pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock surveying buyers again...  (Read 33333 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: May 09, 2012, 12:57 »
0
So if every image you could possibly want is already on SS I guess the game is over for all of us.  I don't think it is though and new, better, or different content will be produced, some by exclusives.  I just did a quick search on SS of some of the more unique travel locations I've been to and a few places had no images on SS.

Yep __ pretty much. All iStock will achieve with their incessant price increases is to accelerate the end game.

'Unique travel locations' are usually more suitable as RM than microstock.


« Reply #51 on: May 09, 2012, 13:00 »
0
So if the aim of an exclusive collection is to attract more buyers, the more buyers an agency attracts because of these images, the less attractive it becomes for buyers as more and more are buying the same images. I've never understood the concept of exclusivity in microstock. Until now shutterstock have thought the same, yet they have tons of buyers and I'm sure many of them are now former istock buyers. I'd argue that buyers can find really decent images from non-exclusive material, enough to justify buyers buying cheaper elsewhere. It's microstock, it's supposed to be cheap and for everyone, that's why it took off. Use an image today, use a different one tomorrow type of thing.
Again, exclusive images don't mean that they won't be bought many times and they aren't advertised as such.  Exclusive files mean they are only sold at IS (for the most part, jsnover. I guess it's more correct to say within Getty) and not offered at other sites like SS, FT, 123rf, etc..   Like I said before the other sites compete mainly on price because content is nearly the same, IS can compete on content and charge more.

I know what they are, I don't think it's the ace card they think it is.

« Reply #52 on: May 09, 2012, 13:01 »
0
Exclusivity is only in the interest of the agency, so they can claim they have unique pictures when they try to sell their pool.
Obviously that's not true.  

ne, it is also in the interest of the exclusive contributors.....
- for about 3 years-

then they are out of business

« Reply #53 on: May 09, 2012, 13:10 »
0
Like I said before the other sites compete mainly on price because content is nearly the same, IS can compete on content and charge more.

I have to disagree with this statement.  Agencies compete on more than price and even selection.  They also compete on the service they provide to their customers.  How easy is it to find content the customer wants (i.e. the search mechanism)?  How easy is it to find other relevant images, either from the same or a different creator?  What are the licensing rules?  How reliable is their website?  How responsive?  How quickly and how well do they respond to customer questions or complaints?

If this were all about price, there would more more of a drive to lower prices than we've seen.  Instead we see prices stable or rising over time.  (What we don't see is the creator's share increasing, which is a different issue.)

« Reply #54 on: May 09, 2012, 13:20 »
0
and why is that?
it might be a different issue, but still the most important to us contributors.
Why is our share not going up?
why do we let the agencies exploit us so much?

« Reply #55 on: May 09, 2012, 13:24 »
0
So if the aim of an exclusive collection is to attract more buyers, the more buyers an agency attracts because of these images, the less attractive it becomes for buyers as more and more are buying the same images. I've never understood the concept of exclusivity in microstock. Until now shutterstock have thought the same, yet they have tons of buyers and I'm sure many of them are now former istock buyers. I'd argue that buyers can find really decent images from non-exclusive material, enough to justify buyers buying cheaper elsewhere. It's microstock, it's supposed to be cheap and for everyone, that's why it took off. Use an image today, use a different one tomorrow type of thing.
Again, exclusive images don't mean that they won't be bought many times and they aren't advertised as such.  Exclusive files mean they are only sold at IS (for the most part, jsnover. I guess it's more correct to say within Getty) and not offered at other sites like SS, FT, 123rf, etc..   Like I said before the other sites compete mainly on price because content is nearly the same, IS can compete on content and charge more.

That is true, but it isn't a very popular idea among independents. We all have our fantasies that help us to boost morale.

« Reply #56 on: May 09, 2012, 13:25 »
0
when they find the image that they think is perfect, they buy it. If that image is only in limited places, they can only buy it there.

Ding, ding!

« Reply #57 on: May 09, 2012, 13:36 »
0
when they find the image that they think is perfect, they buy it. If that image is only in limited places, they can only buy it there.

Ding, ding!

I thought it was a pretty simple concept, and one I started implementing when I opened my own site.

« Reply #58 on: May 09, 2012, 14:06 »
0
So if every image you could possibly want is already on SS I guess the game is over for all of us.  I don't think it is though and new, better, or different content will be produced, some by exclusives.  I just did a quick search on SS of some of the more unique travel locations I've been to and a few places had no images on SS.

Yep __ pretty much. All iStock will achieve with their incessant price increases is to accelerate the end game.

'Unique travel locations' are usually more suitable as RM than microstock.

What accelerates the end of the game is the race to the bottom that began with all te agencies (and yes, this includes Thinkstock) entering the subscription wars. Selling a these prices mean, for the client, that the cost of the photos in the frame of the budget of a whole  project is nil, nothing, rien de rien, nichts,nada, niente. And of course, the spoiled (spoiled by us) customer, nowadays, is not ready to accept the kind of quality of five, seven years ago in change of these nil prices (that are the same of five seven years ago). Prices like the ones at istock make this cost a real, but very minor cost... but if costumers can reduce this to zero, why not? They would pay happily more if prices very higher at all the big agencies. There's a big scope between these zero prices and good steal prices.
An yes, 30-40  cents can add up to something if the file sells many times. But the fuse of the bomb is ablaze from years ago. This bomb is called dilution, and, for what I read about sales at the big subs sites, it is probably already beginning to reach its critical mass. What will be left in one-two years at subs sites? One, two, maybe ten sales for a lucky file. Back to shot our dish of mashed potatoes before eating it cold. There won't be money for more.  That's it, out of business everybody.

« Reply #59 on: May 09, 2012, 14:32 »
0
when they find the image that they think is perfect, they buy it. If that image is only in limited places, they can only buy it there.

Ding, ding!

And if they don't go to that place, because price rises persuaded them to go elsewhere, then they will never know the perfect image exists so they'll just buy something else.

This whole idea of buyers searching incessantly for the perfect image is just nonsense. Anyone on Alamy can check the buyer searches there and see how many pages deep they went. Generally, if something doesn't turn up on the first page or two of a search they lose interest. So if your super-perfect image is on page 57 they'll never find it and they won't care.

How can anybody believe that buyers will trawl the entire internet for the perfect image while knowing at the same time that they can't be bothered to hunt through half-a-dozen pages on iStock to find it (we all know how well images on page 10 of a search sell).

« Reply #60 on: May 09, 2012, 14:52 »
0
HA.
You all think it is about pictures?

it is not.
its about messages, be it articles, news, or promotion.

All these picture buyers ... take up the wallet, only and only when they get what they want.
we photographers think they like our image and buy it because it shows what it should.

not the case.
They buy when it fits.
When the picture fits their words.

Quality does not matter so much, neither does trend and style.
keywords do...

« Reply #61 on: May 09, 2012, 14:52 »
0
Ok, say I have an account at Dreamstime.  I need a picture of flight crew on a plane.  There is nothing usable in the search ( aside from one really over the top series ).  Now what do I do?  Look somewhere else.  So I look on iStock and find a more "realistic" series from some guy named sjlocke.  I don't need another account, but dang, I want that one image and it isn't available elsewhere.  So I open an account ...

eta: I see that other recent series is also on IS, and from Andre... Sorry! ;)
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 15:29 by sjlocke »

« Reply #62 on: May 09, 2012, 15:00 »
0
Ok, say I have an account at Dreamstime.  I need a picture of flight crew on a plane.  There is nothing usable in the search ( aside from one really over the top series ).  Now what do I do?  Look somewhere else.  So I look on iStock and find a more "realistic" series from some guy named sjlocke.  I don't need another account, but dang, I want that one image and it isn't available elsewhere.  So I open an account ...

Fair enough however this scenario has Istock as the boutique store, for those very occasional needs, rather than the mass-market that they were originally conceived to serve. They've become more like Getty/Corbis in that regard rather than microstock.

« Reply #63 on: May 09, 2012, 15:12 »
0
Perhaps.  < rehash > Or perhaps the deadly allure of exclusive content + the rest keeps them there. < /rehash >

« Reply #64 on: May 09, 2012, 15:17 »
0
Ok, say I have an account at Dreamstime.  I need a picture of flight crew on a plane.  There is nothing usable in the search ( aside from one really over the top series ).  Now what do I do?  Look somewhere else.  So I look on iStock and find a more "realistic" series from some guy named sjlocke.  I don't need another account, but dang, I want that one image and it isn't available elsewhere.  So I open an account ...

And that's assuming that I have big $ in my budget for that one image. If my budget is WAY below what that one images costs, I won't be opening an account, I will try to find something similar on a less expensive site. If I can't find anything similar for less money and I have leeway with the design, I might even rework the idea to utilize an image I did find in my price range that is just as outstanding.

In most recent years, I don't even bother looking on istock anymore in the first place because chances are my budget isn't going to allow for the ridiculous prices. I am buying microstock, remember. So why bother finding the perfect image when I'm not going to be able to afford it anyway? I find it hard to believe I am the only person in the whole wide world that thinks this way.

I am certain there are ad agencies out there who can afford anything for their client, and I think this is the buyer that istock/getty is looking for. I don't think they give a rat's a$$ about the millions of other companies/individuals who are looking for affordable microstock images to buy.

edited: definitely rehash. but then so is this whole thread, and so is istock. They have done it once again. Release a survey and get the buzz going.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 15:20 by cclapper »

« Reply #65 on: May 09, 2012, 15:24 »
0
Ok, say I have an account at Dreamstime.  I need a picture of flight crew on a plane.  There is nothing usable in the search ( aside from one really over the top series ).  Now what do I do?  Look somewhere else.  So I look on iStock and find a more "realistic" series from some guy named sjlocke.  I don't need another account, but dang, I want that one image and it isn't available elsewhere.  So I open an account ...

Fair enough however this scenario has Istock as the boutique store, for those very occasional needs, rather than the mass-market that they were originally conceived to serve. They've become more like Getty/Corbis in that regard rather than microstock.

Even if they do open an account for that one image, if they have previously fled iS because of the pricing and/or other problems, they will get enough credits, buy it and then go back to SS or wherever. It's not guaranteeing a long-term relationship.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #66 on: May 09, 2012, 15:25 »
0
Perhaps.  < rehash > Or perhaps the deadly allure of exclusive content + the rest keeps them there. < /rehash >
Perhaps. But that wouldn't explain why many iStock exclusives, including megastars like you, are finding things going downwards.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #67 on: May 09, 2012, 15:26 »
0
I am certain there are ad agencies out there who can afford anything for their client, and I think this is the buyer that istock/getty is looking for. I don't think they give a rat's a$$ about the millions of other companies/individuals who are looking for affordable microstock images to buy.
I believe that's what ThinkStock is for.

« Reply #68 on: May 09, 2012, 15:30 »
0
Perhaps. But that wouldn't explain why many iStock exclusives, including megastars like you, are finding things going downwards.

I'm putting less autographed images on eBay, for one thing.  :)

« Reply #69 on: May 09, 2012, 15:32 »
0
Perhaps.  < rehash > Or perhaps the deadly allure of exclusive content + the rest keeps them there. < /rehash >

Maybe although our downloads declining at the rate of 25-30% per year suggest that 'the deadly allure' is not that deadly for all buyers.

The whole arguement is probably somewhat mute anyway. If Istock somehow turned the ship around then it would only inspire them to put up prices and reduce commissions even further __ until they broke it again. Isn't Istock just a giant cash cow for H&F nowadays? They appear to be milking it for all they're worth to recover as much of their original investment as quickly as they can. In squeezing buyers and contributors alike they are burning their candle at both ends.

« Reply #70 on: May 09, 2012, 15:34 »
0
Ok, say I have an account at Dreamstime.  I need a picture of flight crew on a plane.  There is nothing usable in the search ( aside from one really over the top series ).  Now what do I do?  Look somewhere else.  So I look on iStock and find a more "realistic" series from some guy named sjlocke.  I don't need another account, but dang, I want that one image and it isn't available elsewhere.  So I open an account ...

eta: I see that other recent series is also on IS, and from Andre... Sorry! ;)

then what? do I need to open an IS account now? or buy it straight from DT account where the similar high quality image is there for cheaper?  ;D

« Reply #71 on: May 09, 2012, 15:41 »
0
then what? do I need to open an IS account now? or buy it straight from DT account where the similar high quality image is there for cheaper?  ;D

Point being there is no "similar" image on DT.  Cheaper or not.

lagereek

« Reply #72 on: May 09, 2012, 15:49 »
0
Many years ago, they introduced exclusivity into the micro industry. Had they ever known or even guessed it was going to get this massive,  they would never have bothered.
I bet, for every exclusive file in any agency, regardless of subject matter, there are almost 100%, identicals, as non exclusive files and plenty oif it.

so much for exclusivity in the micro industry. Pointless exercise.

lisafx

« Reply #73 on: May 09, 2012, 15:53 »
0

...Agencies compete on more than price and even selection.  They also compete on the service they provide to their customers.  How easy is it to find content the customer wants (i.e. the search mechanism)?  How easy is it to find other relevant images, either from the same or a different creator?  What are the licensing rules?  How reliable is their website?  How responsive?  How quickly and how well do they respond to customer questions or complaints?

Absolutely true!  Thanks very much for making these points. :)

I do not see prices dropping on the other micros. Certainly they are not climbing with the frequency or to the degree they are on Istock, thank goodness, but this race to the bottom is not happening.  Additionally, other sites in the top four do considerably better at the services mentioned above than Istock.

« Reply #74 on: May 09, 2012, 15:57 »
0
then what? do I need to open an IS account now? or buy it straight from DT account where the similar high quality image is there for cheaper?  ;D

Point being there is no "similar" image on DT.  Cheaper or not.

are you saying that Andresr didnt upload his "flight crew on a plane" series on DT?  ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
17295 Views
Last post October 23, 2010, 14:12
by gbalex
Buyers Bailing on Istock

Started by lisafx « 1 2 ... 67 68 » iStockPhoto.com

1692 Replies
387837 Views
Last post December 24, 2012, 21:19
by gostwyck
18 Replies
5817 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 15:34
by lagereek
20 Replies
7322 Views
Last post February 14, 2013, 17:41
by Poncke
9 Replies
4678 Views
Last post January 15, 2014, 19:56
by djpadavona

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors