iStock SEO Testing‏

[tickstock]

I totally get why Istock wants to do this. I don't understand why a contributor would do all of this work for them when the results are just as likely to drive customers to the contributors personal website or even another agency that pays a higher percentage.

Lightrecorder - It is a ton of work but why do it for 15%? If you are going to do it at least you should make a higher percentage.

If you are selling the same work on your personal site and on the stock sites you are already competing against yourself.  I guess people that are already doing it have determined that they are are ok with it.

Not if your SEO is better (and isn't that what is being discussed here?), also not if you upload to your own site first or are particular about which images go to which agencies.

I think the big agencies have better SEO than most personal sites don't they?  If you have different images on the sites wouldn't you still want to optimize both sets of images?  If you decide to upload the same images to the stock sites and your personal site you have already decided that competing against your personal site is best so I doubt that deciding to have lower sales on the stock sites (assuming better SEO will increase sales) is a good decision.

[chromaco]

Yeah but that is not what we are discussing. Personal sites are as likely to have just as good or better SEO for very specific search terms like they are requesting. The issue is $18-$19 on a $20 on-demand sale versus $3. Istock has to outsell you by 6 times on this specific and unique search to justify the effort.

I agree that the agencies are going to win on "isolated apple stock image" but not necessarily on "dog digging in sand on beach".

[tickstock]

Yeah but that is not what we are discussing. Personal sites are as likely to have just as good or better SEO for very specific search terms like they are requesting. The issue is $18-$19 on a $20 on-demand sale versus $3. Istock has to outsell you by 6 times on this specific and unique search to justify the effort.

I agree that the agencies are going to win on "isolated apple stock image" but not necessarily on "dog digging in sand on beach".

Wouldn't the best thing be to not sell the same images on both iStock and your personal site then?  Rather than spending time uploading to iStock only to limit sales potential by not getting the best SEO.  It doesn't seem like a good plan to spend time and effort if you are going to intentionally limit your sales at the site.  If giving a little SEO boost to your site compared to the stock sites is good for business wouldn't giving all of the better SEO to your site be even better?

[gostwyck]

It's interesting that Istock is going after organic customers now.

Really? Organic customers? Istock actually want customers that haven't been sprayed with synthetic pesticides or chemical fertilisers?

I never knew that.

[chromaco]

Yeah but that is not what we are discussing. Personal sites are as likely to have just as good or better SEO for very specific search terms like they are requesting. The issue is $18-$19 on a $20 on-demand sale versus $3. Istock has to outsell you by 6 times on this specific and unique search to justify the effort.

I agree that the agencies are going to win on "isolated apple stock image" but not necessarily on "dog digging in sand on beach".

Wouldn't the best thing be to not sell the same images on both iStock and your personal site then?  Rather than spending time uploading to iStock only to limit sales potential by not getting the best SEO.  It doesn't seem like a good plan to spend time and effort if you are going to intentionally limit your sales at the site.  If giving a little SEO boost to your site compared to the stock sites is good for business wouldn't giving all of the better SEO to your site be even better?

Yes, but now you are preaching to the choir. And this is what I have been saying for over a year now. Obviously the exceptions would be images that are generic enough that you can't win the SEO battle. But again this isn't what Istock is trying to do with this initiative.

[Anchan]

According to Alexa, 22% of customers comes to Shutterstock directly from Google
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/shutterstock.com

How about Istock than? The same 22%
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/shutterstock.com

I wonder whether this shows that in general people google a lot? Or that designers do know how to google for istock content?

[KB]

It's interesting that Istock is going after organic customers now. I thought one of the major arguments against self hosting was that serious customers went directly to the agencies and wouldn't bother with the search engines. If google truly is a viable source for customers and you need to redo all of your descriptions anyway, why not do this on your own site, price the images the same price as istock and keep the other 85%? I don't understand why anyone would go to all of this effort for only 15-20%. Especially when super specific search terms like they are describing are as likely to be found on your own site as they are istock, shutterstock or any other agency.

I think the idea is to bring more eyes to the site not necessarily just for people looking for stock photos.  Some people may never have thought about buying stock before but if the Google results bring them there they might be turned into buyers.  Getting more people looking at the site through SEO is like free advertising.

Is this an effort to try to make up for all those blog buyers who left when they stopped selling XS sizes? Or all those blog buyers who left when they stopped selling any size, other than the maximum?

Either way, I wonder how long it would be before the new buyers discovered there are other sites around that sell smaller sizes, at cheaper prices?

[bunhill]

According to Alexa, 22% of customers comes to Shutterstock directly from Google

The Alexa data relating to iStock, Shutterstock etc is estimated rather than measured according to Alexa. My understanding is that this means it is extrapolated from the data collected from users who have the Alexa toolbar installed. IMO this raises 3 key issues:

1. I have never met anyone who has the Alexa toolbar installed. I am not convinced that a typical sample group of stock buyers have the Alexa toolbar installed.
2. The last time I Googled it various of the main anti malware security vendors had the Alexa toolbar blacklisted for blocking or marked as malware.
3. The toolbar is not even available for Safari which is the default browser on Macs. As we know, many stock buyers are Mac users.

For these reasons I doubt the value of Alexa anything with respect to stock.

[ShadySue]

I think the big agencies have better SEO than most personal sites don't they? 

For at least five of my seven years on iS, images on my personal, non-commercial site ranked higher on Google than similar images on iS, even though for all of that time my website was effectively moribund. I think that has reversed, no doubt precisely because my personal site is still moribund. Though I just checked one of my test searches, and neither I nor iS are in the top couple of hundred for that search.

[Elenathewise]

I got the email that I have been added to the SEO testing list and I just sent an opt-out. I usually pay a lot of attention to my titles and descriptions and I don't want anyone else meddling with them. Somehow I don't feel that I would benefit from this at all.

[Anchan]

bunhill, thank you very much!

[PixelBytes]

I totally get why Istock wants to do this. I don't understand why a contributor would do all of this work for them when the results are just as likely to drive customers to the contributors personal website or even another agency that pays a higher percentage.

Lightrecorder - It is a ton of work but why do it for 15%? If you are going to do it at least you should make a higher percentage.

From Istock's letter, it doesn't sound like they are asking contributors to recaption their own images.  If they do I won't be doing that.  Not for the % they pay me.  I'd rather people buy some place that pays better anyhow.

[ShadySue]

I totally get why Istock wants to do this. I don't understand why a contributor would do all of this work for them when the results are just as likely to drive customers to the contributors personal website or even another agency that pays a higher percentage.

Lightrecorder - It is a ton of work but why do it for 15%? If you are going to do it at least you should make a higher percentage.

From Istock's letter, it doesn't sound like they are asking contributors to recaption their own images.  If they do I won't be doing that.  Not for the % they pay me.  I'd rather people buy some place that pays better anyhow.

At this stage, they're only doing a couple of files from each contributor they've contacted (if they agree). I wonder how long would be reasonable to see increased sales on the particular files, for contributors to know whether it would be worth rolling it out themselves.

[Uncle Pete]

Agree with both below. Was it 2010 when they created RC, my how time flies when we're having fun. When did the dumb A$$ Thinkstock go live? Wasn't that 2010 also? For me that was the beginning of the end. (and putting Stockxpert in a choke hold and eventually to sleep)

Or maybe 2005? "In Getty Images, we have found our perfect partner. On February 9, in the early hours of the morning, iStockphoto agreed to join the Getty Images family, functioning independently with the benefits of Getty Images, yet, very importantly for them and us, autonomy. They will nurture and encourage our pioneering spirit so that our entrepreneurial culture will continue to thrive. "   

Autonomy, independently, anyone care to laugh at that pitch?

It all seems like an exercise in desperate futility as with almost all of their changes ever since they pressed the self destruct button the first time in September 2012.

+1

Except I think the first press of that self-destruct button was in September 2010, when they created the RC system, reneging on the "Grandfathering" contract many signed, and creating ill-will among many exclusives and indies alike. When the History of iStock's Rise and Fall is written, I believe that will mark the beginning of the end.

[gostwyck]

Agree with both below. Was it 2010 when they created RC, my how time flies when we're having fun. When did the dumb A$$ Thinkstock go live? Wasn't that 2010 also? For me that was the beginning of the end. (and putting Stockxpert in a choke hold and eventually to sleep)

Or maybe 2005? "In Getty Images, we have found our perfect partner. On February 9, in the early hours of the morning, iStockphoto agreed to join the Getty Images family, functioning independently with the benefits of Getty Images, yet, very importantly for them and us, autonomy. They will nurture and encourage our pioneering spirit so that our entrepreneurial culture will continue to thrive. "   

Autonomy, independently, anyone care to laugh at that pitch?

It all seems like an exercise in desperate futility as with almost all of their changes ever since they pressed the self destruct button the first time in September 2012.

+1

Except I think the first press of that self-destruct button was in September 2010, when they created the RC system, reneging on the "Grandfathering" contract many signed, and creating ill-will among many exclusives and indies alike. When the History of iStock's Rise and Fall is written, I believe that will mark the beginning of the end.

I think you'd have to say it was the introduction of the RC system in Sept 2010. Before then, irrespective of all the price hikes and many mistakes, Istock had still been growing ... strongly.

The RC targets were designed to moved upwards every year (as we all made more money) however the growth came to an abrupt halt at that exact point. So much so that they had to leave the 2011 'targets' fixed for 2012 too. Of course the targets should have been reduced ... but they were never going to admit publicly to the loss of sales.

[Red Dove]

I'm in for the testing. I know precious little about SEO  - except whenever I update my social media links I get pestered by twits with sun tans and far too many teeth flogging their guaranteed SEO strategies.

I do hope this isn't all IS have got in the current customer acquisition arsenal. It strikes me as hopeful at best - the marketing equivalent of putting out a mince pie and a noggin of brandy for Santa in the hope he actually exists*

* apologies to any readers who thought otherwise

[Justanotherphotographer]

I don't particularly want my IS images to have good SEO because they skim too much of the take. In fact I stagger my uploads to disadvantage sites that pay worse in search results (working great especially with FL that reviews almost instantly and so gets a big SEO boost for having images firsts, now I am seeing more DLs at higher paying sites).

In any case, I have left my images in the SEO test confident that whatever they do will backfire horribly and bring the day when I don't need to bother with IS to maintain my income a bit closer.

[B8]

What I further don't understand is why don't they try and simply drive more buyer traffic to the iStock site directly by putting the same amount of added effort into marketing directly to photo buyers? Why spend the time, money, and resources on trying to drive traffic to the iStock from a place like Google Images where people are usually searching for free images for low-res usage?

iStock's new September 2014 pricing is also designed to get rid of photo buyers who are looking for low-res imagery by pricing it out of their budget.

It just makes no sense what they are trying to do. Where is the logic or sensibility in this new traffic driving strategy?

[Uncle Pete]

Just needed to add some accuracy to my comment about ThinkStock marking the drop for myself (it appears some people benefited?)  That's when my IS DLs took a dive as well as dropping from over $1.50 RPD down to about 60c Average commission per IS DL.

TS = my first PP sale shows in Dec 2009.

As for growing, 2014 is the first year that's better than 2010 for me, otherwise it's just been dismal. So far I'm enjoying the new activity. This SEO thing I didn't get the invite.

I think you'd have to say it was the introduction of the RC system in Sept 2010. Before then, irrespective of all the price hikes and many mistakes, Istock had still been growing ... strongly.

The RC targets were designed to moved upwards every year (as we all made more money) however the growth came to an abrupt halt at that exact point. So much so that they had to leave the 2011 'targets' fixed for 2012 too. Of course the targets should have been reduced ... but they were never going to admit publicly to the loss of sales.

[Lightrecorder]

(working great especially with FL that reviews almost instantly and so gets a big SEO boost for having images firsts, now I am seeing more DLs at higher paying sites).

1 dollar sales price, LOL. Wake up.

[Justanotherphotographer]

(working great especially with FL that reviews almost instantly and so gets a big SEO boost for having images firsts, now I am seeing more DLs at higher paying sites).

1 dollar sales price, LOL. Wake up.

Are you talking about DPC? because I am opted out of that in any case

[Lightrecorder]

(working great especially with FL that reviews almost instantly and so gets a big SEO boost for having images firsts, now I am seeing more DLs at higher paying sites).

1 dollar sales price, LOL. Wake up.

Are you talking about DPC? because I am opted out of that in any case

Good. Still getting 23 cent subs then, or whatever amount of pennies. Dont tell me FT is a higher paying site for crying out loud.

[Justanotherphotographer]

You need to read my post, I am saying that I upload to them later because they are a low paying site. It is working well to reduce my sales on FL and increase sales on better sites; because FL relies heavily on being first to market with images for an SEO boost.