Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391791 times)

jamirae · « **Reply #1225 on:** May 25, 2011, 10:27 »

this just in...another buyer --

Quote from designcentric at http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329630&page=1

Quote

Since Getty purchased iStock and has steadily been increasing the prices of the photos I've pretty much jumped ship. It's funny what happens when corporate greed gets inserted into a good community concept—it kills it. Take notice Getty Corp, I used to spend thousands of dollars buying photos, now it's been reduced to less than hundreds. Don't assume your users are simply dumb frogs that can be boiled if you turn up the heat slowly. Everyone notices and I've almost stopped using your product.

The Getty management team needs to be ejected.

loop · « **Reply #1226 on:** May 25, 2011, 10:39 »

I think that when customers say Istock is greedy, they are also saying we, photographers, are greedy as well. Very few of them show concern for what commision we get; most of them only mind the price they have to pay. And there are different kinds of clients. Well, I prefer to be "greedy", sell my files cheap but no so cheap at the price of selling less. Consider that I would need about 688 subscription sales (at average of 0.30) to match what I've done until now today just with Vetta and Agency files (all larger sizes, all 20% discounted).

jamirae · « **Reply #1227 on:** May 25, 2011, 10:44 »

Quote from: loop on May 25, 2011, 10:39

I think that when customer say Istock is greedy, they are also saying we, photographers, are greedy as well. Very few of them show concern for what commision we get; most of them only mind the price they have to pay. And there are different kinds of clients. Well, I prefer to be "greedy", sell my files cheap but no so cheap at the price of selling less. Consider that I would need about 688 subscription sales (at average of 0.30) to match what I've done until now today just with Vetta and Agency files (all larger sizes, all 20% discounted).

I don't think most customers distinguish between photographer and the company (istock in this case). They see the product, it's sold by istock, istock charges too much for it. period. they don't go beyond that and think about the fact that there's another party in all this and that's the photographer who gets their small cut of that sales price.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1228 on:** May 25, 2011, 11:35 »

Another one here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329638&page=1

"I would like iStockPhoto's website to inform me if I have already purchased a photo, even 2 years ago. I have started buying elsewhere since it is too easy to buy the same photos again and waste money. I have too many purchased photos to go through everytime I make a new purchase----so I am taking business elsehwhere until this is fixed and your site is more user-friendly."

That's a slightly odd one. Do the other agencies always tell people if they've bought an image before? Even Amazon doesn't do that!

Later: I see SuperSean has replied with a Greasemonkey script which does that. I can only echo Peregrina: where does he get the time to even learn how to do that stuff far less actually do it.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1229 on:** May 25, 2011, 11:38 »

It's hardly a bug or a con-trick, is it? If you can't be bothered to check what you've got on file, then I don't see why it is iStock's job to do that for you.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1230 on:** May 25, 2011, 11:40 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 25, 2011, 11:35

Even Amazon doesn't do that!

Yes it does. Try buying something you've bought previously (when logged in) and it should flash up a yellow warning banner.

jamirae · « **Reply #1231 on:** May 25, 2011, 11:41 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 25, 2011, 11:35

Another one here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329638&page=1

"I would like iStockPhoto's website to inform me if I have already purchased a photo, even 2 years ago. I have started buying elsewhere since it is too easy to buy the same photos again and waste money. I have too many purchased photos to go through everytime I make a new purchase----so I am taking business elsehwhere until this is fixed and your site is more user-friendly."

That's a slightly odd one. Do the other agencies always tell people if they've bought an image before? Even Amazon doesn't do that!

Later: I see SuperSean has replied with a Greasemonkey script which does that. I can only echo Peregrina: where does he get the time to even learn how to do that stuff far less actually do it.

actually Amazon does tell me -- check this out on something I bought in 1998!

jamirae · « **Reply #1232 on:** May 25, 2011, 11:43 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 25, 2011, 11:38

It's hardly a bug or a con-trick, is it? If you can't be bothered to check what you've got on file, then I don't see why it is iStock's job to do that for you.

true, but excellent customer service. Which is why Amazon is still on top and iStock is slipping - fast.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1233 on:** May 25, 2011, 11:50 »

Quote from: jamirae on May 25, 2011, 11:43

Which is why Amazon is still on top and iStock is slipping - fast.

True. I am staggered at just how quickly they are screwing Istock up. They had a virtual stranglehold over a mouth-wateringly profitable industry ... and now they haven't.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1234 on:** May 25, 2011, 11:50 »

Quote from: jamirae on May 25, 2011, 11:43

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 25, 2011, 11:38
It's hardly a bug or a con-trick, is it? If you can't be bothered to check what you've got on file, then I don't see why it is iStock's job to do that for you.

true, but excellent customer service. Which is why Amazon is still on top and iStock is slipping - fast.

Ah - Amazon UK doesn't do it. I accidentally bought something I'd previously bought a couple of years ago, and I just checked just now with something I bought last year, and there was no warning.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1235 on:** May 25, 2011, 11:52 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 25, 2011, 11:50

Ah - Amazon UK doesn't do it. I accidentally bought something I'd previously bought a couple of years ago, and I just checked just now with something I bought last year, and there was no warning.

Yes it does. It has to be the identical product though.

jamirae · « **Reply #1236 on:** May 25, 2011, 11:58 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 25, 2011, 11:52

Quote from: ShadySue on May 25, 2011, 11:50
Ah - Amazon UK doesn't do it. I accidentally bought something I'd previously bought a couple of years ago, and I just checked just now with something I bought last year, and there was no warning.

Yes it does. It has to be the identical product though.

and make sure you're logged in.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1237 on:** May 25, 2011, 13:11 »

Quote from: jamirae on May 25, 2011, 11:58

Quote from: gostwyck on May 25, 2011, 11:52
Quote from: ShadySue on May 25, 2011, 11:50
Ah - Amazon UK doesn't do it. I accidentally bought something I'd previously bought a couple of years ago, and I just checked just now with something I bought last year, and there was no warning.

Yes it does. It has to be the identical product though.

and make sure you're logged in.

I'll take your word for it, though I've now tried a few without success.

However, which other micros do this?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1238 on:** May 25, 2011, 14:04 »

Quote from: jamirae on May 25, 2011, 11:43

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 25, 2011, 11:38
It's hardly a bug or a con-trick, is it? If you can't be bothered to check what you've got on file, then I don't see why it is iStock's job to do that for you.

true, but excellent customer service. Which is why Amazon is still on top and iStock is slipping - fast.

Another (probably more important) factor is that Amazon's prices are very good and its best match seems to sort by closest subject rather than highest price first.

Anyone who gets upset just over not being told they've bought something earlier clearly hasn't been staying in touch with iStock's priorities recently. An agency/vetta filter would be much more valuable to customers than a "bought previously" warning.

wiser · « **Reply #1239 on:** May 25, 2011, 19:39 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 25, 2011, 13:11

Quote from: jamirae on May 25, 2011, 11:58
Quote from: gostwyck on May 25, 2011, 11:52
Quote from: ShadySue on May 25, 2011, 11:50
Ah - Amazon UK doesn't do it. I accidentally bought something I'd previously bought a couple of years ago, and I just checked just now with something I bought last year, and there was no warning.

Yes it does. It has to be the identical product though.

and make sure you're logged in.
I'll take your word for it, though I've now tried a few without success.

However, which other micros do this?

If you go to download an already downloaded image on Shutterstock it shows a dialog box that you are downloading under a previous license and you can download it again (if you want) without it coming off your daily total. This feature is great as sometimes I need a larger size than a colleague downloaded previously or I have accidentally deleted an image. We have four designers and this feature also let's us know if someone else in the office already bought it.

Thinkstock does the same thing.

I can't speak to the other micro sites.

As to the prices at IS, got no problem with Vetta or Agency, I just take issue with not having the ability to exclude them in my searches. I really think this is what sticks in the buyers craw, having them shoved down our throats.

sharpshot · « **Reply #1240 on:** May 26, 2011, 02:03 »

Istock were the No.1 microstock site. I think their biggest mistake has been to move away from microstock. The collections that they have put on the first pages of their search are midstock, so now they're the No.1 midstock site but that looks like a much less lucrative market.

They might still have a chance to fix this but it's hard to see them doing a big u-turn now. Perhaps we're all wrong and they have the best strategy to increase their profits but loosing loyal buyers to their rivals looks really risky and they are vulnerable to the lower cost sites. Istock severely damaged Getty with microstock and it looks like istock now has the same problem. They might think all their buyers that still want microstock prices will go to thinkstock but it's looking like they prefer SS.

Perhaps the biggest surprise for me is how loyal contributors and buyers have been to istock. They are having to work really hard to lose their market dominance. I thought more contributors wouldn't accept the lowest commissions being cut and I thought more buyers would of moved to lower priced sites by now.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1241 on:** May 26, 2011, 02:28 »

Here's another. Same old story;

"I appreciate all the input, I understand that istockphoto needs to make money but it seems like in the past year it has gotten absurd. Much higher pricing and difficult search options have cause me to not only search istockphoto but as well as other stock art options, where as before I would just go to this site for all my stock."

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1

caspixel · « **Reply #1242 on:** May 26, 2011, 09:38 »

I wonder if that thread is going to get the "Sorry. Good luck" lock.

caspixel · « **Reply #1243 on:** May 29, 2011, 12:31 »

Say good-bye to jerryleeg:

I've been using istock extensively for years and when the last of my credits run out, I'm going to have to move on. With no way to sort by price and no improvements to the search functionality, trying to find a suitable image at a price I or my clients would be willing to pay has become such a time consuming and frustrating chore. Thankfully, not all of istock's competitors have chosen greed over usability.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1

nruboc · « **Reply #1244 on:** May 29, 2011, 12:38 »

Quote from: caspixel on May 29, 2011, 12:31

Say good-bye to jerryleeg:

I've been using istock extensively for years and when the last of my credits run out, I'm going to have to move on. With no way to sort by price and no improvements to the search functionality, trying to find a suitable image at a price I or my clients would be willing to pay has become such a time consuming and frustrating chore. Thankfully, not all of istock's competitors have chosen greed over usability.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1

Not goodbye, hello jerry, welcome to ShutterStock, Dreamstime, Fotolia...wherever you end up

gostwyck · « **Reply #1245 on:** May 29, 2011, 13:27 »

Quote from: caspixel on May 29, 2011, 12:31

Say good-bye to jerryleeg:

I've been using istock extensively for years and when the last of my credits run out, I'm going to have to move on. With no way to sort by price and no improvements to the search functionality, trying to find a suitable image at a price I or my clients would be willing to pay has become such a time consuming and frustrating chore. Thankfully, not all of istock's competitors have chosen greed over usability.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1

This sort of thing is 'unsustainable'. At what point will Istock actually realise it and attempt to turn the ship around? The 'How was your May' reports should make interesting reading on the Istock forum ... for SS anyway.

Message from Jon Oringer - "Return home Agent Thompson. Mission complete"

lisafx · « **Reply #1246 on:** May 29, 2011, 15:51 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 29, 2011, 13:27

Message from Jon Oringer - "Return home Agent Thompson. Mission complete"

LOL!

jamirae · « **Reply #1247 on:** May 29, 2011, 18:16 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 29, 2011, 13:27

Quote from: caspixel on May 29, 2011, 12:31
Say good-bye to jerryleeg:

I've been using istock extensively for years and when the last of my credits run out, I'm going to have to move on. With no way to sort by price and no improvements to the search functionality, trying to find a suitable image at a price I or my clients would be willing to pay has become such a time consuming and frustrating chore. Thankfully, not all of istock's competitors have chosen greed over usability.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1

This sort of thing is 'unsustainable'. At what point will Istock actually realise it and attempt to turn the ship around? The 'How was your May' reports should make interesting reading on the Istock forum ... for Shutterstock anyway.

Message from Jon Oringer - "Return home Agent Thompson. Mission complete"

I fear it may well end up being "too little too late" by the time they decide to turn the ship around they will already be crashing into that large part of the iceberg that they refuse to acknowledge existence of.

sharpshot · « **Reply #1248 on:** May 30, 2011, 02:33 »

None of us really know if they are replacing the income lost by buyers leaving with the extra money that people are paying for the premium collection images. They would of known that the higher prices would be too much for a proportion of their buyers and they don't seem concerned about it. Then there's the commission cut, that might offset some loss from buyers leaving. They might find it harder if contributors stopped uploading new images or removed their portfolios but that hasn't happened on a big scale.

I think they would be forced to change direction if enough buyers and contributors stopped using the site but it looks like the numbers are too small to be significant. The monthly earnings thread is difficult to asses because one big contributor that has a good month could contract 50 small contributors that complain in that thread. I think we need someone inside Getty/istock to spill the beans.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1249 on:** May 30, 2011, 02:56 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 30, 2011, 02:33

None of us really know if they are replacing the income lost by buyers leaving with the extra money that people are paying for the premium collection images.

There are a few indicators. They reduced the RC targets at the end of last year presumably because sales were less than they projected (just 3 months earlier).

Also, in the latest best match shuffle, Vetta/Agency images are significantly less dominant suggesting that things weren't quite working out how they had hoped.

The introduction of P+ looks like a knee-jerk reaction to shore up falling revenues and to save the embarrassment of having to reduce RC targets yet further.

Then there's everyone's statistics ... Let's see how many Diamond level contributors report increases in revenue in May, particularly over May 2010. (Btw, income at SS looks like being up about 40% over the same period without any price increases to help. Coincidence?).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391791 times)

jamirae

loop

jamirae

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

gostwyck

jamirae

jamirae

gostwyck

ShadySue

gostwyck

jamirae

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

wiser

sharpshot

gostwyck

caspixel

caspixel

nruboc

gostwyck

lisafx

jamirae

sharpshot

gostwyck

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors