Author Topic: Another happy buyer at iStock (Read 16186 times)

vlad_the_imp · « **on:** December 02, 2010, 05:24 »

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=278612&page=1

FD · « **Reply #1 on:** December 02, 2010, 06:02 »

Read it while you still can.

sharpshot · « **Reply #2 on:** December 02, 2010, 07:16 »

I just added my feelings about the commission cuts and that I'm not uploading there anymore. I doubt any of this is going to change the istock strategy but it might make more people aware of what's happening.

tdoes · « **Reply #3 on:** December 02, 2010, 08:21 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 02, 2010, 07:16

I just added my feelings about the commission cuts and that I'm not uploading there anymore. I doubt any of this is going to change the istock strategy but it might make more people aware of what's happening.

So did I !

cathyslife · « **Reply #4 on:** December 02, 2010, 09:10 »

And so not only are buyers unhappy and leaving the site, Getty/IS has managed to pit non-exclusives against exclusives even more. As was pointed out by kelvinjay, when a non-exclusive suggested the buyer look for images without the crown, and one misinformed exclusive said that his images were the same price, exclusive prices are higher.

What a freakin FUBAR*.

*similar to a SNAFU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUBAR

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #5 on:** December 02, 2010, 09:26 »

One confused contributor does not an IS snafu make.

caspixel · « **Reply #6 on:** December 02, 2010, 09:31 »

Well, that guy can expect to get a forum ban soon, I expect. He's spoken up quite a few times against iStock.

Here's an interesting, slightly OT tidbit: Months ago (before I was banned from the forums) I submitted some images to Designer Spotlight, and just now they are getting around to reviewing them. Well, they were all rejected with the reason, "Please resubmit when account is active". I actually wasn't even aware that my account wasn't active, but okay, whatever.

So it seems iStock doesn't particularly care about keeping the loyal customers they had with any kind of feeling of goodwill. I think they only interested about their big clients anymore. You know the ones...the ones that they give the deep, deep discounts to.

I'm just happy that there are other options out there. And I just found a great source for vector artwork that I'm really excited about. So, good riddance iStock. It's actually kind of ironic that their "punishment" for me motivated me to find other (better) sources for stock.

cathyslife · « **Reply #7 on:** December 02, 2010, 10:14 »

Quote from: caspixel on December 02, 2010, 09:31

Well, that guy can expect to get a forum ban soon, I expect. He's spoken up quite a few times against iStock.

Here's an interesting, slightly OT tidbit: Months ago (before I was banned from the forums) I submitted some images to Designer Spotlight, and just now they are getting around to reviewing them. Well, they were all rejected with the reason, "Please resubmit when account is active". I actually wasn't even aware that my account wasn't active, but okay, whatever.

So it seems iStock doesn't particularly care about keeping the loyal customers they had with any kind of feeling of goodwill. I think they only interested about their big clients anymore. You know the ones...the ones that they give the deep, deep discounts to.

I'm just happy that there are other options out there. And I just found a great source for vector artwork that I'm really excited about. So, good riddance iStock. It's actually kind of ironic that their "punishment" for me motivated me to find other (better) sources for stock.

It doesn't surprise me that it took months for them to get to it...I submitted one a long time ago and remember that it took months to be reviewed. It is interesting that they are saying your account is not active, though.

cathyslife · « **Reply #8 on:** December 02, 2010, 10:27 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 02, 2010, 09:26

One confused contributor does not an IS snafu make.

Many confused buyers and contributors does indeed a snafu/fubar make.

cthoman · « **Reply #9 on:** December 02, 2010, 10:32 »

Quote from: caspixel on December 02, 2010, 09:31

I'm just happy that there are other options out there. And I just found a great source for vector artwork that I'm really excited about. So, good riddance iStock. It's actually kind of ironic that their "punishment" for me motivated me to find other (better) sources for stock.

cough... mystockvectors.com ...cough. Oh wait, this wasn't a pimping thread.

Back to the topic. It's hard for me to get too upset by this anymore. It is what it is. Buyers leave. New ones come in. I'm not a spokesperson for any of these agencies. I do find the exclusive postings of "I feel your pain" amusing. I'm not sure why, but I do.

helix7 · « **Reply #10 on:** December 02, 2010, 11:06 »

Quote from: caspixel on December 02, 2010, 09:31

...I'm just happy that there are other options out there. And I just found a great source for vector artwork that I'm really excited about. So, good riddance iStock. It's actually kind of ironic that their "punishment" for me motivated me to find other (better) sources for stock.

I started to give up on buying at istock a few months back, and then cut them out of my buying options completely with the royalty change news. It hasn't made much sense to buy images there for a while now, as prices are quite a bit higher than other places. And from the seller's perspective, I'd rather support my fellow artists by purchasing their images at sites that put more money in the artist's pocket for each sale.

There's not only better sources out there, but they're cheaper and yet still pay the artist better. I can buy a vector at GL or StockFresh and the artist is going to get more on the sale than they would at istock, even while I'm saving money by paying a lower price. It's a win-win.

I wish more buyers thought about it in this way, but unfortunately most aren't well enough informed of their options.

caspixel · « **Reply #11 on:** December 02, 2010, 13:35 »

Quote from: helix7 on December 02, 2010, 11:06

I wish more buyers thought about it in this way, but unfortunately most aren't well enough informed of their options.

I have been steering as many of my clients as I can away from iStock. There is absolutely zero incentive for me to encourage people I work with to spend money at that site anymore.

And did you see the weird way Lobo closed that thread? Some weird accusations that the OP is actually not who he claims and is not even a buyer (even though the OP said they had 400 credits in his account). I think the thing that iStock now seems to be best at is alienating their buyers. Just crazy.

jm · « **Reply #12 on:** December 02, 2010, 14:08 »

Seems that iStock - totally drunk from success that's slowly becoming past - forgot that they need contributors to make money as well as we need them. Now they probably don't even need buyers. I'm not iStock contributor but the way they communicate with their "coworkers" is unbelievable for me. Well, they say that pride will have a fall.

Eyedesign · « **Reply #13 on:** December 02, 2010, 14:30 »

Wow! looks like Mortons LTD is doing really great business
http://www.mortons.co.uk/dates.html

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #14 on:** December 02, 2010, 14:43 »

Quote

Some weird accusations that the OP is actually not who he claims and is not even a buyer

I don't think he said that, just that the guy was operating two accounts.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #15 on:** December 02, 2010, 15:01 »

I'm not a buyer but occasionally search the site. I haven't done so for a while but do agree that any intuitive feel for searches is gone. I was surprised how hard to was just to find the advanced search function. I think the designers are usually to close to the methods to understand what a first time buyer or one who is used to a particular methodology is used to. Then a switch-a-roo happens and confusion and frustration set in.

cathyslife · « **Reply #16 on:** December 02, 2010, 15:02 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on December 02, 2010, 14:43

Quote
Some weird accusations that the OP is actually not who he claims and is not even a buyer

I don't think he said that, just that the guy was operating two accounts.

Here's what Lobo said:

Quote

Anyhoo, It just seems weird that a contributor would attempt to pass themselves off as a separate entity in order to get people fired up. We already have several threads on the issues concerning the site and we have responded as best as we can to all of them. Giving the contributor base the impression that you are a Buyer with no investment in this community as a Contributor is a little dodgy.

If indeed mortons is a buyer from Mortons LTD, he has been discounted just because he is a contributor too.

From Lobo:

Quote

Mortons, are you also Timeflight? I just wonder if you are the same person. You see this is where I get confused. Any clarity would be appreciated.

From what I can see, he/she contributes under the timeflight account (which was opened in 2005) and buys under the mortons account, which was opened in 2007. Is there anything wrong with that? Does he buy his own photos or does he buy other contributors photos?

The mortons account was opened in 2007, so it isn't like mortons opened the account yesterday just so he could post in the forum. So did mortons buy from IS? Do they have credits in their account?

None of that was made clear by Lobo. Just the lock.

caspixel · « **Reply #17 on:** December 02, 2010, 15:10 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 02, 2010, 15:02

The mortons account was opened in 2007, so it isn't like mortons opened the account yesterday just so he could post in the forum. So did mortons buy from IS? Do they have credits in their account?

Mortons said in their OP that they had 400 credits in their account and I had the impression that they did indeed buy from iStock. This is not the first time they have posted about things that aren't working.

ShadySue · « **Reply #18 on:** December 02, 2010, 15:13 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 02, 2010, 15:02

None of that was made clear by Lobo. Just the lock.

It looked very much as though he was dying for an excuse to lock the thread and to discredit the OP. The jibe about him having two accounts was a total non-sequitur, as he was hardly trying to pass himself off as not being a contributer. His complaint was the complaint of a buyer, and his contributer status is totally irrelevant to the points he was making.
The comment about having 'answered the point as best we can' is supremely risible. The obvious truism is, "If that's the case, your best isn't good enough".

cthoman · « **Reply #19 on:** December 02, 2010, 15:30 »

So the new customer relations policy is to call people liars and frauds? Good luck with that.

ShadySue · « **Reply #20 on:** December 02, 2010, 15:43 »

Quote from: caspixel on December 02, 2010, 15:10

Quote from: cclapper on December 02, 2010, 15:02
The mortons account was opened in 2007, so it isn't like mortons opened the account yesterday just so he could post in the forum. So did mortons buy from IS? Do they have credits in their account?

Mortons said in their OP that they had 400 credits in their account and I had the impression that they did indeed buy from iStock. This is not the first time they have posted about things that aren't working.

I am perfectly sure that if he didn't have 400 credits, Lobo would have outed him at the outset. The fact that he does indeed have that not-inconsiderable number of credits meant he had to spend hours finding some other excuse to malign him and close the thread.
"We've heard of customers, and want no truck with them."

caspixel · « **Reply #21 on:** December 02, 2010, 15:44 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 02, 2010, 15:43

I am perfectly sure that if he didn't have 400 credits, Lobo would have outed him at the outset. The fact that he does indeed have that not-inconsiderable number of credits meant he had to spend hours finding some other excuse to malign him and close the thread.
"We've heard of customers, and want no truck with them."

LOL

Albert Martin · « **Reply #22 on:** December 02, 2010, 15:46 »

Community? Lobo gets some things wrong indeed.

How . he can talk about any sort of community?

Shareholders and goal of 50% profit growth is what tells that there is no a single letter of community left on istock!

Maybe there is community of those who like to bend and get it from behind. But, that is philosophical matter.

jamirae · « **Reply #23 on:** December 02, 2010, 15:47 »

Quote from: cthoman on December 02, 2010, 15:30

So the new customer relations policy is to call people liars and frauds? Good luck with that.

seems they are just alienating both buyers and contributors. all that will be left is the clique or "in crowd" and some bright-eyed newbies who will take the slapping around with glee until the kool-aid wears off and they see that loyalty and contributing to the "community" does nothing unless you are accepted into the 'clique.' (yeah, I'm still a little bitter)

cathyslife · « **Reply #24 on:** December 02, 2010, 15:52 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on December 02, 2010, 15:46

Community? Lobo gets some things wrong indeed.

How . he can talk about any sort of community?

Shareholders and goal of 50% profit growth is what tells that there is no a single letter of community left on istock!

Maybe there is community of those who like to bend and get it from behind. But, that is philosophical matter.

Yeah I thought his use of the word community was kind of funny too.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Another happy buyer at iStock (Read 16186 times)

vlad_the_imp

FD

sharpshot

tdoes

cathyslife

Sean Locke Photography

caspixel

cathyslife

cathyslife

cthoman

helix7

caspixel

jm

Eyedesign

vlad_the_imp

PeterChigmaroff

cathyslife

caspixel

ShadySue

cthoman

ShadySue

caspixel

Albert Martin

jamirae

cathyslife

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors