MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Another best match shift 14/4/2011  (Read 17193 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: April 14, 2011, 16:15 »
0
I suspect iStock is trying to exploit buyer ignorance - believing that they will not realise there is still cheaper stuff and will not realise that there are alternative sites, so they will pay the price regardless, thinking there is no alternative. It probably works, up to a point. Long term, though, if the buyers get the feeling they are being taken for suckers, it seems certain to backfire.


« Reply #26 on: April 14, 2011, 16:21 »
0
I think a pretty important point is often forgotten: the vast majority of buyers does NOT read the forums or newsletters.
Awhile ago i bumped into someone who works on the design department of a rather big company here that spends over $2500/month on stock. He said they recently moved over from istock to shutterstock because istock suddenly tenfolded their prices and became very, very expensive. Don't overestimate buyers, plenty of them are clueless about the different collections and will just turn elsewhere if the expensive ones dominate the search results.

Good point. I think what you describe may well be happening in significant numbers. Comparing the first quarters of 2010 and 2011 my sales on SS were 28% up and 25% down on Istock. The growth in SS is mainly through ever-increasing PPD sales and they must be getting those new customers from somewhere. Istock do appear determined to drive their ship onto the rocks as quickly as they can.

« Reply #27 on: April 14, 2011, 17:07 »
0
Still only one non V/A horse in the top 200, more or less dead centre, where it was before.

Horses are one of those subjects with a long tradition and probably which very much favour Vetta and Agency collection work. You would surely have to agree that the results do look really good. Those are some great images.

If you go to a department store the fancy stuff is always in the window. I guess it's like that ?

That doesn't mean buyers are going to buy that expensive thing from the window though. And the stores don't make buyers wade through hundreds of racks of clothes before they find the ones they can afford.

In fact, I wonder if your analogy really works here because if the department store is Macys or a high end store, someone that can't afford to shop there wouldn't even go in. They instead would go to JCPenney or Sears or Walmart.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 18:38 by cclapper »

« Reply #28 on: April 14, 2011, 19:21 »
0
I think a pretty important point is often forgotten: the vast majority of buyers does NOT read the forums or newsletters.
Awhile ago i bumped into someone who works on the design department of a rather big company here that spends over $2500/month on stock. He said they recently moved over from istock to shutterstock because istock suddenly tenfolded their prices and became very, very expensive. Don't overestimate buyers, plenty of them are clueless about the different collections and will just turn elsewhere if the expensive ones dominate the search results.

Good point. I think what you describe may well be happening in significant numbers. Comparing the first quarters of 2010 and 2011 my sales on Shutterstock were 28% up and 25% down on Istock. The growth in Shutterstock is mainly through ever-increasing PPD sales and they must be getting those new customers from somewhere. Istock do appear determined to drive their ship onto the rocks as quickly as they can.

Not (deliberately) trying to hate on istock right this second, but I think it's hysterically funny that, the minute a forum stink is raised by contributors, iStock is quick to point out that only a small portion of people use the forums. Yet when it comes to something huge for contributors, they are quick to note that all the info is in the forums for buyers to find. To quote a favorite movie, "It don't compute."

« Reply #29 on: April 14, 2011, 19:40 »
0
I suspect iStock is trying to exploit buyer ignorance - believing that they will not realise there is still cheaper stuff and will not realise that there are alternative sites, so they will pay the price regardless, thinking there is no alternative. It probably works, up to a point. Long term, though, if the buyers get the feeling they are being taken for suckers, it seems certain to backfire.

This are my thoughts also. At one point IS was the only game in town with quality. That is no longer the case and buyers are wising up.

My company recently switched to a yearly subscription to Shutterstock from PAYG with IS. We now only purchase from IS if we can't find what we need at Shutterstock (which does not happen often). We have gone from $1000 per month at IS to maybe $100 per month and we are mostly print so we buy L and up sizes.

« Reply #30 on: April 14, 2011, 19:50 »
0

If you go to a department store the fancy stuff is always in the window. I guess it's like that ?

Not sure that department store is a good analogy - isn't the average age of a department store customer over 65?

I shop at Macy's all the time and I am not over 65... Yet. They have great sales that are easy to find.

[/quote] from jsnover
If you look at amazon.com (to cite but one example of this sort of search interface in an online store), when you look at home theatre systems, there are search panels on the left that let you search by brand, by watts, by price (with a list of set ranges and then a from and to text entry field where you specify your price range), rating, etc.. I'm not sure why this successful business model for online shopping is one that Getty/iStock disdain. It seems to be working pretty well for amazon.
[/quote]

Totally agree with this, MOST online stores have a sort by price. Seems to work out just fine.

ETA: sorry this post looks weird, I don't know how to break quotes.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 19:53 by wiser »

« Reply #31 on: April 14, 2011, 20:07 »
0
I don't think many buyers who are not also contributors spend tons of time, if any, in the forums. so it is upsetting realizing that many buyers don't know they just need to move in a few pages and find main collection stuff again. FWIW, I have VERY few Vetta or Agency files and my sales this week are really good. and two of my good friends who have a great deal of Vetta have been hit very hard with this best match shake. so, it's tough to pinpoint any pattern, if there even is a pattern.

« Reply #32 on: April 14, 2011, 20:39 »
0
I think a pretty important point is often forgotten: the vast majority of buyers does NOT read the forums or newsletters.
Awhile ago i bumped into someone who works on the design department of a rather big company here that spends over $2500/month on stock. He said they recently moved over from istock to shutterstock because istock suddenly tenfolded their prices and became very, very expensive. Don't overestimate buyers, plenty of them are clueless about the different collections and will just turn elsewhere if the expensive ones dominate the search results.
I don't think that could be said enough times. iStock needs to step up its game in the marketing/communications area which they've always done extremely poorly to the point of being embarassing. 

« Reply #33 on: April 14, 2011, 23:04 »
0
I don't think many buyers who are not also contributors spend tons of time, if any, in the forums. so it is upsetting realizing that many buyers don't know they just need to move in a few pages and find main collection stuff again. FWIW, I have VERY few Vetta or Agency files and my sales this week are really good. and two of my good friends who have a great deal of Vetta have been hit very hard with this best match shake. so, it's tough to pinpoint any pattern, if there even is a pattern.

There clearly is a pattern, which is that iStock thinks it will make more money by shoving expensive and wholly-owned files at the front. Whether that will really con people into spending more money (as iStock obviously hopes) is an entirely different question.

Another pattern is that iStock has lost the plot. So it is quite likely to do things that don't work and end up damaging almost everyone, itself included. 

My sales are down by about half this week, with sales/image at around 5% of what they were at their peak, a very long time ago. You seem to be in a very small minority if you are managing to ride this out - you must have a lot of stuff in special interest niches where they are not being flooded out of the front of the search.

lagereek

« Reply #34 on: April 15, 2011, 00:03 »
0
IStock is "old-hand"  they had their way for so many years and you cant teach an old dog to sit. Suddenly there are sites mushrooming, like SS, FT, DT, suddenly IS, finds itself in tough competition and frankly I dont think they knew how to deal with this.
Think about it! after Bruces departure, none in the Admin is a fully fledged business-man as such,  like KK, its mostly computer guys. When the panic lifted they come up with this Vetta business which was a success in the beginning untill they started to force the damned thing onto the buyers.

Now the Getty Admin, they ARE business people and for all we know they decided that the IS admin couldnt run the show properly so they step in to try and save whats left.
This could be one scenario we really havent thought of.

« Reply #35 on: April 15, 2011, 09:25 »
0
after Bruces departure, none in the Admin is a fully fledged business-man as such,  l

Bruce was a fully fledged business man? I thought he was a rocker and a photographer who happened to stumble upon a great idea that took on a life of its own. From my understanding, he had several failed ventures before iStock.

I think one of the reasons iStock flourised is BECAUSE Bruce WASN'T a fully fledged business man. If he was, he never would have cared about the contributors or the buyers, just the bottom line.

« Reply #36 on: April 15, 2011, 09:35 »
0
He is an entrepreneur, same as Branson is. There aren't any qualifications for it. It's kinda like photography in that way. As for business, he probably sold iStock for much less than he should have done.

« Reply #37 on: April 15, 2011, 10:01 »
0
He is an entrepreneur, same as Branson is. There aren't any qualifications for it. It's kinda like photography in that way. As for business, he probably sold iStock for much less than he should have done.

I suspect the business might have had financial backers who actually had control over when and how it was sold. Venture capitalists will always grab the bird in the hand rather than wait for future, potentially larger, returns. Of course back then none of us would have believed that Istock could continue to double their prices and their volume of sales every year for several more years to come.

« Reply #38 on: April 15, 2011, 11:47 »
0
Not (deliberately) trying to hate on istock right this second, but I think it's hysterically funny that, the minute a forum stink is raised by contributors, iStock is quick to point out that only a small portion of people use the forums. Yet when it comes to something huge for contributors, they are quick to note that all the info is in the forums for buyers to find. To quote a favorite movie, "It don't compute."

That's exactly right, that's exactly what they think!

Forums were NEVER a good place to disperse important information, and they still aren't. If you need to contact contributors, send an email. If you need to contact buyers, send an email. All the other sites do it, so it can't be a technology thing...it's just an excuse thing.

lagereek

« Reply #39 on: April 15, 2011, 13:26 »
0
after Bruces departure, none in the Admin is a fully fledged business-man as such,  l

Bruce was a fully fledged business man? I thought he was a rocker and a photographer who happened to stumble upon a great idea that took on a life of its own. From my understanding, he had several failed ventures before iStock.

I think one of the reasons iStock flourised is BECAUSE Bruce WASN'T a fully fledged business man. If he was, he never would have cared about the contributors or the buyers, just the bottom line.


AND, what makes you think he cared all that much?? because he said so?  ofcourse he cared, that was in his interest but lets not fool ourselves, he did sell out to Getty, fully aware of their reputation, fully aware of their business methods, i.e.  buy something, leave it alone for a couple of years and then BANG!  its a classic indead.

It takes one to know one. Apart from that, he is a swell guy.

« Reply #40 on: April 15, 2011, 19:38 »
0
after Bruces departure, none in the Admin is a fully fledged business-man as such,  l

Bruce was a fully fledged business man? I thought he was a rocker and a photographer who happened to stumble upon a great idea that took on a life of its own. From my understanding, he had several failed ventures before iStock.

I think one of the reasons iStock flourised is BECAUSE Bruce WASN'T a fully fledged business man. If he was, he never would have cared about the contributors or the buyers, just the bottom line.

AND, what makes you think he cared all that much?? because he said so?  ofcourse he cared, that was in his interest but lets not fool ourselves, he did sell out to Getty, fully aware of their reputation, fully aware of their business methods, i.e.  buy something, leave it alone for a couple of years and then BANG!  its a classic indead.

It takes one to know one. Apart from that, he is a swell guy.

When all is said and done, money talks and BS walks.

ETA: the site turned BS (spelled out) into the word "crap", funny but does not make the point.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2011, 19:40 by wiser »

lisafx

« Reply #41 on: April 16, 2011, 09:05 »
0
Holy crap!  I just checked my Istock sales from yesterday.  They were less than 1/3 of a normal day!!! 

Last time I saw a non-holiday weekday that low was 2007 or so.  WT-F is going on???

« Reply #42 on: April 16, 2011, 09:12 »
0
Holy crap!  I just checked my Istock sales from yesterday.  They were less than 1/3 of a normal day!!! 

Last time I saw a non-holiday weekday that low was 2007 or so.  WT-F is going on???

"Tweaking" can be painful, no? :)

Yesterday (and most of last week) had returned to low-ish normal for me (versus the previous disastrous week).  It's be interesting to see if other independents report a poor day yesterday - if independence got fewer "best match points" (using Baldrick's Trousers' explanation of the weighting) in this week's tune-up.

lisafx

« Reply #43 on: April 16, 2011, 09:24 »
0


"Tweaking" can be painful, no? :)

Yesterday (and most of last week) had returned to low-ish normal for me (versus the previous disastrous week).  It's be interesting to see if other independents report a poor day yesterday - if independence got fewer "best match points" (using Baldrick's Trousers' explanation of the weighting) in this week's tune-up.

Something major happened yesterday.  Rest of the week was the new (low) normal for me too.  Then Friday fell off a cliff. 

You're right, I would be interested in knowing if other independents saw the same thing. 

« Reply #44 on: April 16, 2011, 10:03 »
0
My sales were about 30% less than the last few Fridays but I occasionally do have a bad Friday so I didn't  really think anything about it.

« Reply #45 on: April 16, 2011, 10:11 »
0
Friday dropped about 20% for me in $$$ and DLs, so maybe tax day affected a lot of people, trying to get that all done with.

« Reply #46 on: April 16, 2011, 10:35 »
0
Yesterday was an 'average to low' Friday for me. Thursday was very good by standards of late and Wednesday very poor.

Despite the huge fluctations in fortune this week's payout request will be the highest for 5 weeks. It will however still be about 10% lower than the corresponding week in 2010 and nearly 20% lower than 2009.

« Reply #47 on: April 18, 2011, 11:01 »
0
Stats are so small as to be statistically irrelevant, but Thursday AND Friday were awful. Zeroes on Thursday :(

lagereek

« Reply #48 on: April 18, 2011, 11:54 »
0
Thursday was OK,  Friday: can live with it. in general everything is down BUT, they keep tweaking and tweaking and tweaking and tweaking, until they have tweaked themselves and us all the way to the dole que and we will all be living like the Pinnebergs and the father will be Allastair. Va bene, gracie.

« Reply #49 on: April 18, 2011, 12:34 »
0
Thursday and Friday last week were certainly nothing to write home about. That's the way it's been going for me for a while though.

Today is like a Sunday so far. R e a l l y slow.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
5854 Views
Last post February 26, 2011, 04:42
by ShadySue
240 Replies
24755 Views
Last post September 24, 2011, 10:24
by nataq
69 Replies
7763 Views
Last post November 15, 2011, 08:17
by ShadySue
1233 Replies
74841 Views
Last post July 19, 2012, 09:31
by wut
Best Match shift 27 Jan 12

Started by michealo « 1 2  All » iStockPhoto.com

48 Replies
7068 Views
Last post February 02, 2012, 16:03
by StanRohrer

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors