote to LO yesteray about it and it has been fixed to what would seem logical.
A credit setting of 3 gives an extended license price of 150 credits now.

madelaide · « **Reply #43 on:** April 22, 2007, 15:09 »

Quote from: CJPhoto on April 22, 2007, 03:35

If I paid for premium placement, I would still want my image placed in the normal section. You are actually payng to have your image taken away from the main search. Not good.

Perhaps a good compromise would be showing some of the special images in a separate (but prominent) area of the results page, with some attracting caption such as "check also these images from LO's special reserve". Or show them with some special sign so the buyer knows it's one of the specials.

I agree they must show in the search, otherwise they lose visibility.

Regards,
Adelaide

maunger · « **Reply #44 on:** April 22, 2007, 19:55 »

We may find thru experience that the way it works now may need to change, but, it is currently working like google adwords does and the images that match the search criteria are appearing in both the main section as well as the sideshow but they only appear once in either spot. I think it would be perceived as really strange results if duplicate images appear in both the main result area and the sideshow area.

Quote from: madelaide on April 22, 2007, 15:09

Perhaps a good compromise would be showing some of the special images in a separate (but prominent) area of the results page, with some attracting caption such as "check also these images from LO's special reserve". Or show them with some special sign so the buyer knows it's one of the specials.

I agree they must show in the search, otherwise they lose visibility.

Regards,
Adelaide

I'm confused - because it seems to me that is exactly what the SideShow is doing... the separate area is right there on the right side of the page and right there at the top, there's a logo and stuff for the SideShow... it seems to be exactly as you are suggesting... try this search to see.
http://www.luckyoliver.com/search/lady

my wife says maybe a different background color for the sideshow might help a bit, but it seems to me that they're already highlighted.

Mitch

madelaide · « **Reply #45 on:** April 22, 2007, 23:32 »

Mitch,

I hadn't tried the search myself, I had understood from others that the images were not showing up. I understand now how it works, but it looks like the right column would appear to the buyer as something else, not the search result (unless he finds something that he really likes there). It looks to me that it would be more friendly to have those special images in the search result, not separately, with something highlighting their status, such as a smaller version of the "LuckyO sideshow" logo.

Regards,
Adelaide

leaf · « **Reply #46 on:** April 23, 2007, 01:09 »

Quote from: maunger on April 22, 2007, 19:55

... but, it is currently working like google adwords does and the images that match the search criteria are appearing in both the main section as well as the sideshow but they only appear once in either spot. I think it would be perceived as really strange results if duplicate images appear in both the main result area and the sideshow area.

Mitch

The difference about google adwords is, if you buy an add spot - your link isn't taken out of the regular search results. Do a search for shutterstock for example in google. Shutterstock comes up in the google adwords (in the featured section no less) as well as coming up in the regular search results.

so the difference is.
With google adwords your link stays in the search results.
with lukcy oliver your image is taken out of the regular search results.

i know i have said this before, but since this is the point of this post I will say it again

I think it would be very nice to have the image in both areas. The sideshow area and regular search results.

maunger · « **Reply #47 on:** April 23, 2007, 05:01 »

Quote from: leaf on April 23, 2007, 01:09

The difference about google adwords is, if you buy an add spot - your link isn't taken out of the regular search results. Do a search for shutterstock for example in google. Shutterstock comes up in the google adwords (in the featured section no less) as well as coming up in the regular search results.

so the difference is.
With google adwords your link stays in the search results.
with lukcy oliver your image is taken out of the regular search results.

i know i have said this before, but since this is the point of this post I will say it again
I think it would be very nice to have the image in both areas. The sideshow area and regular search results.

I'm really just exploring this issue with the rest of y'all so please don't think i'm trying to argue about this... it is all new and an interesting concept so i'm trying to understand how it will work out as well. Good discussion.

I've thought of that Leaf, but shutterstock doesn't put in their ad in google's adwords to catch those people who put in the search term of 'shutterstock' - the put in their ad with a ton of different search terms hoping to get those people who are searching for something other than their name where google won't be putting their site at the top of the first page of the list of results. The point of adwords is to get your site into searches and get your site traffic in places where it normally wouldn't be seen... and that's part of the point of sideshow, but the sideshow also includes special options for pricing (which adwords doesn't have).

I agree that using adwords to get your site noticed doesn't remove you from the search results, but i think that in this case, we're talking about getting your site noticed when the search results may be in the hundreds of thousands or millions and the odds are your site isn't gonna be in the top 30. Adwords also works a bit differently than the sideshow in that you get to specify search terms that may not be 100% match to what you're trying to sell. Whereas the sideshow doesn't really let you pick the search terms.

I was more thinking of adwords for its precedence of putting special results on the right side of the page which is what the sideshow is doing.

So i'm still not thinking that images should be appearing in both spaces on LO (but i'm trying to think of places where it would make sense - i'm not closed on this idea

CJPhoto · « **Reply #48 on:** April 23, 2007, 05:38 »

Quote from: maunger on April 23, 2007, 05:01

So i'm still not thinking that images should be appearing in both spaces on LO (but i'm trying to think of places where it would make sense - i'm not closed on this idea

But what if your image would have been on the front page of the normal photos but is relegated to the second page of the slide shot images (for "business" etc this may happen a lot).

jacus · « **Reply #49 on:** April 23, 2007, 06:13 »

I really don’t like the idea to have to pay to sell more photos. Like a majority of us, I have only very few ( 8 ) downloads on LO what is nothing compared to downloads on IS, SS, DT, FT. I still upload on LO because I found this site “contributors friendly”. Now it’s a little bit different. I think that a big part of us is in microstock not only for the money. There’s also a part of competition, creativity, marketing ideas, chance (be in a good place in a good time), photo and post-processing technique, and simply pleasure … Better photographs and better keywording are the right rules for this “sport”. Money that we earn is some kind of measure how good we are. If we pay to sell more this measure will be false.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: LuckyOliver Enters Midstock Market - Allows Some Photos to Be Custom Priced (Read 24141 times)

fotografer

Karimala

maunger

thesentinel

leaf

Eco

thesentinel

StockManiac

maunger

Karimala

leaf

StockManiac

CJPhoto

bryan_luckyoliver

Void

CJPhoto

leaf

leaf

madelaide

maunger

madelaide

leaf

maunger

CJPhoto

jacus

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors