New Site: YAYMicro - Page 4

helix7 · #31 (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharpshot

There is 56,000 in the istock queue. I think they haven't implemented FTP to keep the queue manageable. They should just get more reviewers and perhaps the new owners will push them on this.

Why would they? What's the motivation? If the current system deters some people from uploading there, what's so bad about that (from istock's perspective)? Exclusives will always upload, since that's the only place they need to upload to, and if the system turns some non-exclusives off from uploading there, so what? They don't need more images. What difference will it make to their bottom line if they have 4 million instead of 3 million images?

I'm not saying that I'd agree with the policy, just that I can see why istock wouldn't be jumping all over this. The upload system may suck, changing it wouldn't really make them much more money, and they know it.

louoates · #32 (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helix7

Why would they? What's the motivation? If the current system deters some people from uploading there, what's so bad about that (from istock's perspective)? Exclusives will always upload, since that's the only place they need to upload to, and if the system turns some non-exclusives off from uploading there, so what? They don't need more images. What difference will it make to their bottom line if they have 4 million instead of 3 million images?

I'm not saying that I'd agree with the policy, just that I can see why istock wouldn't be jumping all over this. The upload system may suck, changing it wouldn't really make them much more money, and they know it.

My rant of the day:
Let's face it. Istock's uploading is the worst of the bunch IMHO. Slow. Slow. Slow. Any company that doesn't improve over time will suffer. Especially in the face of superior technology. I'll repeat what I've said before in these forums. You just can't ignore better ways of dealing with your customers. It's fatal in a competitive market. You can get away with old systems just so long. Sooner or later the faster gun comes along. Happens every time.

RacePhoto · #33 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helix7

Why would they? What's the motivation? If the current system deters some people from uploading there, what's so bad about that (from istock's perspective)?

The upload system may suck, changing it wouldn't really make them much more money, and they know it.

The coding cost to implement ftp uploading is minimal? What if it was only for exclusives? That would be an inducement for people to go exclusive.

Yes turning away uploads does hurt them. Every new image is a potential sale to a customer. Just like a store, the merchandise has to be there, for the buyer, or you missed a sale.

Increasing the inventory by 33% from 3 to 4 million means they have the potential to sell one million more photos to customers. You assume that adding 1 million junk photos changes nothing, I'd agree if that was true.

Discouraging people and restricting uploads is costing them money, and will cost them more as time goes by. Spin it any way you want, basic business principles say that iStock is losing by having less product and by constricting the flow of new materials into the marketplace.

thesupe87 · #34 (**permalink**) 08-28-2008, 07:16 PM

I finally sold my second image since June. First was 5 euros, this one was only 1 Euro (sub sale I guess). Oh so sloooooooow...why do I continue to upload?

sharpshot · #35 (**permalink**) 08-28-2008, 11:15 PM

Why stop? It is a well designed site with an easy upload procedure and they haven't started marketing yet. Might as well give them a year and see what they can do.

thesupe87 · #36 (**permalink**) 08-29-2008, 04:05 AM

Yeah, that's what I figure. Pushing through my images there is about as easy as MostPhotos is. I'm willing to give it a year or so before I halt the new uploads. I really like the design and hope they succeed - but hopefully Yay isn't another Lucky Oliver. I hope they've got their ducks in a row, and the marketing budget to push the site into the competitive market of microstock. It takes spending a decent amount of money on advertising to make money with this type of business, especially when there are already so many microstock sites out there now.

louoates · #37 (**permalink**) 08-29-2008, 10:41 PM

They are looking to do "non-traditional" marketing, ala Unlucky Oliver. They admit they are not into "spending lots of cash". That's warning #1. I think micro is beyond the do-it-on-a-shoestring stage. If you can't spend with the big boys I think all you'll get is a bloody nose.

Warning #2 is their non-communication on their blog beyond this recent quote: "It also takes time to find the right channels for advertising that gives the best return on investment."

My take is that if they haven't figured out some channels by now I'll also wait to download until they do, measured by site traffic and sales of my existing images there. Very bleak outlook so far. I still wish them well. It's a nice looking site with great uploading.

sharpshot · #38 (**permalink**) 08-30-2008, 07:54 AM

Lucky Oliver got it wrong but they were not that far behind crestock, who have spent a fortune on advertising. Both those sites have made some obvious mistakes. Perhaps the people behind yaymicro will be more business savvy?

StraightShooter · #39 (**permalink**) 09-07-2008, 05:16 AM

Hmmmm... You can use websites like Alexa to track their daily traffic. If they were advertisting as promised I think you would see the numbers pick up. It does not look to me that they are advertising yet in September. If not now - when?

louoates · #40 (**permalink**) 09-07-2008, 06:42 AM

Hey, where do they say they were going to "advertise"? Their MARKETING is supposed to start soon. They say they're into non-traditional marketing and "not spending a lot of cash". Can you read "Lucky Oliver" between the lines? I expect a very slow beginning to this site.