Author Topic: iStock SEO email (Read 26594 times)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #50 on:** March 21, 2015, 10:33 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 20, 2015, 14:43

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on March 20, 2015, 09:39
Too true, they must be living on a different planet. Surely they know it isn't worth anyone's time to put in the work for the return given their pitiful commission levels and declining sales? I don't know what they're thinking.

They are still thinking it's 2006 or 2007 when they forced contribs to go thru all their images and 'disambiguate' them to match Getty's CV. They are also failing to understand that unlike back then, they are not the big dogs anymore and their pitiful sales don't justify the work.

Even back then I gave up after two or three weeks of slogging at it and going slowly mad (it's iStock that made me this way, you know).

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #51 on:** March 21, 2015, 11:38 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 21, 2015, 10:33

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 20, 2015, 14:43
Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on March 20, 2015, 09:39
Too true, they must be living on a different planet. Surely they know it isn't worth anyone's time to put in the work for the return given their pitiful commission levels and declining sales? I don't know what they're thinking.

They are still thinking it's 2006 or 2007 when they forced contribs to go thru all their images and 'disambiguate' them to match Getty's CV. They are also failing to understand that unlike back then, they are not the big dogs anymore and their pitiful sales don't justify the work.

Even back then I gave up after two or three weeks of slogging at it and going slowly mad (it's iStock that made me this way, you know).

I lived through that nightmare too. If you remember, the big stick was that they would move your files to be the back of search if you didn't disambiguate them by a certain date. At the time they were selling and no one wanted that to happen.

Today, even if they made that threat, I'm not sure that many would care as search placement seems to have punished new files - a shift might actually improve things

I have only 100 files left there and I'm not doing anything. Chasing the ephemera that is Google's search preferences by having the data in contributors' files change is a fool's errand.

The data is the data; if they want to follow the lead of other companies whose search results show up, they need to tackle the technology. They offer very large (watermarked) image previews, as DT and 123rf do (1300 pixels on the long edge in 123's case and DT's)

Shutterstock has three approaches. If you see a tiny thumbnail, that appears to go to your image; the larger thumb goes to a search and if I search "Jo Ann Snover stock images" Shutterstock serves up a link to my portfolio, which seems smart.

And guess how many edits I needed to do to my portfolio on other sites to make these things happen...

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #52 on:** March 21, 2015, 12:46 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 21, 2015, 11:38

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 21, 2015, 10:33
Quote from: PixelBytes on March 20, 2015, 14:43
Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on March 20, 2015, 09:39
Too true, they must be living on a different planet. Surely they know it isn't worth anyone's time to put in the work for the return given their pitiful commission levels and declining sales? I don't know what they're thinking.

They are still thinking it's 2006 or 2007 when they forced contribs to go thru all their images and 'disambiguate' them to match Getty's CV. They are also failing to understand that unlike back then, they are not the big dogs anymore and their pitiful sales don't justify the work.

Even back then I gave up after two or three weeks of slogging at it and going slowly mad (it's iStock that made me this way, you know).

I lived through that nightmare too. If you remember, the big stick was that they would move your files to be the back of search if you didn't disambiguate them by a certain date. At the time they were selling and no one wanted that to happen.

Today, even if they made that threat, I'm not sure that many would care as search placement seems to have punished new files - a shift might actually improve things

I have only 100 files left there and I'm not doing anything. Chasing the ephemera that is Google's search preferences by having the data in contributors' files change is a fool's errand.

The data is the data; if they want to follow the lead of other companies whose search results show up, they need to tackle the technology. They offer very large (watermarked) image previews, as DT and 123rf do (1300 pixels on the long edge in 123's case and DT's)

Shutterstock has three approaches. If you see a tiny thumbnail, that appears to go to your image; the larger thumb goes to a search and if I search "Jo Ann Snover stock images" Shutterstock serves up a link to my portfolio, which seems smart.

And guess how many edits I needed to do to my portfolio on other sites to make these things happen...

I'd forgotten the search placement threat. I remember now that I did only those that made it reasonably well into the top downloads whether by month or by earnings, the low-sellers and non-sellers got left to their fate.

Red Dove · « **Reply #53 on:** March 21, 2015, 13:43 »

I'd much rather they gave their sales force a kick up the arse and pulled in customers the old-fashioned way.

Have to confess that SEO is magic to me although half of my twitter followers tell me I can't function without it and they can help me "increase the optimizationality of my conflabburational sales and marketing strategy " for a verrrry reasonable fee..... paypal is accepted as are checks, doubloons and golden nuggets.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #54 on:** March 21, 2015, 14:32 »

Do they accept Magic beans?

Noedelhap · « **Reply #55 on:** March 22, 2015, 09:09 »

Istock has lost their minds.

No way I'm going to redo hundreds of images. And for what, better placement in Google search, so that they get to keep 80%-85% of my sales at the cost of other sales?
And if SEO matters so much, why are they going to remove descriptions and lightboxes? Which bright manager at Istock came up with that nonsense?

Sedge · « **Reply #56 on:** March 23, 2015, 15:02 »

I'm a bit confused by this thread. I never received an e-mail from iStock requesting to change all my titles and descriptions. So my question is, were all contributors supposed to get this e-mail, or only a select few? I was part of the SEO experiment back in October, but that only involved four images. If anyone could clarify this issue, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Thanks in advance...

Shelma1 · « **Reply #57 on:** March 23, 2015, 15:23 »

Don't know if they sent it to everyone, but there are a couple of threads about it on the iS forums, so I think they expect everyone to do it.

wordplanet · « **Reply #58 on:** March 23, 2015, 23:58 »

I have less than 100 images on iStock and I got it, so I'm assuming they sent it to everyone. But I don't really know. Maybe you just missed it. It looked like their usual marketing emails.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #59 on:** March 24, 2015, 01:11 »

I generally get their e-mails (I have just over 100 image left there) but didn't get this one. I recall many previous e-mails where some people didn't get things - not sure if the problem is their end or the mail servers. I do check my spam folders before deleting things, so I don't think it got to me.

dpimborough · « **Reply #60 on:** March 24, 2015, 04:23 »

I didn't get an email either.

But if istock think I am re-describing thousands of images to suit them they can think again

sharpshot · « **Reply #61 on:** March 24, 2015, 05:32 »

I find it quicker to deactivate images, then buyers aren't going to find them on istock and they are more likely to use a site that pays me a higher %. Every time istock do something like this, another bit of my portfolio vanishes from their site.

w7lwi · « **Reply #62 on:** March 24, 2015, 10:58 »

I received the e-mail, but if they think I'm going to waste my time redoing everything then they must have been smoking those funny cigarettes. If they really want us to do something, then they need to give us an incentive, some motivation. The promise of increased sales is a non-starter on their site. Higher commissions ... doubtful. 100 percent of nothing is still nothing. Honestly I can't think of anything that would encourage me to go to all that work on their behalf. Threat to remove all images ... HA!!! That's almost an incentive to continue doing nothing. At least I wouldn't have to spend time removing images. They would do it for me.

Sedge · « **Reply #63 on:** March 24, 2015, 21:47 »

w7lwi, did iStock actually threaten to remove your portfolio if you didn't comply with their SEO directive?

PixelBytes · « **Reply #64 on:** March 24, 2015, 22:17 »

Quote from: Sedge on March 24, 2015, 21:47

w7lwi, did iStock actually threaten to remove your portfolio if you didn't comply with their SEO directive?

Yeah, for us who didn't get the e-mail, can someone verify if there were either threats or incentives mentioned?

Digital66 · « **Reply #65 on:** March 25, 2015, 00:24 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 24, 2015, 22:17

Quote from: Sedge on March 24, 2015, 21:47
w7lwi, did iStock actually threaten to remove your portfolio if you didn't comply with their SEO directive?
Yeah, for us who didn't get the e-mail, can someone verify if there were either threats or incentives mentioned?

No, there were no threats in the e-mail. I guess w7lwi was just saying nothing would make him do all that work, not even a threat.

Digital66 · « **Reply #66 on:** March 25, 2015, 01:00 »

It seems this article is their new source of inspiration:
http://www.conductor.com/blog/2014/07/update-organic-search-actually-responsible-64-web-traffic/
(It was mentioned in the SEO email)

It seems the iStock SEO team ignore that most people looking for images on Google are just image thieves.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #67 on:** March 25, 2015, 06:25 »

First rule of marketing: it's easier (and cheaper) to get more sales from current customers than it is to get new customers. iS pissed off a huge number of buyers when they raised prices for small images, then ignored all the bad feelings and people quitting their service and just let them go. Now they want us to do the work attracting new customers, and in return we get the lowest royalties around. That sounds like a winning strategy.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #68 on:** March 25, 2015, 06:29 »

You mean Istock, not Shutter

Shelma1 · « **Reply #69 on:** March 25, 2015, 08:00 »

Yes! Absolutely. Thanks for pointing it out. Typo fixed.

w7lwi · « **Reply #70 on:** March 25, 2015, 11:25 »

Quote from: Sedge on March 24, 2015, 21:47

w7lwi, did iStock actually threaten to remove your portfolio if you didn't comply with their SEO directive?

No. Nothing about any sort of "incentive" in the e-mail. I was just brainstorming different ideas of what they could do to try to get us to do their work for them, both positive and negative. Couldn't come up with anything positive. No carrot and stick, only a possible stick.

bunhill · « **Reply #71 on:** March 25, 2015, 11:50 »

They're all out of carrots.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock SEO email (Read 26594 times)

BaldricksTrousers

Jo Ann Snover

BaldricksTrousers

Red Dove

Pauws99

Noedelhap

Sedge

Shelma1

wordplanet

Jo Ann Snover

dpimborough

sharpshot

w7lwi

Sedge

PixelBytes

Digital66

Digital66

Shelma1

Semmick Photo

Shelma1

w7lwi

bunhill

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors