Author Topic: Istock marketing fail (Read 6637 times)

Chico · « **on:** March 23, 2011, 06:44 »

For some time i've been noticing the lack of marketing initiatives by Istock. Previously there were several initiatives on this. Partnership with Microsoft, refferal program that really worked in association with the Vox blogs, etc..

Now, we have a variety of things happening and no movements for Istock side. Kindle, e-books, IPAD, cell phones, etc.. All need lots of images. I think there are great opportunities being wasted by Istock.

In other side, Is is very quickly to cut our royalties and refund stolen images.

What you think?

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #1 on:** March 23, 2011, 06:49 »

Reducing marketing = conserving cash

Cutting commissions and bonuses = boosting profits

conserving cash and boosting profits = ......................

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** March 23, 2011, 07:09 »

There was some sort of linkup marketing thing mentioned on the forums last week ...
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=311632&page=1
I'm moe concerned about not seeing print ads any more, in particular none in Computer Arts, which I'd have thought was pretty essential, even if a smaller ad, just to keep the name out there.
Others have said they're not seeing iStock ads on the web any more, rather Thinkstock. I don't tend to notice web ads, presumably, as I've noticed neither.

caspixel · « **Reply #3 on:** March 23, 2011, 09:32 »

I actually haven't been seeing too many ThinkStock ads either and I used to see a lot of them. Gone are the "We missed you" iStock ads too (where you get a discount for buying credit packs - I bet you guys loved that one

). So I guess iStock doesn't miss me anymore. LOL

gostwyck · « **Reply #4 on:** March 23, 2011, 09:43 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 23, 2011, 06:49

Reducing marketing = conserving cash

Cutting commissions and bonuses = boosting profits

conserving cash and boosting profits = ......................

Exactly. It's fairly obvious that they have been operating for profit rather than growth for months now. Can't imagine why though.

lisafx · « **Reply #5 on:** March 23, 2011, 11:15 »

Quote from: gostwyck on March 23, 2011, 09:43

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 23, 2011, 06:49
Reducing marketing = conserving cash

Cutting commissions and bonuses = boosting profits

conserving cash and boosting profits = ......................

Exactly. It's fairly obvious that they have been operating for profit rather than growth for months now. Can't imagine why though.

Well summed up Paulie.

I am thinking this is still about an impending sale?

jbarber873 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 23, 2011, 13:59 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 23, 2011, 11:15

Quote from: gostwyck on March 23, 2011, 09:43
Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 23, 2011, 06:49
Reducing marketing = conserving cash

Cutting commissions and bonuses = boosting profits

conserving cash and boosting profits = ......................

Exactly. It's fairly obvious that they have been operating for profit rather than growth for months now. Can't imagine why though.

Well summed up Paulie.

I am thinking this is still about an impending sale?

Bingo!

Artemis · « **Reply #7 on:** March 23, 2011, 17:10 »

Have you read on facebook though that they got elected 'best place to buy online images' by the readers of about.com? To "celebrate" credits are 10% off when using a certain code (guess who the 10% to 'celebrate' comes from). I almost vomitted at both.
They really can get away with A LOT it seems, with contributors (massive rip off) and buyers (site in shambles).

jsmithzz · « **Reply #8 on:** March 23, 2011, 18:18 »

Quote from: jbarber873 on March 23, 2011, 13:59

Quote from: lisafx on March 23, 2011, 11:15
Quote from: gostwyck on March 23, 2011, 09:43
Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 23, 2011, 06:49
Reducing marketing = conserving cash

Cutting commissions and bonuses = boosting profits

conserving cash and boosting profits = ......................

Exactly. It's fairly obvious that they have been operating for profit rather than growth for months now. Can't imagine why though.

Well summed up Paulie.

I am thinking this is still about an impending sale?

Bingo!

I would also agree with this as well. My bet is that they are looking to sell Getty and their entire family of photo sites as one entity.

OhGoAway! · « **Reply #9 on:** March 23, 2011, 20:14 »

The question is: does that change things for us for the better or for the worse (or for no change at all)?

jsnover · « **Reply #10 on:** March 23, 2011, 22:37 »

Quote from: OhGoAway! on March 23, 2011, 20:14

The question is: does that change things for us for the better or for the worse (or for no change at all)?

On the assumption that advertising and marketing programs worked - brought in new business or increased spending from existing customers or... - I'd say it's not good if they aren't spending to market the site and our work.

Given that they're taking an even larger share of the pie than in 2010, they should be spending more and aggressively marketing the site, but I don't have any way of measuring what they're doing now against before to say it is a change or if so, by what amount. They've never been transparent about any aspect of the business, so we don't know much about what they used to do or are now doing.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #11 on:** March 24, 2011, 00:30 »

Quote from: OhGoAway! on March 23, 2011, 20:14

The question is: does that change things for us for the better or for the worse (or for no change at all)?

Probably the worse, since anyone buying it would want to find ways of squeezing even more out of it.

Risamay · « **Reply #12 on:** March 24, 2011, 15:50 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 24, 2011, 00:30

Quote from: OhGoAway! on March 23, 2011, 20:14
The question is: does that change things for us for the better or for the worse (or for no change at all)?

Probably the worse, since anyone buying it would want to find ways of squeezing even more out of it.

I'd have to agree with Trousers.

borg · « **Reply #13 on:** March 24, 2011, 16:42 »

When I put "123rf" in google I am getting istockphoto link on first place and 123RF on second!!!!!

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** March 24, 2011, 16:47 »

Quote from: Risamay on March 24, 2011, 15:50

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 24, 2011, 00:30
Quote from: OhGoAway! on March 23, 2011, 20:14
The question is: does that change things for us for the better or for the worse (or for no change at all)?

Probably the worse, since anyone buying it would want to find ways of squeezing even more out of it.

I'd have to agree with Trousers.

"Better the devil you know"

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #15 on:** March 25, 2011, 04:26 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 24, 2011, 16:47

Quote from: Risamay on March 24, 2011, 15:50
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 24, 2011, 00:30
Quote from: OhGoAway! on March 23, 2011, 20:14
The question is: does that change things for us for the better or for the worse (or for no change at all)?

Probably the worse, since anyone buying it would want to find ways of squeezing even more out of it.

I'd have to agree with Trousers.
"Better the devil you know"

So we're already in stock hell, then?

Risamay · « **Reply #16 on:** March 25, 2011, 11:43 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 25, 2011, 04:26

Quote from: ShadySue on March 24, 2011, 16:47
Quote from: Risamay on March 24, 2011, 15:50
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 24, 2011, 00:30
Quote from: OhGoAway! on March 23, 2011, 20:14
The question is: does that change things for us for the better or for the worse (or for no change at all)?

Probably the worse, since anyone buying it would want to find ways of squeezing even more out of it.

I'd have to agree with Trousers.
"Better the devil you know"
So we're already in stock hell, then?

Ha. I'd certainly say so.

OhGoAway! · « **Reply #17 on:** March 25, 2011, 12:00 »

Quote from: Risamay on March 25, 2011, 11:43

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 25, 2011, 04:26
Quote from: ShadySue on March 24, 2011, 16:47
Quote from: Risamay on March 24, 2011, 15:50
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 24, 2011, 00:30
Quote from: OhGoAway! on March 23, 2011, 20:14
The question is: does that change things for us for the better or for the worse (or for no change at all)?

Probably the worse, since anyone buying it would want to find ways of squeezing even more out of it.
Blah, you h*ckers are bleak I keep hoping some well-funded philanthropist will buy the company as a way of funding a bunch of artists, reverse the royalties to 80% us and 20% agency, incorporate "Free Pizza Fridays," and start giving us paid vacations. Don't tell me it'll never happen -- it's nice in my world
I'd have to agree with Trousers.
"Better the devil you know"
So we're already in stock hell, then?

Ha. I'd certainly say so.

lisafx · « **Reply #18 on:** March 25, 2011, 16:42 »

Quote from: Risamay on March 25, 2011, 11:43

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 25, 2011, 04:26
Quote from: ShadySue on March 24, 2011, 16:47

"Better the devil you know"
So we're already in stock hell, then?

Ha. I'd certainly say so.

LOL! Definitely. Seems we've been here for quite some time now. I'm thinking a year or so?

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #19 on:** March 25, 2011, 21:10 »

Hey, that's kinda catchy. Stockhell.com.

ShadySue · « **Reply #20 on:** March 31, 2011, 04:53 »

Apparently iStock didn't have a presence at Photoshop World.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=319722&page=1
You'd have thought the cost to the company would be much less than having loads of staffers staying in a relatively expensive London hotel during the junket.

gostwyck · « **Reply #21 on:** March 31, 2011, 07:18 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 31, 2011, 04:53

Apparently iStock didn't have a presence at Photoshop World.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=319722&page=1
You'd have thought the cost to the company would be much less than having loads of staffers staying in a relatively expensive London hotel during the junket.

It just goes to confirm speculation that they've cut back on marketing and are operating for maximum profit. Probably been that way for quite a while as PSW stands would probably need to be booked several months in advance.

Red Dove · « **Reply #22 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:03 »

No marketing = no business. Good grief.....I may have asked this before but do they have a salesforce working the phones to drum up new business? I hate companies (including the one I work for) who sit tight on their bottom line wringing their hands when they should be working aggressively to trade ahead of their competitors in a tight market. Man, my employers are getting their arses kicked by Asian go-getters right now.

Maybe the sell-off is a sound theory but who is the buyer?

ShadySue · « **Reply #23 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:15 »

Quote from: Red Dove on March 31, 2011, 09:03

No marketing = no business. Good grief.....I may have asked this before but do they have a salesforce working the phones to drum up new business?

A couple of months ago, they advertised for a marketing specialist and that job is not currently being advertised, so they may have hired same, or decided not to bother.
They also seem, for the first time in four years, no currently to be looking for "someone who can break our system".

This is their current list of vacancies:

Berlin
Country Specialist, Spain (G-BER 11045)
Berlin, DE
Designer (G-BER 11051)
Berlin, DE
Calgary
Accounts Payable Specialist (G-CAL 11096)
Copywriter (G-CAL 10359)
Marketing Database Analyst (G-CAL 11072)
Project Coordinator (G-CAL 10356)
Windows Systems Administrator (G-CAL 11037)
User Experience Designer (G-CAL 10358)
Milan
Director, Country Operations, Italy (G-MIL 11075)
Sao Paulo
Country Director, Brazil (G-SP 11076)

VB inc · « **Reply #24 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:25 »

Quote from: gostwyck on March 31, 2011, 07:18

Quote from: ShadySue on March 31, 2011, 04:53
Apparently iStock didn't have a presence at Photoshop World.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=319722&page=1
You'd have thought the cost to the company would be much less than having loads of staffers staying in a relatively expensive London hotel during the junket.

It just goes to confirm speculation that they've cut back on marketing and are operating for maximum profit. Probably been that way for quite a while as PSW stands would probably need to be booked several months in advance.

And they know they will get spit on if they showed their faces there
I can imagine the room where management has this discussion.
"So who wants to head over to Photoshop World? anyone? anybody? ok... me neither. Next item on the list.. reducing independents to 10% and see if we can get rid of half by years end...