pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock  (Read 327308 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: September 12, 2010, 09:27 »
0
I know that Scott Kelby buys from Istock, wonder if he knows what the agency is doing and if it would change a thing... .
Has anyone contacted him, he describes his personal philosophy as "You never go wrong by doing the right thing". Someone should at least sound him out.

I don't think someone should sound him out, I think we all should sound him out. Did you contact him yet?  ;)


lisafx

« Reply #126 on: September 12, 2010, 10:24 »
0
Good catch Massman!  I hope David won't mind my quoting it here:

Not at all, but for clarity, that was something I posted for a friend anonymously, not a personal experience. One of the other contributors got flustered with me over there about it.

Thanks for allowing me to post it.  This is exactly the type of information we need to post here and exactly what the folks at Getty should be listening to.  Not everyone feels they can be open about who they are for fear of retaliation, but their money is just as green and their business is just as gone.

Ha!  For a moment there I thought you said Lisa - and was about to jump in and defend her.   :D

Yeah, I am more in the "struggling to put food on the table" category than the top dogs are, but definitely can't just quietly accept something like this.  To be honest, with so much to lose I am surprised the top tier are not making more of a stink. 

In the case of exclusives like Lise, most likely they will be staying on the 40% they already get, so not really losing anything beyond some imaginary higher level.  And perhaps Yuri has been so busy building huge ports at other sites, and selling his services, blogs, etc. that perhaps IS is only a tiny part of his income at this point? 

Have to give Sean credit, he is one of the only top people to be making an issue of this.  Perhaps it is because he is smart enough to see that, even though it doesn't affect his income NOW, the moving goal posts, outside content, and departing buyers WILL almost certainly affect his income in the future. 

« Reply #127 on: September 12, 2010, 11:15 »
0
Have to give Sean credit, he is one of the only top people to be making an issue of this.  Perhaps it is because he is smart enough to see that, even though it doesn't affect his income NOW, the moving goal posts, outside content, and departing buyers WILL almost certainly affect his income in the future. 

I have been meaning to say something about Sean and this is a perfect place. I really appreciate that he spends time here in this forum, offering advice and even setting everyone straight when needed. As an exclusive, he didn't have to do that, but he impresses me as being a good business person, taking the time to keep a finger on the pulse of the microstock community, not just on his wallet. He has a huge portfolio and does a good business...I appreciate that he is being vocal on this.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #128 on: September 12, 2010, 12:13 »
0
Good idea if you can get some big names on board? What are Lise and Yuri saying? If you can get some heavy weights to support us it would be great. However they are so rich they probably don't care about the poor man and woman who has to scrap money together to put food on the table.
Lise has some big Admin job at istock, so I guess her lips are sealed.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #129 on: September 12, 2010, 13:06 »
0

Lisa - you're always going to be one of the best, nicest contributors out there and I do sincerely feel for non-exclusives like you. I hope for the ultimate well-being of your business, but I was surprised to see you start this thread and applaud some of the attitudes and actions taking place. you're so much better than that.

Thanks a lot for the kind words.  You know I think highly of you too :)

I have not been on board with bashing of exclusives, so that is not an attitude I have supported, but I certainly do support protesting this terrible change.  And as people with much more business acumen than I have said the best way to protest is to direct buyers to sites that offer a fairer commission, then that seems like a good starting place.

I know that as a person with the highest integrity (which I think describes you very well) you would do the same if it is what you thought was right...

you are right, I would. and of course I respect and admire your principles, even if in this instance I think they are misguided, if for no other reason, but prematurity. but I stand behind even though I disagree and certainly know that as an independent, you are in a completely different situation.

« Reply #130 on: September 12, 2010, 14:55 »
0
my brother is designing websites for huge and famous companies.( cannot say names here) 6 years ago he advised me to sell on IS.Now it was my turn to tell him to quit buying at IS. he will he promised me.

lisafx

« Reply #131 on: September 12, 2010, 17:11 »
0
my brother is designing websites for huge and famous companies.( cannot say names here) 6 years ago he advised me to sell on IS.Now it was my turn to tell him to quit buying at IS. he will he promised me.

Good for you Erik, and good for your brother too :)

lisafx

« Reply #132 on: September 12, 2010, 17:17 »
0
Posted by Kat in another thread:

The company I work for has already purchased thousands of credits before this announcement, so we have to use them up. We purchase at other sites as well so we don't get all our images from iStock, but we do get a lot of them there. I have started looking at other sites for images for the second half of the project because I suspect what we have so far will use up the credits by the end of the year.

Pixel-Pizzazz

« Reply #133 on: September 12, 2010, 21:21 »
0
I wonder what will happen when IS finally launches LOGOs and re-opens that wound.  That will probably be another ugly mess with the logo contributors having to defend their own interests against the buyers.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2010, 21:27 by Pixel-Pizzazz »

« Reply #134 on: September 12, 2010, 23:18 »
0
I've just had a lot of sales elsewhere, particularly at 123, DT and FT which is unusual for this time of the week.  Is this a coincidence or have buyers already switched to another side?  Anyone else notice an increase in sales at other agencies?

Interesting. I know that with my volume it is extremely minor sign, but I see sudden DT increase (first time I see - ahead  of SS). Buyers, way to go!

« Reply #135 on: September 13, 2010, 06:36 »
0
A friend tweeted me to say that he will be shopping elsewhere.

« Reply #136 on: September 13, 2010, 09:34 »
0

Recently posted:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4696662

Should the thread be deleted anytime, here is the post:

"Well, if anyone is still interested in another buyer's perspective, here's my latest. I have been looking at other stock sites and I am pleasantly surprised at the variety and quality of images I'm finding. I bought into the hype that iStock was the best site to find images, and while you contributors certainly, hands down, do a fantastic job there are also others out there who are also doing a fantastic job (some are independents who also upload here).


I am going be happy to support sites that offer their contributors a fairer percentage, especially when I can get equally as great quality images for less than what iStock is now charging.


Thanks for all the many years contributors!"

« Reply #137 on: September 13, 2010, 09:48 »
0
Thanks all ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ :).

« Reply #138 on: September 13, 2010, 10:00 »
0
I've done an almost complete search for the word "buy" on every page of the three threads. I Imagine I would find some more searching for "purchase" or better yet "purchas", but it takes ages :)

Also left out plenty of comments from contributors saying they had already persuaded their designer friends to go to other agencies. It leads me to believe the buyers' comments are only the tip of the iceberg as both contributors and buyers have extensive networks in the design business.

It's sad, but I can only hope the IS managers will take this seriously and re-think their strategy.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #139 on: September 13, 2010, 10:14 »
0
better hope that SS/DT/Fotolia etc., don't piss you off next, because your buyer friends will only do this once for you. next time they'll see the outcry for what it is.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2010, 10:52 by hawk_eye »

« Reply #140 on: September 13, 2010, 10:31 »
0
Thomas, use this:

http://davidgilder.com/misc/iStockfulator/noindex.cgi

Just plug in the the thread id, it will read the entire thread and compile it into a single page.  Once it loads right-click and view source, you should be able to search there pretty easily.  Some of the quotes still get picked up multiple times but it should be pretty easy to figure it out when you see it.

« Reply #141 on: September 14, 2010, 03:36 »
0
It may not be exactly what we want to read but I think there is some food for thought in this post from another buyer at Istock, Sassafras;

"Wow, what a kahuna thread, yikes. It was only a matter of time before the squeeze was put on the producers, and not just the buyers. That being said I am sure there will yet "another" pricing hike for us as well. I feel sorry for many of you. Reading the comments discussing the loss of the "community" hits a familiar chord. In a few short years IS has moved from the 1-2-3 dollars to almost $20 for a large image. While the pricing has gone up exponentially, how much more of the roughly 600% price hike has ended up in the contributers pockets? Yet even after reading through these enormous threads I doubt anyone on the "inside" is going to listen. Money speaks louder than words.

From a buyers viewpoint the endless rate hiking has been a challenge. We do talk amongst ourselves, and a lot of us developed similar coping strategies. We buy a lot less, we buy smaller, and we don't keep a large bank of credits (after being burned on multiple occasions). Most importantly IS has gone from the first spot to look, to the last (which is a shame, as there is a lot of good stuff by some very talented folks). I don't know of ANY business that can successfully pull off a 600% rate hike over such a short time. Guess it wasn't enough to satisfy the hunger for profit.

IS has pretty much destroyed the microstock market that it pretty much created. Mission accomplished?

Do any buyers bother posting here anymore?"

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #142 on: September 14, 2010, 10:20 »
0
I'd say that is exactly what some of you want to hear. FWIW, any buyers at agencies here that I've spoken to, who I work with daily, don't really care. they aren't generally concerned with how the artists are being compensated. they are too busy working. I'm a designer first, it is how I ended up selling my photos on iStock, I see the outrage as just another iStock forum meltdown. it's like crying wolf now and it's always the same contributors, more or less, who are upset.

that doesn't mean that many contributors don't have a reason to be worried, concerned or angry about what they will be losing. but sending buyers away from a site is just plain stupid. talk about shooting off your entire leg.

traveler1116

« Reply #143 on: September 14, 2010, 10:37 »
0
I'd say that is exactly what some of you want to hear. FWIW, any buyers at agencies here that I've spoken to, who I work with daily, don't really care. they aren't generally concerned with how the artists are being compensated. they are too busy working. I'm a designer first, it is how I ended up selling my photos on iStock, I see the outrage as just another iStock forum meltdown. it's like crying wolf now and it's always the same contributors, more or less, who are upset.

that doesn't mean that many contributors don't have a reason to be worried, concerned or angry about what they will be losing. but sending buyers away from a site is just plain stupid. talk about shooting off your entire leg.

It's only shooting yourself in the leg if you are exclusive, if not it's good business.  Am I missing something?

« Reply #144 on: September 14, 2010, 10:42 »
0
I'd say that is exactly what some of you want to hear. FWIW, any buyers at agencies here that I've spoken to, who I work with daily, don't really care. they aren't generally concerned with how the artists are being compensated. they are too busy working. I'm a designer first, it is how I ended up selling my photos on iStock, I see the outrage as just another iStock forum meltdown. it's like crying wolf now and it's always the same contributors, more or less, who are upset.

that doesn't mean that many contributors don't have a reason to be worried, concerned or angry about what they will be losing. but sending buyers away from a site is just plain stupid. talk about shooting off your entire leg.

It's only shooting yourself in the leg if you are exclusive, if not it's good business.  Am I missing something?

+1

lisafx

« Reply #145 on: September 14, 2010, 11:01 »
0

that doesn't mean that many contributors don't have a reason to be worried, concerned or angry about what they will be losing. but sending buyers away from a site is just plain stupid. talk about shooting off your entire leg.

It's only shooting yourself in the leg if you are exclusive, if not it's good business.  Am I missing something?

Exactly.  For independent contributors it's about survival. 

I can understand how to an exclusive contributor it would feel threatening to have buyers directed to sites that don't sell your work.  But to continuously characterize efforts to save our incomes as "whining" and "stupid" is really downright insulting and demeaning (not to mention wildly OT). 

Feel free to disagree.  You have in the past, and you are entitled to your opinion, but it would be very much appreciated if you could keep the insults and personal attacks out of it.  Thank you.

« Reply #146 on: September 14, 2010, 11:08 »
0
... sending buyers away from a site is just plain stupid. talk about shooting off your entire leg.

No __ going exclusive in the first place is shooting yourself in the leg. Why on earth risk your own income (not to mention that of others) by helping one agency maintain such a dangerously dominant position? That's the really stupid bit.

You haven't seen anything yet either __ Istock will soon want your arms and your other leg too.

« Reply #147 on: September 14, 2010, 11:10 »
0
Today I had two of the smallest sales; one on DT and one on IS. The sale at IS gave me $0.19, the one on DT gave me 0.30. In january the minimum price at IS will be $0.14

Please explain how it will hurt me if I ask my designer friends to shop at DT, when I get twice as much money per sale there.

« Reply #148 on: September 14, 2010, 11:11 »
0
but sending buyers away from a site is just plain stupid. talk about shooting off your entire leg.

If we are going to talk about legs, this is more like "shooting off your entire leg, and growing a new stronger leg as a replacement"

helix7

« Reply #149 on: September 14, 2010, 11:16 »
0
... but sending buyers away from a site is just plain stupid. talk about shooting off your entire leg.

I'd say that sending buyers away from the site that'll pay me 17% and directing them to the site that will pay me 50% is more like getting a fancy new shoe and pair of pants for that leg. Fancy pants, with all that extra income from every single sale.

:)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
14692 Views
Last post October 23, 2010, 14:12
by gbalex
18 Replies
5150 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 15:34
by lagereek
162 Replies
25712 Views
Last post May 14, 2012, 10:27
by jbryson
20 Replies
6007 Views
Last post February 14, 2013, 17:41
by Poncke
9 Replies
3854 Views
Last post January 15, 2014, 19:56
by djpadavona

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle