MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "Are you iStuck, time to switch to Bigstock.......  (Read 15620 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Microbius

« on: July 11, 2011, 13:55 »
0
.....Great images. No Surprises."

New Bigstock ad in design mags. It's a black background with the text above. Thoughts?


« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2011, 14:02 »
0
Haven't seen the ad, but it strikes me as very smart.

If it's true that designers are bailing on iStock in droves, rather than just spending less on micro in general, then the other agencies should be battling it out for those customers.

It's generally taboo to be calling out your competitor by name in an ad, but this is a unique case of much of the market being fed up with one company in particular.  The opportunity is there for someone else to swoop in and lure those frustrated buyers.

But the question I have is... why  BigStock and not Shutterstock?  Granted, I'd rather get a lot more .50 commissions than .38 commissions, but if I were SS management, I'd think that SS would have a better shot at getting these people than BigStock.  Maybe they figure those angry iStock buyers already knew about SS and made their choice to go with iStock over SS long ago, and BigStock might be less known to them and therefore a greater opportunity?

« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2011, 14:12 »
0

« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2011, 14:18 »
0
Here's the ad: http://www.bigstockphoto.com/blog/thedownload/2011/07/are-you-istuck-its-time-to-switch/


LOL I wonder where is the limit? but I am sure they know what they are doing.. the true is that you cannot say an agency is DEAD or you will get kicked out  ;D

« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2011, 14:26 »
0
...But the question I have is... why  BigStock and not Shutterstock?  ...

I would think that the issue of buying a monthly/yearly subscription is one of those things you're either up for or not. If you like that way of buying images, you're probably already using SS. If not, why fight with the customer over switching models? Just let them switch agencies.

It may also be that if things backfire and buyers don't go for ads that directly target (and indirectly name) the big dog, they haven't tarnished their premium brand.

All just guesses. At least they didn't hire the flakes who did FT's recent ad campaign :)

rubyroo

« Reply #5 on: July 11, 2011, 14:32 »
0
iStock's challenge to SS = Thinkstock.
SS's challenge to iStock = Bigstock.

That's my guess.

With the 'Bridge to Bigstock' programme, they must have been able to rapidly expand their offerings with all the ex-exclusives ports, and with a faster increase of images from all the top independents.

lisafx

« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2011, 14:39 »
0
Great ad!  No coincidence that they also introduced direct (credit-less) pricing just prior to launching this ad campaign.  It makes the process of buying easy, and crystal clear as to cost. 

Very smart strategy!  Hope it is a huge success for them :)

« Reply #7 on: July 11, 2011, 14:40 »
0
 ;D

« Reply #8 on: July 11, 2011, 14:54 »
0
It's interesting that SS sees pricing confusion as iStock's Achilles' heel. If anyone knows what the market is thinking it is SS.

« Reply #9 on: July 11, 2011, 16:03 »
0
.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 03:22 by Microstock Posts »

« Reply #10 on: July 11, 2011, 16:07 »
0
I love it! I too hope they are successful at this.

« Reply #11 on: July 11, 2011, 16:09 »
0
Is it allowed to do such a clear - and demeaning - reference to a competitor?

« Reply #12 on: July 11, 2011, 16:19 »
0
"Weve noticed over the past year that creatives are increasingly frustrated with the lack of transparency from many stock agencies. Confusing credit packages and erratic price increases are just two issues that leave many designers scratching their heads. "

I don't see this ad addressing any pricing issues at all.  Obviously, the only word they thought they could make from iStock is "iStuck", which doesn't make much sense.  If you're actually stuck at IS because of company issues, an ad like this won't change anything.

« Reply #13 on: July 11, 2011, 16:22 »
0
Is it allowed to do such a clear - and demeaning - reference to a competitor?


Not in Denmark I think, but I've seen many examples in America..

Vivozoom is doing something similar:
http://www.vivozoom.com/

"At least 40% cheaper than iStockPhoto"

And here's an IS/Vivozoom price comparison chart:

http://www.vivozoom.com/pricing.html

« Reply #14 on: July 11, 2011, 18:31 »
0
"Weve noticed over the past year that creatives are increasingly frustrated with the lack of transparency from many stock agencies. Confusing credit packages and erratic price increases are just two issues that leave many designers scratching their heads. "

I don't see this ad addressing any pricing issues at all.  Obviously, the only word they thought they could make from iStock is "iStuck", which doesn't make much sense.  If you're actually stuck at IS because of company issues, an ad like this won't change anything.

Well, they probably actually wanted to use iSuck, but that could be a legal issue.  :D 

WarrenPrice

« Reply #15 on: July 11, 2011, 18:40 »
0
"Weve noticed over the past year that creatives are increasingly frustrated with the lack of transparency from many stock agencies. Confusing credit packages and erratic price increases are just two issues that leave many designers scratching their heads. "

I don't see this ad addressing any pricing issues at all.  Obviously, the only word they thought they could make from iStock is "iStuck", which doesn't make much sense.  If you're actually stuck at IS because of company issues, an ad like this won't change anything.

Well, they probably actually wanted to use iSuck, but that could be a legal issue.  :D 

RFLMAO ... now that was funny ... I don't care who you are.  LOL

« Reply #16 on: July 11, 2011, 19:02 »
0
"Weve noticed over the past year that creatives are increasingly frustrated with the lack of transparency from many stock agencies. Confusing credit packages and erratic price increases are just two issues that leave many designers scratching their heads. "

I don't see this ad addressing any pricing issues at all.  Obviously, the only word they thought they could make from iStock is "iStuck", which doesn't make much sense.  If you're actually stuck at IS because of company issues, an ad like this won't change anything.

Well, they probably actually wanted to use iSuck, but that could be a legal issue.  :D 

beat me to it :)
I was going to mention the "silent T"

« Reply #17 on: July 11, 2011, 19:26 »
0
I'm sure that 3rd graders aren't their target audience which is why they likely avoided that.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #18 on: July 11, 2011, 19:54 »
0
I'm sure that 3rd graders aren't their target audience which is why they likely avoided that.

Com'n Sean, you know that was funny.  :-)

jbarber873

« Reply #19 on: July 11, 2011, 20:56 »
0
   AT the risk of actually agreeing with sjlocke, i don't see this ad as being very effective. Although the copy on the blog mentions transparency and credit packages, the actual ad is just a play on the name istock, without a compelling point to make. We are all so caught up in the details of the microstock world that any veiled reference to the last years' events at istock pushes all the right buttons with us, but for the average buyer, that may not be the case. With the absurd page rates at most of the design magazines, it's not a good idea to be too "inside baseball", at least that's my take on it. If Bigstock's pricing is transparent and easy to understand, then say it, don't dance around it. In this ad, "istuck" just comes across as being petty.

« Reply #20 on: July 11, 2011, 21:53 »
0
Well, it doesn't actually matter what any of us think...the only thing that matters is they draw in buyers. I guess we'll see whether it's third grade mentality or not.

lagereek

« Reply #21 on: July 11, 2011, 23:24 »
0
Any advertising is good advertising.

« Reply #22 on: July 12, 2011, 00:53 »
0
Whatever. My sales there yesterday were the best for ages so perhaps it is working.

I thought "confusing credit packages and erratic price increases" was equivalent to "pricing issues", I'm not sure what else it can be summed up as.

« Reply #23 on: July 12, 2011, 00:56 »
0
Any advertising is good advertising.

Like this for example of advertising backfiring. ;D http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8620102.stm

« Reply #24 on: July 12, 2011, 01:43 »
0
They could try to counter with... Others pretend to be Big in Stock, but there's only one name to remember and that's isignStock.

Sorry, I couldn't bring myself to type it, hence the replacement  ;D

Microbius

« Reply #25 on: July 12, 2011, 02:24 »
0
Is it allowed to do such a clear - and demeaning - reference to a competitor?

I saw it a magazine in the UK and was quite surprised by how direct it was.  I have seen it in US ads before, I remember how shocked I as many years ago when Sega and Nintendo were at each others throats with their ads!

eggshell

« Reply #26 on: July 12, 2011, 05:22 »
0
This kind of ad campaign is more suited for competitors from the same level - it makes me think of the Audi-BMW ad war . Coming from an agency that barely sales anything it looks kind of lame . Btw I'm sure Bigstock is costing more money than it brings to SS

helix7

« Reply #27 on: July 12, 2011, 08:16 »
0
Brilliant. Love the ad.

And it's long overdue. I've been hoping for a long time that companies would start to take on istock's ridiculous pricing scheme. The "Great images. No surprises." tagline is makes that point nicely. People frustrated with looking for images at istock that don't end up costing hundreds of dollars will get it.

« Reply #28 on: July 12, 2011, 08:33 »
0
The "Great images. No surprises." tagline is makes that point nicely. People frustrated with looking for images at istock that don't end up costing hundreds of dollars will get it.

Sorry, I don't associate that tagline with pricing at all.  I'd associate it more with being able to use content without something coming back to bite you, like model releases or poor quality images.

helix7

« Reply #29 on: July 12, 2011, 08:53 »
0
The "Great images. No surprises." tagline is makes that point nicely. People frustrated with looking for images at istock that don't end up costing hundreds of dollars will get it.

Sorry, I don't associate that tagline with pricing at all.  I'd associate it more with being able to use content without something coming back to bite you, like model releases or poor quality images.

I often hear from buyers that they are surprised to find an image they want to use doesn't cost $10-$20 like they used to, and even more surprised to see such a huge range of prices at istock. I've never heard of issues with usage problems.

Maybe the buyers I talk to are not the norm, but somehow I think they are pretty average users who have common experiences with istock.

« Reply #30 on: July 12, 2011, 09:00 »
0
I associate it with pricing.

« Reply #31 on: July 12, 2011, 09:02 »
0
I often hear from buyers that they are surprised to find an image they want to use doesn't cost $10-$20 like they used to, and even more surprised to see such a huge range of prices at istock.

Guess that's like when I go to get gas and am surprised to see it at $3.57 instead of $3.39 like yesterday.

Ok, I get it.  I still don't think the copy works with the tagline to get their point across.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2011, 09:06 by sjlocke »

« Reply #32 on: July 12, 2011, 09:19 »
0
They should have said "Are you iSick of iSuck?"  :D

Microbius

« Reply #33 on: July 12, 2011, 09:20 »
0
I thought it was to do with the complexity of the pricing structure too.

« Reply #34 on: July 12, 2011, 10:05 »
0
If I were a buyer and didn't know anything of the history of microstock but just came across the ad, I would interpret "Great images. No surprises." as that site having great images and great pricing. I wouldn't be surprised when I found the image I needed and then saw that it was going to cost $100. Or that I had to buy extra credits that I may or may not use, etc.

I will say that no surprises could mean no bad surprises or no good surprises, so I think it might have said Great images. Only good surprises. or No bad surprises. or something like that.

On the other hand, I do believe a lot of frequent buyers of micro have noticed the happenings at istock and may have been looking around already. In that case, I think they would get the meaning.

lisafx

« Reply #35 on: July 12, 2011, 12:45 »
0
This ad clearly is targeting disaffected Istock buyers.  I think they will get it.  It's subtle, but not that subtle. 

If yesterday's and today's sales are any example it may be having an effect. Not only are sales up at BigStock, but direct (creditless) downloads are way up.  Which might suggest that people are trying them out with one or two sales before committing to a credit package. 

Of course it's to early to know anything for sure.  Just guesswork. 

helix7

« Reply #36 on: July 12, 2011, 12:54 »
0
...If yesterday's and today's sales are any example it may be having an effect. Not only are sales up at BigStock, but direct (creditless) downloads are way up.  Which might suggest that people are trying them out with one or two sales before committing to a credit package.  

Of course it's to early to know anything for sure.  Just guesswork.  

Yesterday was definitely up for me. Although it's tough to say it's because of the ad just yet.

Historically Bigstock hasn't really given me much to get excited about. But lately, I'm liking what I see. I've been hoping for a company to take on istock's pricing, and Bigstock is doing it. They're pushing their simple pricing model, which I've also been hoping to see more of from all microstock companies. I'm a big fan of simple pricing structures, credit=dollar packages, etc. The new advertising is great. And it looks very professional, unlike Shutterstock's ads.

And as silly as it may seem, I really liked that video they released to announce the pricing and express the overall tone of what they're doing over there.

Time will tell, but right now I'm more optimistic about Bigstock than I've ever been.

« Reply #37 on: July 12, 2011, 14:31 »
0
If I were a buyer and didn't know anything of the history of microstock but just came across the ad, I would interpret "Great images. No surprises." as that site having great images and great pricing. I wouldn't be surprised when I found the image I needed and then saw that it was going to cost $100. Or that I had to buy extra credits that I may or may not use, etc.

I will say that no surprises could mean no bad surprises or no good surprises, so I think it might have said Great images. Only good surprises. or No bad surprises. or something like that.

On the other hand, I do believe a lot of frequent buyers of micro have noticed the happenings at istock and may have been looking around already. In that case, I think they would get the meaning.

If you were a buyer/potential buyer and didn't know anything of the history of microstock, you would think there was a massive typing in error in the word stuck.

nruboc

« Reply #38 on: July 12, 2011, 14:37 »
0
If I were a buyer and didn't know anything of the history of microstock but just came across the ad, I would interpret "Great images. No surprises." as that site having great images and great pricing. I wouldn't be surprised when I found the image I needed and then saw that it was going to cost $100. Or that I had to buy extra credits that I may or may not use, etc.

I will say that no surprises could mean no bad surprises or no good surprises, so I think it might have said Great images. Only good surprises. or No bad surprises. or something like that.

On the other hand, I do believe a lot of frequent buyers of micro have noticed the happenings at istock and may have been looking around already. In that case, I think they would get the meaning.

If you were a buyer/potential buyer and didn't know anything of the history of microstock, you would think there was a massive typing in error in the word stuck.

Maybe if you were a technology averse buyer who just learned about the internet you would think it's a typo. Everyone else knows putting "i" in front of words is common practice. There's a small company called Apple thats been making a business out of it.

Love the ad!!!

« Reply #39 on: July 12, 2011, 15:30 »
0
If I were a buyer and didn't know anything of the history of microstock but just came across the ad, I would interpret "Great images. No surprises." as that site having great images and great pricing. I wouldn't be surprised when I found the image I needed and then saw that it was going to cost $100. Or that I had to buy extra credits that I may or may not use, etc.

I will say that no surprises could mean no bad surprises or no good surprises, so I think it might have said Great images. Only good surprises. or No bad surprises. or something like that.

On the other hand, I do believe a lot of frequent buyers of micro have noticed the happenings at istock and may have been looking around already. In that case, I think they would get the meaning.

If you were a buyer/potential buyer and didn't know anything of the history of microstock, you would think there was a massive typing in error in the word stuck.

Maybe if you were a technology averse buyer who just learned about the internet you would think it's a typo. Everyone else knows putting "i" in front of words is common practice. There's a small company called Apple thats been making a business out of it.

Love the ad!!!

Yeah that's why I added potential buyer. The ad. only really caters for those who already know about microstock, if that's what they want then that's fine, but advertising is seen by everyone and not just those who know about the history of a particular industry. The iStuck would be weird to a lot of people, especially if the company being advertised is called Bigstock. A lot of people just won't get it and in that respect it's an opportunity missed.

There is still a massive potential market out there. Most people I meet have never heard of microstock and many people are under the illusion that to buy good quality images is really expensive. With Bigstock introducing pay as you go recently, they must realise that this is a way to get people to start to buy. But they ain't going to start if they don't get the advertising. To a potential customer, "Great images. No surprises", just isn't all that impressive, there is not even a Great image on the advert, just text, they could have thrown in a few thumbnails of Great images. I always find that images work great in advertising, especially for a company that sells images.

Anyway, their objective is to ween away buyers from Istock I guess, maybe they will work on getting other customers later, if they don't already think they are weird.

"The all new iPhone 5. Great Phone. No Surprises!"

lagereek

« Reply #40 on: July 12, 2011, 15:58 »
0
Buyers dont care where they buy, my conclusion is that buyers of micro are no creatives, they just hang around the agency they started with. IS, was the first one and I bet 80% of their buyers are the same ones. Its like going to your local Pub, better going to the one where you know the barman then the one you dont.
Buyers dont give a * just as long as its cheap.

« Reply #41 on: July 12, 2011, 16:02 »
0
Buyers dont care where they buy, my conclusion is that buyers of micro are no creatives, they just hang around the agency they started with. IS, was the first one and I bet 80% of their buyers are the same ones. Its like going to your local Pub, better going to the one where you know the barman then the one you dont.
Buyers dont give a  just as long as its cheap.

I think you know a lot less about buyers than you think you know. :D

lisafx

« Reply #42 on: July 12, 2011, 16:09 »
0

Yeah that's why I added potential buyer. The ad. only really caters for those who already know about microstock, if that's what they want then that's fine, but advertising is seen by everyone and not just those who know about the history of a particular industry.

You are right that they should attempt to tap all potential buyers, but as far as I know, these specific ads are just running in design magazines.  Presumably buyers who are reading professional design magazines are already well aware of this particular industry.

helix7

« Reply #43 on: July 12, 2011, 18:53 »
0
Buyers dont care where they buy, my conclusion is that buyers of micro are no creatives, they just hang around the agency they started with. IS, was the first one and I bet 80% of their buyers are the same ones. Its like going to your local Pub, better going to the one where you know the barman then the one you dont.
Buyers dont give a  just as long as its cheap.

But it isn't cheap at istock anymore. So by that logic buyers could be pushed to look for alternatives.

« Reply #44 on: July 13, 2011, 02:13 »
0
I may just have had my best ever two day run at BS. If a whole month ran at the level of the last two days it would end up at more than double my BME there (which happened a long time ago) and put BS in spitting distance of DT.

PS: The third day was back to the dismal norm. Oh, well....
« Last Edit: July 14, 2011, 01:12 by BaldricksTrousers »

RacePhoto

« Reply #45 on: July 13, 2011, 17:21 »
0
It's interesting that SS sees pricing confusion as iStock's Achilles' heel. If anyone knows what the market is thinking it is SS.

Makes me think that SS is on the top of their game and moving up to keep a top position in the field. I like it!

Maybe some day I'll finally be a SS & Company exclusive.

« Reply #46 on: July 19, 2011, 00:50 »
0
I saw the ad in the latest issue of PRINT. There is an Istock ad on the very next page!  :D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
84 Replies
40985 Views
Last post September 10, 2014, 10:28
by Uncle Pete
2 Replies
3728 Views
Last post March 09, 2011, 16:45
by GraphicGravy
7 Replies
6096 Views
Last post March 31, 2011, 16:10
by scottbraut
18 Replies
4707 Views
Last post November 16, 2012, 15:12
by CD123
2 Replies
2038 Views
Last post April 22, 2013, 05:15
by franky242

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors