Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391786 times)

nruboc · « **Reply #1325 on:** June 26, 2011, 22:26 »

Quote from: yuliang11 on June 26, 2011, 22:08

Quote from: aldegonde on June 21, 2011, 04:57
what about promoting a website like stockfresh. . Untill now it is a very slow process and I don't know if it will pick up one day. But I like what they say

"Being photographers ourselves, we are passionate about what we do. We take pride in the fact that we give back as much to the community as it is possible. Our current minimum royalty rate is 50% which can go up to 62.5% because discounts are always on us!

We believe in fair compensation and fair pricing. We believe that creativity and excellence should be rewarded properly. We believe in quality over quantity. If you believe in the same ideas, join us and spread the word. "

stockfresh sucks. period

It's slow at the moment, but it does not suck.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #1326 on:** June 27, 2011, 00:21 »

Quote from: wiser on June 26, 2011, 17:58

It's still there

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=331150&page=1

The thing that gets me is that the zoom has been like this for three days.

"You could also just buy it and ask for a refund if you don't like it. Enough other people already do it."

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1327 on:** June 27, 2011, 01:26 »

Quote from: wiser on June 26, 2011, 17:58

It's still there

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=331150&page=1

The thing that gets me is that the zoom has been like this for three days.

Ah, but it will be "a Monday fix". Of course, that says nothing about which Monday

ShadySue · « **Reply #1328 on:** June 27, 2011, 08:08 »

Quote from: Microstock Posts on June 27, 2011, 00:21

Quote from: wiser on June 26, 2011, 17:58
It's still there

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=331150&page=1

The thing that gets me is that the zoom has been like this for three days.

"You could also just buy it and ask for a refund if you don't like it. Enough other people already do it."

I thought that was the obvious answer too, and wondered why no-one had suggested it.

caspixel · « **Reply #1329 on:** June 27, 2011, 09:06 »

To be fair, if it's a whole bunch of photos that would be a real PITA.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1330 on:** June 27, 2011, 09:08 »

Quote from: caspixel on June 27, 2011, 09:06

To be fair, if it's a whole bunch of photos that would be a real PITA.

And then you've got a big pile of iStock credits so you are forced to remain a customer there - or do they refund credits, too? I've never heard any suggestion that they do.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1331 on:** June 27, 2011, 09:17 »

Quote from: caspixel on June 27, 2011, 09:06

To be fair, if it's a whole bunch of photos that would be a real PITA.

OTOH, it also showed a great lack of confidence in the iStock inspection standards.

yuliang11 · « **Reply #1332 on:** June 30, 2011, 23:01 »

Quote from: nruboc on June 26, 2011, 22:26

stockfresh sucks. period

It's slow at the moment, but it does not suck.
[/quote]

this site rejects 50% of more on what i got , i don't want to be promoting another IS wannabe. they don't even have a single sale for me. it's a complete waste of bandwidth uploading there. even the slowest agency is doing better than them

sharpshot · « **Reply #1333 on:** July 01, 2011, 00:57 »

^^^No problems with rejections for me and they do have some sales. It can't just be me getting some sales there, as they are doing OK for a relatively new site in the poll results here. Definitely not an istock wannabe, unless istock has suddenly started paying non-exclusives 50% commission

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #1334 on:** July 01, 2011, 01:35 »

Quote from: sharpshot on July 01, 2011, 00:57

^^^No problems with rejections for me and they do have some sales. It can't just be me getting some sales there, as they are doing OK for a relatively new site in the poll results here. Definitely not an istock wannabe, unless istock has suddenly started paying non-exclusives 50% commission

Hence we should encourage sites that pay us our worth. It's detrimental to us all in the long run if we don't. I know IS is a money maker, but more so for them than us, no matter how successful we are as microstockers. 15% commission on IS, $4 EL's on ft, just how low can it go, has it hit the bottom yet? If it has, what's the next step for them to squeeze more out of us, to make their shareholders smiles even wider. Charge to submit? And because people will still be earning dollars from them, there would be people who would pay, possibly enough people. Coming soon to a microstock site near you.

cathyslife · « **Reply #1335 on:** July 01, 2011, 05:57 »

Quote from: Microstock Posts on July 01, 2011, 01:35

Quote from: sharpshot on July 01, 2011, 00:57
^^^No problems with rejections for me and they do have some sales. It can't just be me getting some sales there, as they are doing OK for a relatively new site in the poll results here. Definitely not an istock wannabe, unless istock has suddenly started paying non-exclusives 50% commission

Hence we should encourage sites that pay us our worth. It's detrimental to us all in the long run if we don't. I know IS is a money maker, but more so for them than us, no matter how successful we are as microstockers. 15% commission on IS, $4 EL's on ft, just how low can it go, has it hit the bottom yet? If it has, what's the next step for them to squeeze more out of us, to make their shareholders smiles even wider. Charge to submit? And because people will still be earning dollars from them, there would be people who would pay, possibly enough people. Coming soon to a microstock site near you.

That wouldn't surprise me at all. I can totally see that happening.

caspixel · « **Reply #1336 on:** July 01, 2011, 08:47 »

Quote from: Microstock Posts on July 01, 2011, 01:35

Charge to submit? And because people will still be earning dollars from them, there would be people who would pay, possibly enough people. Coming soon to a microstock site near you.

Well, since Getty already has a program that does that, and people are foolish enough to submit it won't be long now...

gbalex · « **Reply #1337 on:** July 01, 2011, 08:59 »

Quote from: sharpshot on June 20, 2011, 02:21

Shutterstock is much more selective than istock now. I think they tightened up about 18 months ago and then moved the bar much higher than istock a few months ago. And istock has always accepted low quality stock images. There's millions of non-selling images on the istock site. There are many top microstcok contributors that don't use istock or only have a small proportion of their images there. The restrictive upload limit and tedious upload procedure together with the lowest commission in the industry puts people off. The search should put all the lower quality images at the end, so there really shouldn't be much of a problem for buyers on either site.

I would really encourage everyone to talk to a large number of SS submitters you respect, you might find that their experience regarding reviews at SS vary's wildly and the inequity between reviews makes no sense at all when taking into account the quality of their work. If SS wants to stay competitive they need to address this serious issue because I know a number of submitters who are so fed up that they have quit submitting.

gbalex · « **Reply #1338 on:** July 01, 2011, 09:09 »

I work alot with a Fortune 500 company who's employees depend on weekly advertising campaigns to promote their services. The advertising departments across the globe use Istock almost exclusively. Over the last two months more and more managers company wide are encouraging the desktop publishers to use more cost effective microstock companies. They have absolutely noticed the changes at Istock and the shift to promote a more costly product at the expense of time and money to the company.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1339 on:** July 02, 2011, 07:08 »

Quote from: gbalex on July 01, 2011, 09:09

I work alot with a Fortune 500 company who's employees depend on weekly advertising campaigns to promote their services. The advertising departments across the globe use Istock almost exclusively. Over the last two months more and more managers company wide are encouraging the desktop publishers to use more cost effective microstock companies. They have absolutely noticed the changes at Istock and the shift to promote a more costly product at the expense of time and money to the company.

It might be worth pointing them in the direction of the price slider.

gbalex · « **Reply #1340 on:** July 02, 2011, 12:33 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 02, 2011, 07:08

Quote from: gbalex on July 01, 2011, 09:09
I work alot with a Fortune 500 company who's employees depend on weekly advertising campaigns to promote their services. The advertising departments across the globe use Istock almost exclusively. Over the last two months more and more managers company wide are encouraging the desktop publishers to use more cost effective microstock companies. They have absolutely noticed the changes at Istock and the shift to promote a more costly product at the expense of time and money to the company.
It might be worth pointing them in the direction of the price slider.

Sue I posted my viewpoint in this thread quoted below in September and my views regarding IS have not changed much. The last time I purchased an image at IS they had not implemented the slider; which after checking it out does address some cost containment problems. However I think alot of the managers I talked to had a problem with the option to choose images at a more costly level at Istock vs in the past the cost options were more contained and controllable for the company, which has many buyers localized to regions within it. They do not want to spend resources confirming that employee's are using the mandated low cost images. In any case I recommended other options.

Quote from: gbalex on September 09, 2010, 13:29

I have worked in the advertising industry for years and our clients are mainly medium to small local businesses and a few large local corporations. I became a submitter in early 2004 and thought seriously about quitting my job to develop a port large enough to live on.

I decided against it because I was afraid that it would end this way. I worried about the # of images flooding the market to the extent our work would be devalued. The writing was on the wall as you started seeing photographers who used to make decent money producing stock start offering workshops and frequenting micro forums to scare up customers simply because the money they made teaching others to produce stock is better than the money they made producing stock content themselves.

The end result has been many more submitters with LCV work burying images that we as buyers actually need for our projects. Those submitters would never have made the cut if they had not been coached and most will never produce the type of work that most agencies and their clients need.

Besides being a buyer of images I know many submitters who have worked long and hard to provide a good living for themselves and I do not take the moves that IS has made lightly! I think IS has forgotten that a great many buyers are also submitters and that as creative's we have respect and empathy for each other.

Micro does need to make changes, however I will not be supporting IS any longer. Even before this move we have been buying content more and more from sites who support photographers, graphic artists, video & audio producers.

With this move I have discussed this with my co workers and we have decided to no longer buy our content from IS.

I don't see things improving any day soon unless sites make moves to reduce LCV work, improve search engines and also raise prices for the end product. That is hard right now because advertising in general has dropped because of the global recession.

I will encourage other buyers to examine how IS has treated its content providers and I will encourage them to seek other options. Our company will no longer be buying IS content!

ShadySue · « **Reply #1341 on:** July 02, 2011, 13:05 »

Quote from: gbalex on July 02, 2011, 12:33

Quote from: ShadySue on July 02, 2011, 07:08
Quote from: gbalex on July 01, 2011, 09:09
I work alot with a Fortune 500 company who's employees depend on weekly advertising campaigns to promote their services. The advertising departments across the globe use Istock almost exclusively. Over the last two months more and more managers company wide are encouraging the desktop publishers to use more cost effective microstock companies. They have absolutely noticed the changes at Istock and the shift to promote a more costly product at the expense of time and money to the company.
It might be worth pointing them in the direction of the price slider.
Sue I posted my viewpoint in this thread quoted below in September and my views regarding IS have not changed much. The last time I purchased an image at IS they had not implemented the slider; which after checking it out does address some cost containment problems. However I think alot of the managers I talked to had a problem with the option to choose images at a more costly level at Istock vs in the past the cost options were more contained and controllable for the company, which has many buyers localized to regions within it. They do not want to spend resources confirming that employee's are using the mandated low cost images. In any case I recommended other options.
[snip]

I think theres a bit of a dichotomy between, "Even before this move we have been buying content more and more from sites who support photographers, graphic artists, video & audio producers.", which would imply that you're buying macro/RM files for your "our clients are mainly medium to small local businesses "
and
"I work a lot with a Fortune 500 company ... where more managers company wide are encouraging the desktop publishers to use more cost effective microstock companies"
Didn't take you long to stop supporting the content suppliers.
Pity, but ultimately it's your call.

SEem

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1342 on:** July 02, 2011, 13:57 »

Sure, they'll 'support' them as long as it's a bargain, lol...

Personally, I think the price slider is great, and I'd like all the buyers back at IS to try it out.

ToniFlap · « **Reply #1343 on:** July 02, 2011, 15:59 »

I thought the topic was the buyers and Istock

I will explain my experience.

Anyone who has worked at an advertising agency or similar businesses know how this works. I am a freelance graphic designer for four years. Before I worked at different agencies for 14 years. And while working at an agency I wanted was effectiveness effectiveness effectiveness.

The price was based on the project and the client. Clearly, the higher quality, much better. But usually start looking images at eight o'clock, sleepy and wanted to go home and do not want to have a thousand chances or waste time. Sure, it's best to work with time, quietly, sipping coffee and listening to Bach. But few days I worked so ... You had the head behind the ear and the clock hand. And the customer on the phone ...

What you want is to put three words in the search box, choose the search mode and you're done. Do not waste time guessing prices, types of photos, Vetta, Photo + ... buf!!

Many years ago I worked with Corbis and Getty original. In recent years the agencies worked with Shutter and Istock, depending on the needs of customers. Honestly, now with Istock never work, except in some very very specific occasions. The plus they may have some images from Istock, will get a good photo retoucher, which exist in all the advertising agencies ... In Shutter there are also very good pictures.

Istock I think is in the definition. Do not know what they want to be. And I do not know what you want is the best way to be nothing.

That's my opinion ...

gbalex · « **Reply #1344 on:** July 02, 2011, 16:20 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 02, 2011, 13:05

Quote from: gbalex on July 02, 2011, 12:33
Quote from: ShadySue on July 02, 2011, 07:08
Quote from: gbalex on July 01, 2011, 09:09
I work alot with a Fortune 500 company who's employees depend on weekly advertising campaigns to promote their services. The advertising departments across the globe use Istock almost exclusively. Over the last two months more and more managers company wide are encouraging the desktop publishers to use more cost effective microstock companies. They have absolutely noticed the changes at Istock and the shift to promote a more costly product at the expense of time and money to the company.
It might be worth pointing them in the direction of the price slider.
Sue I posted my viewpoint in this thread quoted below in September and my views regarding IS have not changed much. The last time I purchased an image at IS they had not implemented the slider; which after checking it out does address some cost containment problems. However I think alot of the managers I talked to had a problem with the option to choose images at a more costly level at Istock vs in the past the cost options were more contained and controllable for the company, which has many buyers localized to regions within it. They do not want to spend resources confirming that employee's are using the mandated low cost images. In any case I recommended other options.
[snip]

I think theres a bit of a dichotomy between, "Even before this move we have been buying content more and more from sites who support photographers, graphic artists, video & audio producers.", which would imply that you're buying macro/RM files for your "our clients are mainly medium to small local businesses "
and
"I work a lot with a Fortune 500 company ... where more managers company wide are encouraging the desktop publishers to use more cost effective microstock companies"
Didn't take you long to stop supporting the content suppliers.
Pity, but ultimately it's your call.

SEem

I think you are jumping to some rather speedy and inaccurate conclusions. Are you judging me for being honest or because I choose not to support IS. I/we still buy content both macro and micro, however we choose to buy it from companies other than IS.

And please do not confuse my own viewpoints with that of the managers from another company who also choose to stop doing business with IS for entirely different reasons than our own.

lisafx · « **Reply #1345 on:** July 02, 2011, 22:15 »

Quote from: ToniFlap on July 02, 2011, 15:59

I thought the topic was the buyers and Istock

I will explain my experience.

Anyone who has worked at an advertising agency or similar businesses know how this works. I am a freelance graphic designer for four years. Before I worked at different agencies for 14 years. And while working at an agency I wanted was effectiveness effectiveness effectiveness.

The price was based on the project and the client. Clearly, the higher quality, much better. But usually start looking images at eight o'clock, sleepy and wanted to go home and do not want to have a thousand chances or waste time. Sure, it's best to work with time, quietly, sipping coffee and listening to Bach. But few days I worked so ... You had the head behind the ear and the clock hand. And the customer on the phone ...

What you want is to put three words in the search box, choose the search mode and you're done. Do not waste time guessing prices, types of photos, Vetta, Photo + ... buf!!

Many years ago I worked with Corbis and Getty original. In recent years the agencies worked with Shutter and Istock, depending on the needs of customers. Honestly, now with Istock never work, except in some very very specific occasions. The plus they may have some images from Istock, will get a good photo retoucher, which exist in all the advertising agencies ... In Shutter there are also very good pictures.

Istock I think is in the definition. Do not know what they want to be. And I do not know what you want is the best way to be nothing.

That's my opinion ...

Thanks for posting Toni. Wish more buyers would take the time to post their experiences

lagereek · « **Reply #1346 on:** July 03, 2011, 00:21 »

Quote from: ToniFlap on July 02, 2011, 15:59

I thought the topic was the buyers and Istock

I will explain my experience.

Anyone who has worked at an advertising agency or similar businesses know how this works. I am a freelance graphic designer for four years. Before I worked at different agencies for 14 years. And while working at an agency I wanted was effectiveness effectiveness effectiveness.

The price was based on the project and the client. Clearly, the higher quality, much better. But usually start looking images at eight o'clock, sleepy and wanted to go home and do not want to have a thousand chances or waste time. Sure, it's best to work with time, quietly, sipping coffee and listening to Bach. But few days I worked so ... You had the head behind the ear and the clock hand. And the customer on the phone ...

What you want is to put three words in the search box, choose the search mode and you're done. Do not waste time guessing prices, types of photos, Vetta, Photo + ... buf!!

Many years ago I worked with Corbis and Getty original. In recent years the agencies worked with Shutter and Istock, depending on the needs of customers. Honestly, now with Istock never work, except in some very very specific occasions. The plus they may have some images from Istock, will get a good photo retoucher, which exist in all the advertising agencies ... In Shutter there are also very good pictures.

Istock I think is in the definition. Do not know what they want to be. And I do not know what you want is the best way to be nothing.

That's my opinion ...

Exellent post!!

Been working with ad-agencies for over 20 years as a freelance photographer and Ive been trying to explain this for years, that ad-people, buyers, etc, simply DONT have the time to sit there wading through page after page of irrelevant material, this and that.'
Then comes the IS exclusive noobs brigade saying they only have small buyers.

Finally IS comes up with this price-slider? which at the moment is being perceived by buyers as a quality-slider?

Im however very happy to see that ultimately buyers are saying its better or equal quality at dot-1 as dot-4.

BTW. You will find identical shots of same quality at SS and DT and FT. so its really no big deal today.

caspixel · « **Reply #1347 on:** July 03, 2011, 00:59 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 02, 2011, 22:15

Thanks for posting Toni. Wish more buyers would take the time to post their experiences

One of the reasons you don't hear more is because whenever we do, there always seems to be some argument or snide comment by someone.

sharpshot · « **Reply #1348 on:** July 03, 2011, 01:39 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 02, 2011, 13:05

Quote from: gbalex on July 02, 2011, 12:33
Quote from: ShadySue on July 02, 2011, 07:08
Quote from: gbalex on July 01, 2011, 09:09
I work alot with a Fortune 500 company who's employees depend on weekly advertising campaigns to promote their services. The advertising departments across the globe use Istock almost exclusively. Over the last two months more and more managers company wide are encouraging the desktop publishers to use more cost effective microstock companies. They have absolutely noticed the changes at Istock and the shift to promote a more costly product at the expense of time and money to the company.
It might be worth pointing them in the direction of the price slider.
Sue I posted my viewpoint in this thread quoted below in September and my views regarding IS have not changed much. The last time I purchased an image at IS they had not implemented the slider; which after checking it out does address some cost containment problems. However I think alot of the managers I talked to had a problem with the option to choose images at a more costly level at Istock vs in the past the cost options were more contained and controllable for the company, which has many buyers localized to regions within it. They do not want to spend resources confirming that employee's are using the mandated low cost images. In any case I recommended other options.
[snip]

I think theres a bit of a dichotomy between, "Even before this move we have been buying content more and more from sites who support photographers, graphic artists, video & audio producers.", which would imply that you're buying macro/RM files for your "our clients are mainly medium to small local businesses "
and
"I work a lot with a Fortune 500 company ... where more managers company wide are encouraging the desktop publishers to use more cost effective microstock companies"
Didn't take you long to stop supporting the content suppliers.
Pity, but ultimately it's your call.

SEem

I would much rather buyers went to the sites that pay me 50 or 60% commission than the deplorable 17% I get with istock. I have really lost all motivation since istock cut their already lowest commission. I think the only way to keep people like me involved in microstock is if the future looks less bleak. I'm still motivated to use alamy because they still have 60% commission and there isn't the threat of a drastic cut. For me to carry on with microstock, either the big sites that have cut commissions need to change their policy or the buyers have to look elsewhere. How can I keep doing this with a commission cut likely to happen again in the future and with the knowledge that site owners are getting rich while I am struggling to pay the bills?

At the moment, I'm annoyed with the commission cuts, I'm annoyed with the fact that most contributors are putting up with it and I really don't see much point in working harder to get back to the earnings I had in 2009 when they can just cut commissions again. The only thing that keeps me going is my love of photography and I'm more determined to find other ways to make money from it.

lthn · « **Reply #1349 on:** July 03, 2011, 02:56 »

How many complaints, how long did it take for them to produce a goddam price filter? Like half a year? Thats an insult in itself, too late.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391786 times)

nruboc

Microstock Posts

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

caspixel

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

yuliang11

sharpshot

Microstock Posts

cathyslife

caspixel

gbalex

gbalex

ShadySue

gbalex

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

ToniFlap

gbalex

lisafx

lagereek

caspixel

sharpshot

lthn

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors