MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: maybe buyers are going elsewhere?  (Read 6174 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lagereek

« on: April 06, 2011, 11:39 »
0
You know, I just did some simple Maths here and to my surprise I find that, SS, DT and FT, are, each one, up just about 30%, now thats a big increase. It was good before but now its bloody brillant and this has been going on for just over a week!

Maybe the fall of DLs at IS, really havent got so much to do with best match changes and all that? I refused to believe what many said here about loosing buyers but seeing this? well buyers got to go somewhere, right. So maybe its true, maybe buyers are turning their backs. Dont know, just weird.


« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2011, 12:15 »
0
It does seem like that to me. Drop in IS sales and approximately the same jump on other agencies. Well like I said before if I was IS buyer I'd take my business elsewhere for sure after all the shenanigans. The nasty publicity about the cc fraud and "clawback" was bad enough (seriously, if they had even a tiny bit of business sense in them they should have absorbed the losses quietly instead of creating such bad publicity for the company), and now they are trying to force-feed the overpriced images to their buyers (when most of them are one-person graphic designer shops with very limited budgets). You're thinking - they can't be that stupid, they wouldn't hurt themselves like that! Yup they can and they do :)

« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2011, 14:42 »
0
Quote
when most of them are one-person graphic designer shops with very limited budgets

Is that the case? Can you provide a link to where that info and stats are published? The only people I've directly come across in my professional life who use istock don't fit that demographic so I'm curious to know how you come to that conclusion. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to see the evidence.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2011, 15:02 »
0
Quote
when most of them are one-person graphic designer shops with very limited budgets

Is that the case? Can you provide a link to where that info and stats are published? The only people I've directly come across in my professional life who use istock don't fit that demographic so I'm curious to know how you come to that conclusion. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to see the evidence.

YEP... the guy who built my website is a one man operation.  He uses ONLY iStock. 

« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2011, 15:13 »
0
Quote
when most of them are one-person graphic designer shops with very limited budgets

Is that the case? Can you provide a link to where that info and stats are published? The only people I've directly come across in my professional life who use istock don't fit that demographic so I'm curious to know how you come to that conclusion. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to see the evidence.

I'm a one-person graphic design shop who used to use iStock. I also have several on-line associates who are one-man shops who have migrated away from iStock. They moved onto other agencies at least a couple years before me.

« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2011, 15:16 »
0
Perhaps some of the bigger buyers have moved, now it's a new financial year.  Seems like a good time to make decisions about where to buy images.

« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2011, 16:29 »
0
Quote
when most of them are one-person graphic designer shops with very limited budgets

Is that the case? Can you provide a link to where that info and stats are published? The only people I've directly come across in my professional life who use istock don't fit that demographic so I'm curious to know how you come to that conclusion. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to see the evidence.

I'm a one-person graphic design shop who used to use iStock. I also have several on-line associates who are one-man shops who have migrated away from iStock. They moved onto other agencies at least a couple years before me.

I think it's all anecdotal stats and how istock really grew based on these small designer shops when their motto was "the designers dirty little secret." I found iStock back in 2004 and was doing freelance web design to supplement my income - so I was a one-(wo)man shop and used istock pretty much exclusively.  soon afterwards I became a contributor and used my small earnings to convert to credits and buy images that way. it was great back then. 

« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2011, 17:08 »
0
I'm in a similar situation. I'm a one-man shop and I started out using photos from SXC. After I received a digital camera (Fujifilm Finepix 2800Zoom) for a birthday gift, I thought that it would be nice if I gave a little bit back, so I started uploading to SXC.

I was so excited to find that people found my images useful! What a great feeling! And then someone said in the forums that they were getting PAID for their photos on a website called Dreamstime.

That was my first experience with microstock. Soon after Dreamstime, I found iStock. I purchases images from both sites in the beginning, but now I only buy from Dreamstime or Bigstock.

Their prices are reasonable and I can find what I'm looking for quickly. Those are the 2 most important things to me as a designer.

Most of my clients are happy with cell-phone snapshots, so image quality isn't a problem for them. They just want me to stay on budget.

« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2011, 17:11 »
0


I think it's all anecdotal stats and how istock really grew based on these small designer shops when their motto was "the designers dirty little secret."

I agree that it's all anecdotal (and I almost put that in my post  ;) ). Didn't iStock do a survey a while back on what kind of user you were? I'm sure someone out there has the stats.

rubyroo

« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2011, 17:14 »
0
Just to answer the OP - yes that's my feeling too.  I've seen quite a leap in sales at SS and DT that seems to equate with the drop in sales at iStock.

« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2011, 17:27 »
0
I'm in a similar situation. I'm a one-man shop and I started out using photos from SXC. After I received a digital camera (Fujifilm Finepix 2800Zoom) for a birthday gift, I thought that it would be nice if I gave a little bit back, so I started uploading to SXC.

I was so excited to find that people found my images useful! What a great feeling! And then someone said in the forums that they were getting PAID for their photos on a website called Dreamstime.

That was my first experience with microstock. Soon after Dreamstime, I found iStock. I purchases images from both sites in the beginning, but now I only buy from Dreamstime or Bigstock.

Their prices are reasonable and I can find what I'm looking for quickly. Those are the 2 most important things to me as a designer.

Most of my clients are happy with cell-phone snapshots, so image quality isn't a problem for them. They just want me to stay on budget.

Not very wise customers, if they are unable of understanding the importance on an image in an ad. The ones with I work exige always the best image possible, within a range of microstock reasonable prices.  And the image, even if Vetta, is always the cheapest item of the budget.

« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2011, 18:29 »
0

Not very wise customers, if they are unable of understanding the importance on an image in an ad. The ones with I work exige always the best image possible, within a range of microstock reasonable prices.  And the image, even if Vetta, is always the cheapest item of the budget.

... as spoken by a completely unbiased and objective Istock exclusive!
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 18:33 by gostwyck »

nruboc

« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2011, 18:44 »
0

Not very wise customers, if they are unable of understanding the importance on an image in an ad. The ones with I work exige always the best image possible, within a range of microstock reasonable prices.  And the image, even if Vetta, is always the cheapest item of the budget.

... as spoken by a completely unbiased and objective Istock exclusive!

...are there any other kind?

« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2011, 19:53 »
0

Not very wise customers, if they are unable of understanding the importance on an image in an ad. The ones with I work exige always the best image possible, within a range of microstock reasonable prices.  And the image, even if Vetta, is always the cheapest item of the budget.

... as spoken by a completely unbiased and objective Istock exclusive!

If you don't like the truth, tell what you want me to say. That, probably, will make you happy.

Talking of bias in these forums is quite funny.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 19:58 by loop »

« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2011, 20:37 »
0
If you don't like the truth, tell what you want me to say. That, probably, will make you happy.

Talking of bias in these forums is quite funny.

What is this 'truth' you speak of? Is it a religious thing or something?

How do you know how well other agencies might be doing with respect to Istock? Surely there is no greater 'bias' than the pure, unadulterated ignorance that you are displaying?

What forum would you suggest for a more balanced view __ bearing in mind that this place is largely populated by independent-minded individuals who really don't care too much from where the money comes in as long as it does?

« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2011, 21:02 »
0
As obvious, I was talking of my own experiencie. If you bother to read the post, you will see that I wasn't talking of "other agencies". Don't put words in my mouth.
Thanks.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2011, 01:34 »
0
Not very wise customers

does such a thing as wise customers exist? glad you found them - I never met one, neither as a photographer nor especially as an architect (my other job); "cheap" is their key; screwing up projects in the doing is their other prerogative
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 05:38 by microstockphoto.co.uk »


« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2011, 03:59 »
0
The "truth" is that much of the information on this site is speculation based on insufficient information. It's interesting to speculate and see if we can tease any trends out of what various people report noticing but it's a mistake for anyone to think there is solid evidence of anything.
The good start to April could reflect buyers getting bigger budgets for the year as business confidence improves, iStock's apparent fall could be a shifting of sales from one group (contributors) to another (wholly owned), or even from established contributors to new ones. Or it could be that iS is going down the tubes, or it could be a whole lot of other things, such as best match shifts (Dreamstime's best match certainly seems to have shifted in my favour at the start of the month, after giving me a very rough time for several months).

The word "maybe" at the beginning of the subject line sums up the state of knowledge perfectly.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 04:01 by BaldricksTrousers »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
1519 Views
Last post June 10, 2013, 22:09
by cascoly
6 Replies
2771 Views
Last post July 31, 2013, 13:26
by ernstblucher
3 Replies
1936 Views
Last post August 23, 2014, 14:04
by ultimagina
4 Replies
1878 Views
Last post December 29, 2014, 01:43
by images
7 Replies
2615 Views
Last post August 30, 2016, 05:14
by increasingdifficulty

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle