Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on December 29, 2011, 05:26

Quote from: lagereek on December 29, 2011, 05:21

Yes and this is ofcourse the whole issue. They simply forgot the BUYER.

at the moment it feels like the buyers left and closed the door behind them. I've never seen 0 sale days before, not even on weekends, now I've had a couple in November and 7 (!) in December. iStock used to be so predictable, so dependable, someone have flicked the switch, not happy.

I beat you, I got ONE!  big deal.

Beat me how? I have had 7 days in December without any sales on them. 7! When I before November never have had any! December is trending to be the worst in 5 years!

December will have the lowest downloads for me since May 2004, the month after I joined iStock. Only one zero sales day so far this month, though.

December was my worst moth ever. Big, very big drop from november.

apology still required Carlsson!  IS needs to to aplogise to , buyers and independentt for current chaos and also to exclusives for declining income. Also to contriutors for promising a future they destroyed.   Words??? Financial destruction? Financial destruction and theft against your will by force (financial rape?) . Delusion - pretending the overall royalty cuts were good? Delusion - pretending this trend in drop in sales will reverse itself becase of? Delusion - exclusives will thrive without independents?? Choose the words you want and seek aplogies from Istock not me. Seek reality not semantics bias for complaint. Keep up the huge rm portfolio and make sure your partner keep uploading for you to other sites.

This reminds me of the Doors song "This is the end..."
Even for iStock this is a bonehead move. They are really good at auto-destructing.
Although I`m sure someone will get a promotion and a raise out of this  

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on December 28, 2011, 13:55

Have you looked at the prices of your images at istock vs other agencies.  At one agency I could buy 15 of your images for the cost of one image at istock.  They are the exact same image.  No difference whatsoever.  But price isn't the cause of the loss of sales to istock???  

Sorry, perhaps I am failing to get my point across.  I'll try one more time, and if you still don't get it, well maybe my language skills need some work.

I am not denying there is a price differential between independent files on Istock and other sites, nor that some buyers would be looking for the best price.  What I am saying is that the price differential is not the reason for the RECENT (past year) exodus of buyers.  How do I know this?  There has been a price differential for several years, and Istock was selling very, very well for independents, and was the top or second place earner for pretty much every independent supplier until this year.  If it was only price that was the issue, then sales would have shown it all along.  

Sales have only become anemic in the past year since Istock went off the rails, so obviously PRICE of independent content is not the reason.  

Here are some suggestions about why buyers may have gone elsewhere:
1.  Too many broken promises to contributors, many of whom are buyers.
2.  Wonky searches, site outages and other IT bugs
3.  Front loading of Vetta/Agency files which serve only a limited market and cost dozens of times more
4.  Non-responsive customer service
5.  Snotty "don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out" attitude expressed to any buyer who dares bring up issues in the forums

The list goes on and on.  As does the Buyers Bail thread http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/buyers-bailing-on-istock/, which has 61 pages of departures and site issues, spanning more than a year.  

Can someone let me know if I have explained this coherently enough or if there is something I am leaving out?  

This is the disconnect for me as you have reported the decline of IS this year with the rise of the your other sites.  You felt this was good for "?", I am guessing for those who did not put all their eggs in one basket.  It appears promoting independents was a slow death for IS as the other agencies said we sell the same for less.  The prices you are receiving at the other agencies are being supported buy IS exclusive content and higher pricing.  If IS goes away, then your price support is removed and what else is separating the collections on the other agencies?  Or another agency has to seize contributors as exclusives to elevate their brand and price point.  In your explanation above you failed to address the magic formula that going to leave this marketplace alone that has attacked every other one that has no separation in their products. 
 

  The prices you are receiving at the other agencies are being supported buy IS exclusive content and higher pricing.  If IS goes away, then your price support is removed and what else is separating the collections on the other agencies?  Or another agency has to seize contributors as exclusives to elevate their brand and price point.  In your explanation above you failed to address the magic formula that going to leave this marketplace alone that has attacked every other one that has no separation in their products. 
 

Sorry, try as I might I just don't understand the logic here. How can iStock's exclusive content's price affect the prices of independents' files at other sites? We keep being told that the higher price of exclusive content is justified by it being unavailable anywhere else, so if you need that file you have to pay more to get it. That I understand (even though I doubt if most of it is unique enough to justify the claim). Are you now saying that there is no difference between exclusive and independent files so when people see high exclusive prices on iStock they are happy to pay lower prices for similar files on other sites? And are you suggesting that if iStock vanished, this would make the prices elsewhere fall? If so, how? And why?

I do try to understand everyone's different viewpoints but so far I can't follow the logic of what you are saying.

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on December 29, 2011, 10:24

 The prices you are receiving at the other agencies are being supported buy IS exclusive content and higher pricing.  If IS goes away, then your price support is removed and what else is separating the collections on the other agencies?  Or another agency has to seize contributors as exclusives to elevate their brand and price point.  In your explanation above you failed to address the magic formula that going to leave this marketplace alone that has attacked every other one that has no separation in their products.  
  

Sorry, try as I might I just don't understand the logic here. How can iStock's exclusive content's price affect the prices of independents' files at other sites? We keep being told that the higher price of exclusive content is justified by it being unavailable anywhere else, so if you need that file you have to pay more to get it. That I understand (even though I doubt if most of it is unique enough to justify the claim). Are you now saying that there is no difference between exclusive and independent files so when people see high exclusive prices on iStock they are happy to pay lower prices for similar files on other sites? And are you suggesting that if iStock vanished, this would make the prices elsewhere fall? If so, how? And why?

I do try to understand everyone's different viewpoints but so far I can't follow the logic of what you are saying.

If I'm understanding this correctly it sounds like they're saying the higher pricing and collections at IS are keeping the pricing at other sites stable and helping to prevent more downward price pressure.

If this is accurate it might have some merit. A flood of new images at other sites would increase supply without increasing demand which could affect pricing. Plus, images that were getting premium pricing would suddenly be available at a fraction of the cost and also through subscription. So, all of the buyers at IS would now go and find cheaper sites which would further lower their perception about the value of images.

Once prices of something go down it is almost impossible to increase the prices unless something changes. Like supply. And micro supply isn't going down anytime soon.

So, IS going under may not be that great of a thing for all of us.

nevermind.

nevermind.

Exclusive?  arent you?

I think a big consideration is being overlooked here.  You're all assuming that buyers have all this time to shop around to find the best price.  I tend to believe that buyers may do some price shopping but once they find a place they are comfortable with they tend to stick with it.  Why?  because it's convenient and it's a place they understand and know.  that's what kept a lot of buyers at istock - once they found it they didn't have a lot of reason to look elsewhere.  Now they do.  Buyers have been pissed at the many price increases and the addition of confusing price collections.  the site bugs have only added to the upset.  Thus, they've started looking elsewhere - they find a site that works, has decent enough pricing for them and they move to it.  

I really don't think buyers are constantly out there comparing one site to another.  they just don't have time for all that.  yes, they'll do it once in awhile when they need to, but in the end they tend to stick with the places they trust will get them the final product they are looking for.  

I think a big consideration is being overlooked here.  You're all assuming that buyers have all this time to shop around to find the best price.  I tend to believe that buyers may do some price shopping but once they find a place they are comfortable with they tend to stick with it.  Why?  because it's convenient and it's a place they understand and know.  that's what kept a lot of buyers at istock - once they found it they didn't have a lot of reason to look elsewhere.  Now they do.  Buyers have been pissed at the many price increases and the addition of confusing price collections.  the site bugs have only added to the upset.  Thus, they've started looking elsewhere - they find a site that works, has decent enough pricing for them and they move to it.  

I really don't think buyers are constantly out there comparing one site to another.  they just don't have time for all that.  yes, they'll do it once in awhile when they need to, but in the end they tend to stick with the places they trust will get them the final product they are looking for.  

For the most part I agree with you, IS also made the big mistake of overlooking the fact that many of its buyers are also contributors who also talk to other buyers.  It is not so hard to change a supervisors position on the vendor you use when prices are also being raised in conjunction with best match changes that slow down the process of finding the images you need for projects. After all those supervisor think of man hours as more costly than a few extra dollars for an image.

Quote from: jamirae on December 29, 2011, 13:42

I think a big consideration is being overlooked here.  You're all assuming that buyers have all this time to shop around to find the best price.  I tend to believe that buyers may do some price shopping but once they find a place they are comfortable with they tend to stick with it.  Why?  because it's convenient and it's a place they understand and know.  that's what kept a lot of buyers at istock - once they found it they didn't have a lot of reason to look elsewhere.  Now they do.  Buyers have been pissed at the many price increases and the addition of confusing price collections.  the site bugs have only added to the upset.  Thus, they've started looking elsewhere - they find a site that works, has decent enough pricing for them and they move to it.  

I really don't think buyers are constantly out there comparing one site to another.  they just don't have time for all that.  yes, they'll do it once in awhile when they need to, but in the end they tend to stick with the places they trust will get them the final product they are looking for.  

For the most part I agree with you, IS also made the big mistake of overlooking the fact that many of its buyers are also contributors who also talk to other buyers.  It is not so hard to change a supervisors position on the vendor you use when prices are also being raised in conjunction with best match changes that slow down the process of finding the images you need for projects. After all those supervisor think of man hours as more costly than a few extra dollars for an image.

totally agree.  happened to me just the other day.  My boss was looking for an image for a new "portal" page on our website.  he turned to me and said "what is that site you use for images?  istock..?"  As he turned to his keyboard to pull up the site I responded "Just go to shutterstock.com or dreamstime.com "  Because I knew he would freak out when all the crazy agency and vetta images showed up in the search.   Plus we have buyer accounts at all three (SS, DT and IS) of those agencies anyway.  He found some images at SS quickly which we sent to our graphics guy as examples of what he was looking for. 

In the past I would have gladly steered him straight to iStock, now I recommend different options.

Quote from: jamirae on December 29, 2011, 16:00

totally agree.  happened to me just the other day.  My boss was looking for an image for a new "portal" page on our website.  he turned to me and said "what is that site you use for images?  istock..?"  As he turned to his keyboard to pull up the site I responded "Just go to shutterstock.com or dreamstime.com "  Because I knew he would freak out when all the crazy agency and vetta images showed up in the search.   

I think this post says it all.   And notice the amount of time that was available to spend figuring out that wonderfully simple, intuitively obvious "slider".   Zero.

Yup!  there you have it, in a nut-shell. Imagine the "BIG"  brains behind this slider?  trying to indirectly fool buyers, thinking it was a quality slider, not a price slider. Man! what jerks.