Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 393674 times)

caspixel · « **Reply #1050 on:** March 16, 2011, 18:09 »

It's not a glitch.

jamirae · « **Reply #1051 on:** March 16, 2011, 19:11 »

Quote from: lisafx 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.

Yes, i think it is a "feature" as well.

jamirae · « **Reply #1052 on:** April 19, 2011, 14:08 »

oh here you are .. I thought this thread may be left to fizzle out as iStock would come to its senses and stop pissing off buyers. i guess I was mistaken.

From the now-locked thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325592&messageid=6313322

Quote

posted by Kwest1216

I have to add my two cents to this discussion. I have about 60 credits left to spend and then I will no longer be a customer of istock.

I've been a customer for more than five years and have quickly seen the selection of non-agency, non-Vetta affordable images dwindle to almost nothing. I could deal with that but not being able to search quickly for a photo I need because agency/vetta images pop up first has driven me to extreme anger. I did a search today for Western and had to wade through nearly 30 pages before I could get to non-Agency non-Vetta photos. That is the extreme but it still takes too long to accomplish my goal.

I'm in web site design and KNOW that adding a search parameter to exclude these files is NOT a complicated process -- this is merely a business decision on istock's part to make me wade through them. I have NEVER been a Vetta buyer and I most likely NEVER will be -- I'm a one-person shop and can't justify the expense to my customers. So don't shove them down my throat.

Anyway, I would like to thank those talented artists over the years who have helped me to express my ideas in photos and graphics. Best wishes!

caspixel · « **Reply #1053 on:** April 19, 2011, 14:15 »

There are three others too jamirae. I posted them in the Best Match thread. Of course now all those threads are locked or deleted over on iStock.

Added here, just for posterity's sake:

Nic_Taylor - a long time exclusive contributor: There seriously needs to be a way to exclude Vetta and Agency collections. I've been with iStock for over 7 years and I'm getting sick and tired of image searches taking way too long because Vetta and Agency images are getting way way way to much freaking top placement in searches. I have bought from iStock because prices were cheap, key word there WERE. That's what iStock built it's name on and that's what people have always expected. If I was willing to pay $200-$300 I would be buying pics from Getty or some other site rather than iStock.

And don't give me this "we're working on it" bull-crap. I've been buying photos from other sites instead of iStock lately because I've gotten fed up with Vetta and Agency pictures that I can't exclude. I have never and will never buy them and there needs to be a way to remove them from searches.

FCDC - a buyer: Don't get me wrong -- I love iStock. I have spent thousands and thousands of dollars with iStockphoto.com over the past few years, between my own freelance business, other clients and contract work I've done.

That said, I'm at my end -- there HAS to be a way to exclue Vetta and Agency photos from the search.

There's nothing wrong with V/A -- but when introduced, it was promised to be a small, selective group of images, a very small percentage.

Today was the third time in 2 weeks where I searched for an image, got it approved by the client and went to final production -- only to realized, oops -- thats a Vetta image and my client is unwilling to pay that amount.

I am giving my business to Veer.com -- who lets you filter their marketplace photos by credit; sorry, istock -- you gotta do something different here.

-- Frustrated in DC

akirk- a buyer: These days when I search for an image, all I see are images costing 50 or more credits. What happened to the days of cheap photos? Time to hit Fotolia i guess.

Chris3fer · « **Reply #1054 on:** April 19, 2011, 14:33 »

I like how one of them got deleted because they mentioned going over to VEER. nice..

stockastic · « **Reply #1055 on:** April 19, 2011, 14:37 »

I'm a tiny minnow in this game, but used to make regular sales from my little, independent, no-Vetta portfolio, and continued to do so even as the recent search 'churn' got underway. But whatever they did this time, it's killed me dead. Stone cold dead.

jamirae · « **Reply #1056 on:** April 19, 2011, 14:40 »

Quote from: SuperRufus on April 19, 2011, 14:33

I like how one of them got deleted because they mentioned going over to VEER. nice..

the whole post got deleted? usually (or in the past) they would just edit and blank out the competitor's name. I went back to look for that post but didnt see it in my quick look.

thanks for adding those, cas.. I had seen those in your other post and should have copied them over myself but was too lazy and instead just drudged up this thread since it does seem like there have been a lot of posts by upset buyers these days.

caspixel · « **Reply #1057 on:** April 19, 2011, 14:44 »

I like how people are trying to offer "solutions". Clearly iStock does not want to implement anything like that or it would have already been done. Personally, I think they want to trick the buyer into buying the higher priced stuff.

loop · « **Reply #1058 on:** April 19, 2011, 14:47 »

Obviusly, buyers are old enough to know what they are buying and what they are paying. Saying otherwise would mean callling them fools.

caspixel · « **Reply #1059 on:** April 19, 2011, 15:01 »

I have read more than one post where a customer has complained about accidentally selecting Vetta files for their customers' projects. I have even had a client buy some photos at iStock and mentioned to me how expensive they were (now if they had come to me first and asked where to buy stock photos, I would have directed them to another site). If a person doesn't know their way around iStock then it's easy to see how they could be tricked. I don't think they are fools. It's an honest mistake. If you didn't know to look for the different camera icons - which are very small and unobtrusive - then how would you know there are different collections?

cathyslife · « **Reply #1060 on:** April 19, 2011, 16:59 »

Quote from: loop on April 19, 2011, 14:47

Obviusly, buyers are old enough to know what they are buying and what they are paying. Saying otherwise would mean callling them fools.

It isn't a question of buyers being old enough or knowing what they are paying. The problem is that buyers are on deadlines...to have to wade through pages and pages of images that they can't afford to buy is most definitely trying to trick them. I suppose the istock mentality is that if buyers are on deadline and they can only afford to spend a few minutes searching, they will spend the few minutes, then pick a Vetta/Agency photo just to get the job done. To me that is pretty deceptive business practices. But hey, you won't see surprise written on my face.

Snowball · « **Reply #1061 on:** April 19, 2011, 17:11 »

What's shocking is the responses from some exclusives to these angry customers. Telling the budget-conscious customer that Istock is merely transitioning from microstock to midstock is essentially saying "Istock no longer wants your business cheepskate". Although that is evidently the case, I can't see why exclusives would be crowing about it.

Not to mention telling buyer that "Yes, there are cheaper stock sites out there, but the quality of their product is cheaper, too. You get what you pay for."

Sorry, but that is just BS. Anyone who has bothered to shop at the other sites has found that the images are comparable to what's on offer at Istock. This myth that every image produced by an Istock exclusive is pure genius and every image produced by a non-exclusive is cheap crappola is simply not supported by the facts.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1062 on:** April 19, 2011, 17:25 »

Quote from: loop on April 19, 2011, 14:47

Obviusly, buyers are old enough to know what they are buying and what they are paying. Saying otherwise would mean callling them fools.

No. When you're accustomed to all images being at the same price and don't pay attention to marketing stuff or the forums, you could very easily overlook these collection changes without being a fool.

When I buy orange juice at the grocery store, I don't look at the price each time - I know what sort of price OJ is and I buy it. If I were in a chic beachfront cafe in an expensive resort town I'd definitely check prices before buying anything.

iStock has a storefront that trumpets affordability - "Find affordable results" on the top of the home page. There's nothing (other than prior bad experiences) to alert the buyer to watch what they're buying as some of the OJ is $25 an ounce instead of $4 a half gallon.

loop · « **Reply #1063 on:** April 19, 2011, 18:43 »

I look at the prices at the grocery store. It's no wok at all, just a glance.

That said, istockphoto has enough different prices to make the customer aware of them. It is not that they have a "normal" price and a "Vetta" price. They have non-exclusive, regular exclusive, exclusive plus, Vetta and Agency. I think that being 5 different prices the customer should be almost instantly aware that there are differences.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1064 on:** April 19, 2011, 18:54 »

Quote from: loop on April 19, 2011, 18:43

I look at the prices at the grocery store. It's no wok at all, just a glance.

That said, istockphoto has enough different prices to make the customer aware of them. It is not that they have a "normal" price and a "Vetta" price. They have non-exclusive, regular exclusive, exclusive plus, Vetta and Agency. I think that being 5 different prices the customer should be almost instantly aware that there are differences.

But we have ample evidence that it is not the case that all buyers are like you. You can blame them for their foolishness or you can build an environment that works for them.

How many customers saying "I'm sick of this" "It's wasting my time" "It used to be so great here but now I'm shopping elsewhere because this site's too expensive" will it take before you accept the buyers as they are rather than trying to insist they shape up and pay attention to all the details of the site and its many changes?

jsmithzz · « **Reply #1065 on:** April 19, 2011, 23:07 »

Reading all the posts from customers saying they're leaving for other sites makes me sick to my stomach. Even a couple of friends I have who work for large design firms have said they are going to look elsewhere for photos.

TPTB at Getty and iStock have really jumped the shark this time. This really does seem like the beginning of the end to me.

caspixel · « **Reply #1066 on:** April 19, 2011, 23:30 »

Quote from: loop on April 19, 2011, 14:47

Obviusly, buyers are old enough to know what they are buying and what they are paying. Saying otherwise would mean callling them fools.

Oh look! Case in point:

Nope. I’ve spent thousands of dollars with iStock over the last few years — for myself, for clients, for contract positions.

There NEEDS to be a way to exclude Vetta searches. I have had three occasions over the last few weeks when i missed that a photo was a vetta photos.

Send the photo to client, get approval, finalize the layout, get ready to finish production — oops, vetta.

I’ve given up in istock for the moment and gone over to veer.com’s marketplace, which actually lets you set a max credit amount in the search.

Vetta really doesn’t seem to be what istock said it to be in the beginning — sorry, istock but I think you’ve got it wrong on this one and have lost my faith on this one here.

Not to mention, they are also bailing.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325652&page=3#post6316632

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1067 on:** April 19, 2011, 23:46 »

Quote from: Snowball on April 19, 2011, 17:11

What's shocking is the responses from some exclusives to these angry customers. Telling the budget-conscious customer that Istock is merely transitioning from microstock to midstock is essentially saying "Istock no longer wants your business cheepskate". Although that is evidently the case, I can't see why exclusives would be crowing about it.

Shouldn't they say "we're transitioning from the most successful photo sales model ever invented - and we invented it - to a model that has failed every time someone tried to introduce it".

It's hard to see how anybody involved is happy with this. The whole V/A concept is built on the idea that the customer base is so large and so stupid that it won't realise where to find cheaper images. It can only work for as long as the inertia from the old days keeps lumbering on.

The idea of hiding cheaper, usable, high-selling files behind five, or ten, or twenty pages of zero-sales V/A is unbelievably disrespectful to customers. It implies that their time has no value and they can be conned into buying anything as long as it is on the first page or two.

One of the important benefits of using iStock that was repeatedly quoted in the past was that its search was so much better at putting good search results in front of buyers. Apparently that it no longer considered a significant factor in attracting business.

I wonder if the slider got turned off because buyers had managed to find it and start using it, rather than because nobody used it. That was the Vetta-Agency filter which people are asking for.

caspixel · « **Reply #1068 on:** April 20, 2011, 01:04 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 19, 2011, 23:46

Shouldn't they say "we're transitioning from the most successful photo sales model ever invented - and we invented it - to a model that has failed every time someone tried to introduce it".

Yup. Remember how successful iStockPro was.

lagereek · « **Reply #1069 on:** April 20, 2011, 01:05 »

Amazing! here are a bunch of bona-fide buyers, spending thousands and they still dont get the drift about this vetta. One buyer even says "vettas are not the best" and they STILL, dont get it.
How can you expect to run a business where you treat buyers like this? lock their threads, insult their intelligence, ignoring their requests.

The actual neglience here bears the hallmark of a business that will soon be up for sale or amalgamated into another umbrella with a differant name.

As far as the exclusives rude remarks? well it just prooves that these so called exclusives are nothing but amateurs without any customer relations knowledge, lack of know-how.
Lets face it, to be independant and survive requires a bit of brains.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1070 on:** April 20, 2011, 05:47 »

One thing I noticed on one of the threads was a contributor/buyer complaining about the V/A thing, yet they have plenty of Vettas in their port. So not only are they happy to have any Vetta benefits, but they must also be able to spot a Vetta image at 20 paces, and know all the tricks to avoid Vettas - different sort, go to page 2.3.4 ...

Snowball · « **Reply #1071 on:** April 20, 2011, 17:14 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 20, 2011, 05:47

One thing I noticed on one of the threads was a contributor/buyer complaining about the V/A thing, yet they have plenty of Vettas in their port. So not only are they happy to have any Vetta benefits, but they must also be able to spot a Vetta image at 20 paces, and know all the tricks to avoid Vettas - different sort, go to page 2.3.4 ...

This is a very good point. Even for buyers that KNOW about V/A they are difficult to avoid. Why does anyone have to employ all sorts of tricks just to weed out expensive, low-interest photos?

Hasn't anyone at Istock ever heard of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid!)?

Case in point - Louddoor:

"I've dropped thousands of dollars in credits into iStock in the 2 short years I've been at LoudDoor and it is intensely frustrating to see simple fixes like RE-ADDING the Vetta Exclude filter constantly be ignored.

We are all adults here. We all see through the BS of answers that aim for appeasement rather than fully transparent explanation. We want to know the real reason that this feature hasn't been brought back.

...snip

Point blank: If we (the buyers, the people that make this site and its contributors money) can't get a real, definite timeline on when Exclusion search filters will be added, we will continue to explore other sites that are more interested in helping us use our time as best as possible. "

cathyslife · « **Reply #1072 on:** April 20, 2011, 21:01 »

Quote from: Snowball on April 20, 2011, 17:14

Quote from: ShadySue on April 20, 2011, 05:47
One thing I noticed on one of the threads was a contributor/buyer complaining about the V/A thing, yet they have plenty of Vettas in their port. So not only are they happy to have any Vetta benefits, but they must also be able to spot a Vetta image at 20 paces, and know all the tricks to avoid Vettas - different sort, go to page 2.3.4 ...

This is a very good point. Even for buyers that KNOW about V/A they are difficult to avoid. Why does anyone have to employ all sorts of tricks just to weed out expensive, low-interest photos?

Hasn't anyone at Istock ever heard of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid!)?

Case in point - Louddoor:

"I've dropped thousands of dollars in credits into iStock in the 2 short years I've been at LoudDoor and it is intensely frustrating to see simple fixes like RE-ADDING the Vetta Exclude filter constantly be ignored.

We are all adults here. We all see through the BS of answers that aim for appeasement rather than fully transparent explanation. We want to know the real reason that this feature hasn't been brought back.

...snip

Point blank: If we (the buyers, the people that make this site and its contributors money) can't get a real, definite timeline on when Exclusion search filters will be added, we will continue to explore other sites that are more interested in helping us use our time as best as possible. "

But people just keep making threats. How many times have I heard contributors here say "just one more stupid thing that happens and I am gone." That was 20 stupid things ago. Until people are willing to make a hard choice and walk away, the abuse is going to continue...to both contributors and buyers.

Here's a clue: there will NEVER be a real, definite timeline. And even if you are TOLD there is a real, definite timeline, it still isn't going to happen!

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1073 on:** April 21, 2011, 00:16 »

Quote from: cclapper on April 20, 2011, 21:01

But people just keep making threats. How many times have I heard contributors here say "just one more stupid thing that happens and I am gone." That was 20 stupid things ago. Until people are willing to make a hard choice and walk away, the abuse is going to continue...to both contributors and buyers.

It's a hard choice for suppliers who get nothing from walking away. I doubt if it is hard at all for buyers, who stand to save both money and time (i.e. more money) from doing so. It's not surprising that iS thinks it can screw around with suppliers, it's amazing that they have decided they can do the same to customers.

sharpshot · « **Reply #1074 on:** April 21, 2011, 01:44 »

Suppliers don't have to walk away from istock. Just stop uploading until the site has been sold or until they realize they need us. That might be enough to tip the scales now. They aren't going to do anything until they see its going to hit their profits. If everyone just complains but carries on using the site as normal, we are going to just see more of the same.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 393674 times)

caspixel

jamirae

jamirae

caspixel

Chris3fer

stockastic

jamirae

caspixel

loop

caspixel

cathyslife

Snowball

Jo Ann Snover

loop

Jo Ann Snover

jsmithzz

caspixel

BaldricksTrousers

caspixel

lagereek

ShadySue

Snowball

cathyslife

BaldricksTrousers

sharpshot

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors