Author Topic: "Are you iStuck, time to switch to Bigstock....... (Read 17537 times)

Microbius · « **on:** July 11, 2011, 13:55 »

.....Great images. No Surprises."

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

stockmarketer · « **Reply #1 on:** July 11, 2011, 14:02 »

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?

volschenkh · « **Reply #2 on:** July 11, 2011, 14:12 »

Here's the ad: http://www.bigstockphoto.com/blog/thedownload/2011/07/are-you-istuck-its-time-to-switch/ [nofollow]

luissantos84 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 11, 2011, 14:18 »

Quote from: volschenkh on July 11, 2011, 14:12

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

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #4 on:** July 11, 2011, 14:26 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on July 11, 2011, 14:02

...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 »

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 »

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

ThomasAmby · « **Reply #7 on:** July 11, 2011, 14:40 »

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #8 on:** July 11, 2011, 14:54 »

It's interesting that SS sees pricing confusion as iStock's Achilles' heel. If anyone knows what the market is thinking it is SS.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #9 on:** July 11, 2011, 16:03 »

cathyslife · « **Reply #10 on:** July 11, 2011, 16:07 »

I love it! I too hope they are successful at this.

madelaide · « **Reply #11 on:** July 11, 2011, 16:09 »

Is it allowed to do such a clear - and demeaning - reference to a competitor?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #12 on:** July 11, 2011, 16:19 »

"We’ve 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.

ThomasAmby · « **Reply #13 on:** July 11, 2011, 16:22 »

Quote from: madelaide on July 11, 2011, 16:09

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

cathyslife · « **Reply #14 on:** July 11, 2011, 18:31 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 11, 2011, 16:19

"We’ve 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.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #15 on:** July 11, 2011, 18:40 »

Quote from: cclapper on July 11, 2011, 18:31

Quote from: sjlocke on July 11, 2011, 16:19
"We’ve 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.

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

qwerty · « **Reply #16 on:** July 11, 2011, 19:02 »

Quote from: cclapper on July 11, 2011, 18:31

Quote from: sjlocke on July 11, 2011, 16:19
"We’ve 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.

beat me to it

I was going to mention the "silent T"

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #17 on:** July 11, 2011, 19:26 »

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 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 11, 2011, 19:26

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 »

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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #20 on:** July 11, 2011, 21:53 »

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 »

Any advertising is good advertising.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #22 on:** July 12, 2011, 00:53 »

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.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #23 on:** July 12, 2011, 00:56 »

Quote from: lagereek on July 11, 2011, 23:24

Any advertising is good advertising.

Like this for example of advertising backfiring.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8620102.stm

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #24 on:** July 12, 2011, 01:43 »

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

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: "Are you iStuck, time to switch to Bigstock....... (Read 17537 times)

Microbius

stockmarketer

volschenkh

luissantos84

Jo Ann Snover

rubyroo

lisafx

ThomasAmby

BaldricksTrousers

Microstock Posts

cathyslife

madelaide

Sean Locke Photography

ThomasAmby

cathyslife

WarrenPrice

qwerty

Sean Locke Photography

WarrenPrice

jbarber873

cathyslife

lagereek

BaldricksTrousers

Microstock Posts

Microstock Posts

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors