Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391643 times)

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1025 on:** February 27, 2011, 18:32 »

A few pages back there was a riff about sometimes IS being cheaper than other sites. I was thinking about the ways that can be and thought an example might be interesting.

I had looked at LisaFX's new personal site and noted that her large size images there were selling for $15 - this was the one I picked as it's sold like hotcakes at most sites. I thought $15 was pretty modest for the large size (although I think it's a quirk of ktools that it isn't the same large size as you get elsewhere; I think they have a uniform long side measurement for each size ... but I digress)

At FT, that image is 16 credits for the XL size, at IS 10 credits for L and at DT 16 credits for XL (the largest real size).

Buying the smallest credit packages I can, 16 credits at FT would cost $19.20, 10 credits at IS would be $15.40 and 16 credits at DT $16.00 (I'd have credits left over given package sizes; I'm just trying to get to a price per credit for small purchases).

So buying from Lisa direct is the best deal

But the next best deal (arguably better as I get all the original pixels, which I don't via her own store) is IS.

I guess the other takeaway from this is that contributors have some leeway to undercut the agencies on price where their images are successful and prices are higher - obviously I'm guessing Lisa would rather buyers purchased from her at $15

yuliang11 · « **Reply #1026 on:** February 28, 2011, 22:05 »

anyone noticed all new uploaded photos do not have EL by default? it's such a pain selecting it one by one

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1027 on:** February 28, 2011, 23:00 »

Quote from: yuliang11 on February 28, 2011, 22:05

anyone noticed all new uploaded photos do not have EL by default? it's such a pain selecting it one by one

Use DeepMeta and it will do it for you (it reads your preference and makes sure the box is checked).

Risamay · « **Reply #1028 on:** March 01, 2011, 19:31 »

I don't know where else to +1 or WooYay it (as I'm banned by special request on IS forums), so I thought this thread made the most sense:

Quote

Posted by Saturated:
As Sean said, where's the growth?

Posted by jtyler:
To those who can produce Vetta and Agency files. I think all those people will be moved over to Getty and IS will shut down or no longer be a major player. The favoritism is becoming too apparent. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so and would never had said so a year ago.

Yup, yup.

Source: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=309072&page=8

cathyslife · « **Reply #1029 on:** March 01, 2011, 19:42 »

Quote from: Risamay on March 01, 2011, 19:31

I don't know where else to +1 or WooYay it (as I'm banned by special request on IS forums), so I thought this thread made the most sense:

Quote
Posted by Saturated:
As Sean said, where's the growth?

Posted by jtyler:
To those who can produce Vetta and Agency files. I think all those people will be moved over to Getty and IS will shut down or no longer be a major player. The favoritism is becoming too apparent. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so and would never had said so a year ago.

Yup, yup.

Source: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=309072&page=8

I guess it just takes some folks a little longer to wake up and smell the coffee.

lisafx · « **Reply #1030 on:** March 02, 2011, 10:47 »

Thanks very much for the plug JoAnn! And for the excellent research. Now the big challenge is to somehow attract some customers!

Your point about Istock being the (second)best deal is certainly a good one. The problem with Istock, at the moment, is that most of my images would be * near impossible to find - between search issues, and non-exclusive files buried at the back.

Sadstock · « **Reply #1031 on:** March 02, 2011, 23:48 »

Another Bailer

dragonflistudio

"I love great photography and I'm the first one to say that my job as a graphic artist is easier with good photography, but this site is getting too expensive. I can do my own local photo shoots for less money. I'm heading to another website to buy photos."

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=309762&page=1

lagereek · « **Reply #1032 on:** March 03, 2011, 02:31 »

No, they would not move Vettas and agency-files into Getty and close IS.

The Getty name of today is lightyears away from what it used to be, they have lost major buyers in RM and RF, etc and they would never survive on micro alone.
Many of my colleques and Im talking big names, are so pissed off with it all theyre bailig themselves.

Further more the Vettas are not recognized as a major creative source among shall we say the upper-class buyers, I know many that still consult smaller RM and RF outlets for when they need and want something special.

caspixel · « **Reply #1033 on:** March 09, 2011, 22:40 »

Well, this isn't a buyer bailing, but it sure is a frustrated buyer: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312262&page=1

While it is his responsibility to double check the size, it does seem like it's something that should be adjusted. First off, the selection you make should not change from not logged in to logged in, and second maybe they should consider having the default be something other than the largest size. Medium seems fair if they are going to have something checked by default. Or here's a novel idea. How about NOT having anything checked by default? It does seem somewhat intentionally deceptive to have the largest size checked...in the hopes that someone will make that mistake and resign themselves to the fact that they effed up, not realizing that they can contact customer relations to get it rectified. I wonder how many people it has happened to...

visceralimage · « **Reply #1034 on:** March 10, 2011, 02:41 »

Quote from: caspixel on March 09, 2011, 22:40

Well, this isn't a buyer bailing, but it sure is a frustrated buyer: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312262&page=1

to have the largest size checked...in the hopes that someone will make that mistake and resign themselves to the fact that they effed up

Actually, this is a marketing ploy, marketing 101; at fast food restaurants they teach the cashiers
If a customer orders a coke and does not say the size; you ask them "large?", you don't ask them "what size?". Granted, at IS they are not asking, they have the box checked and expect the buyer to make another choice.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1035 on:** March 10, 2011, 03:42 »

It's hilarious that some people think it is a bug or a "glitch" and apparently think iS wouldn't do that sort of thing on purpose. They must be living in Cloudcuckooland.

Caz · « **Reply #1036 on:** March 10, 2011, 05:14 »

Quote from: visceralimage on March 10, 2011, 02:41

Quote from: caspixel on March 09, 2011, 22:40
Well, this isn't a buyer bailing, but it sure is a frustrated buyer: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312262&page=1

to have the largest size checked...in the hopes that someone will make that mistake and resign themselves to the fact that they effed up

Actually, this is a marketing ploy, marketing 101; at fast food restaurants they teach the cashiers
If a customer orders a coke and does not say the size; you ask them "large?", you don't ask them "what size?". Granted, at IS they are not asking, they have the box checked and expect the buyer to make another choice.

It's common practice. If I buy train tickets from an machine, it gives me a peak time ticket unless I specifically select off peak. On Amazon, items that I added in my basket but didn't check out stay in my basket. If a few weeks later I'm in a rush and buy an item with the 1 click purchase system, I get the other items that I'd put in my basket weeks before too. It's my responsibility, it's not hidden in any way, it's right there in my face. I did that once, and had to return all the other items for refund (which is what the iStock buyer has been repeatedly told she can do), and since that one time, I take the extra one second to check what I'm doing.

briciola · « **Reply #1037 on:** March 10, 2011, 05:42 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 10, 2011, 03:42

It's hilarious that some people think it is a bug or a "glitch" and apparently think iS wouldn't do that sort of thing on purpose. They must be living in Cloudcuckooland.

yep, likely the same people that believe it must take months and months worth of development to fix the vetta/agency can't be excluded "glitch"

lisafx · « **Reply #1038 on:** March 10, 2011, 12:31 »

Weird. Now the buyer is just gone. The buyer didn't threaten to quit, but looks like their busy "corporate master" account has vanished like they never existed.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=312262&messageid=6033512

gostwyck · « **Reply #1039 on:** March 10, 2011, 13:08 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 10, 2011, 12:31

Weird. Now the buyer is just gone. The buyer didn't threaten to quit, but looks like their busy "corporate master" account has vanished like they never existed.

They've gone all right __ presumably taking their "2500 credits every few months" expenditure elsewhere.

I can see their point though. Imagine if you bought clothes on-line and they just automatically sent you the XXL size unless you stated otherwise. Especially if the XXL size just happened to cost twice as much as the most popular size you actually wanted. Of course no on-line clothing retailer has a default setting for size, it always has to be selected by the customer. Istock could do that too if they wanted, just like they could also allow the customer to exclude Vetta/Agency. Such tactics won't work in the long-term, that's for sure.

caspixel · « **Reply #1040 on:** March 10, 2011, 13:23 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 10, 2011, 12:31

Weird. Now the buyer is just gone. The buyer didn't threaten to quit, but looks like their busy "corporate master" account has vanished like they never existed.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=312262&messageid=6033512

Interesting. I guess they bailed after all.

jamirae · « **Reply #1041 on:** March 10, 2011, 13:32 »

Quote from: caspixel on March 10, 2011, 13:23

Quote from: lisafx on March 10, 2011, 12:31
Weird. Now the buyer is just gone. The buyer didn't threaten to quit, but looks like their busy "corporate master" account has vanished like they never existed.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=312262&messageid=6033512

Interesting. I guess they bailed after all.

maybe they put buyers in a "time-out" too! "Bad, Buyer! go sit in Time-Out until you calm down. When you are ready to play nicely, then you can come back and play at iStock." maybe not, but it all seems a little fishy to me. I'm surprised the whole thread has not disappeared yet.

lisafx · « **Reply #1042 on:** March 10, 2011, 13:36 »

Quote from: jamirae on March 10, 2011, 13:32

maybe they put buyers in a "time-out" too! "Bad, Buyer! go sit in Time-Out until you calm down. When you are ready to play nicely, then you can come back and play at iStock." maybe not, but it all seems a little fishy to me. I'm surprised the whole thread has not disappeared yet.

This was my thought too. A buyer can go shop elsewhere without immediately closing out their Istock account. To see a buyer account shut down so quickly definitely suggests administrative involvement.

caspixel · « **Reply #1043 on:** March 10, 2011, 13:42 »

Maybe, but they put me on a time out, remember, but I still have my account there and am still allowed to purchase images. In fact, I'm fairly sure my time out is permanent. I don't think they would delete a buyer's account just for griping on the forums like that. Ban them from the forums, yes, total deleting, highly unlikely.

I mean, look at all the things I've said about iStock here, and they still haven't deleted my account. No they are not going to do that. They still want your money no matter how much you gripe.

Sadstock · « **Reply #1044 on:** March 10, 2011, 16:41 »

The OP had a "Corporate Master" icon, so maybe they found another "master" for the company.

Have to say "Corporate Master" sound a bit kinky, but in a very dull way.

caspixel · « **Reply #1045 on:** March 11, 2011, 18:56 »

Wow. Posted on the Royalties Claw Back thread:

An interesting side-note. By day I work for a large advertising group (not as a designer, in I.T.).. Our head office just received a notice form one of our biggest clients requesting (on moral grounds), that no artwork/images for any future contracts be sourced from iStock or any of the Getty images family! We have never had a request like this before.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=53

Interesting.

Even more interesting that this post has now disappeared from the thread.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1046 on:** March 11, 2011, 19:09 »

Quote from: caspixel on March 11, 2011, 18:56

Wow. Posted on the Royalties Claw Back thread:

An interesting side-note. By day I work for a large advertising group (not as a designer, in I.T.).. Our head office just received a notice form one of our biggest clients requesting (on moral grounds), that no artwork/images for any future contracts be sourced from iStock or any of the Getty images family! We have never had a request like this before.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=53

Interesting.

Even more interesting that this post has now disappeared from the thread.

Ha ha ha __ but you were much too quick for them!!! That must have 'disappeared' in under two minutes. I only wish they were as quick to act against the thieves.

The comment has been duly noted and faithfully recorded in this mighty and historical tome ... on the interweb ... for everyone to read ... forever.

caspixel · « **Reply #1047 on:** March 11, 2011, 19:16 »

Quote from: gostwyck on March 11, 2011, 19:09

Ha ha ha __ but you were much too quick for them!!! That must have 'disappeared' in under two minutes. I only wish they were as quick to act against the thieves.

The comment has been duly noted and faithfully recorded in this mighty and historical tome ... on the interweb ... for everyone to read ... forever.

I guess sometimes procrastination is a good thing. (Mine, that is.)

caspixel · « **Reply #1048 on:** March 16, 2011, 17:47 »

Interesting. Corporate buyer lhministries is back. And still pissed:

This is an update to http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312262&page=1

since that discussion got shut down eventhough we were in the middle of it. (Thanks iStock moderators)

I submitted a ticket regarding that issue and I've been told they might try to fix it, which to me sounded like they're going to burry it.

So here's the link where everyone can petition istock to make that modification:

http://www.istockphoto.com/contact_ticket_comment.php?id=sgmkDuvS%2Bxk%3D

Bottom Line: There's a programming "glitch" that if not paying attention, the buyer ends up purchasing and downloading a more expensive version of the stock. I'm not going to say anything bad about iStock anymore.You decide if you can live with this or not.

If you would like this glitch fixed send your coments to that ticket i posted.

Either way, following british examples of cases from the UK Online Trading Standards Comitte , if this doesn't get addressed, the FTC will be notified

I predict that thread will disappear: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314832&page=1

lisafx · « **Reply #1049 on:** March 16, 2011, 18:01 »

Considering the response he got, I wonder if it is a "glitch" after all, or more of a "feature"?

BTW, Carolyn, thanks for posting his text, in case it is deleted.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391643 times)

Jo Ann Snover

yuliang11

Jo Ann Snover

Risamay

cathyslife

lisafx

Sadstock

lagereek

caspixel

visceralimage

BaldricksTrousers

Caz

briciola

lisafx

gostwyck

caspixel

jamirae

lisafx

caspixel

Sadstock

caspixel

gostwyck

caspixel

caspixel

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors