Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391533 times)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1400 on:** December 07, 2011, 21:02 »

I'm not buying it. Buyers want prices in their range. Here's a slider that let's them relatively sort their range. It has to be 'relatively' because each image has a variety of prices per sizes. There it is. Use it. Dohine'you whine about how it isn't there, because it is.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1401 on:** December 07, 2011, 21:15 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 07, 2011, 21:02

I'm not buying it.

... and neither are the buyers! Woo-yay.

I think that's probably 'checkmate' isn't it?

markrhiggins · « **Reply #1402 on:** December 07, 2011, 21:22 »

for every buyer that goes to the forums peed off there are many more in the wings quietly signing up elsewhere. Does not matter what we think. If the buyers say they do not like wanky dot sliders that is it. Forcing them to not be able to sort was not working so why not give them what they wanted? It is really really poor marketing. Nonsense about differentiation of the markets is great but segmentation analysis justification in this case is rubbish. Nothing has been done form a marketing perspective. Trying to get more for less is not marketing it is just corporate greed. Sounds ok if it works but mostly it doesn't. Competition exist and buyer and contributer relations do count. Otherwise IS without buyers and contributers IS is just crappy software and some image thiefs getting free image downloads.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1403 on:** December 07, 2011, 21:30 »

Well, for every buyer who can't understand a slider UI, there are many who can.

cathyslife · « **Reply #1404 on:** December 07, 2011, 21:34 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 07, 2011, 21:15

Quote from: sjlocke on December 07, 2011, 21:02
I'm not buying it.

... and neither are the buyers! Woo-yay.

I think that's probably 'checkmate' isn't it?

Please explain why a slider that is meant to sort photos by price uses dots instead of...say...price? We've been through this whole slider argument before. It was put there solely to make an attempt at appeasing buyers(contributors?) Using dots was just the istock typical way of using smoke and mirrors instead of actually making it sort by what it is supposed to, by price. Leaves them a lot of room for their old sleight of hand, re-sort and re-shuffle.

It always takes an explanation from some exclusive at istock to a frustrated buyer to explain how the freakin site works. And then the buyer is chastised for complaining about it. Nice work, istock. Keep them coming to the other sites, I'm lovin it!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1405 on:** December 07, 2011, 21:47 »

As I said, it can't be price. A small Vetta is less than a large regular. It isn't rocket science. It has to be an abstract thing.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1406 on:** December 07, 2011, 21:48 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 07, 2011, 21:30

Well, for every buyer who can't understand a slider UI, there are many who can.

... and for every buyer who can or who cannot 'understand a slider' there are plenty of other microstock agencies totally uncontaminated by such nonsense. Judging by the traffic stat's, that's kind of where they appear to be heading to. I think it'll be a very long time before SS introduce 'a slider' for example. Such things as 'sliders' have no place in the real world of microstock. The buying public know that they are just irritations designed to boost profits for the agency and cost themselves money or valuable time.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1407 on:** December 07, 2011, 21:55 »

So, SS is for the 'dollar store buyer' who can't figure out a paradigm where things aren't all you can grab for $199 a month?

I'm sorry, but all this 'buyers aren't smart enough to know how to buy' stuff is really annoying me today. You can't say the entire buying public is leaving IS because they can't use a filter based on one post.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1408 on:** December 07, 2011, 21:56 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 07, 2011, 21:34

Please explain why a slider that is meant to sort photos by price uses dots instead of...say...price? We've been through this whole slider argument before. It was put there solely to make an attempt at appeasing buyers(contributors?) Using dots was just the istock typical way of using smoke and mirrors instead of actually making it sort by what it is supposed to, by price. Leaves them a lot of room for their old sleight of hand, re-sort and re-shuffle.

It always takes an explanation from some exclusive at istock to a frustrated buyer to explain how the freakin site works. And then the buyer is chastised for complaining about it. Nice work, istock. Keep them coming to the other sites, I'm lovin it!

That's so well said. Wish I'd written that! Needless to say, I agree with every word.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1409 on:** December 07, 2011, 22:02 »

Ok, tell me how to make a price slider. Someone, please. If you set a top price of $10, does it just show you images with only mediums available? Does it bring up all images and just make mediums available? Does it just bring up images with a size with a top price of $10?

Folks, these are things that have multiple prices per product, choosable by the buyer. Conveniently, they are sorted into collections, each of which is relatively more expensive then the next. Since they are "relatively" more expensive, an abstract way of representing it is needed.

This is not Amazon, where a 42" Samsung TV is $400 and only $400.

markrhiggins · « **Reply #1410 on:** December 07, 2011, 22:10 »

sjlocke "So, SS is for the 'dollar store buyer' who can't figure out a paradigm where things aren't all you can grab for $199 a month?

I'm sorry, but all this 'buyers aren't smart enough to know how to buy' stuff is really annoying me today. You can't say the entire buying public is leaving IS because they can't use a filter based on one post."

Many of us now make more per sale at SS than we do at IS. SS has more EL and one off buyers. Why?? Do the people at IS not buy for EL or not bother to pay. It is not that buyers aren't smart enough but why should there be barriers?? If I go to a site to purchase something (not images) and it is difficult to interface I go elsewhere. Maybe I am dumb? Certainly some buyers are lazy and also have enough hassles in thier lives without IS or others adding to it. Put up barriers to buyers and pee them off and they leave. Are they lazy? - often like all of us, that is why they buy an image at IS rather than go to TS?? Why I get a sale at Alamy for nice dollars when they could have had the same imge at SS fo 1/100th of the price? Do not make them learn extra features or they may get cheesed of and go to TS or SS..

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1411 on:** December 07, 2011, 22:14 »

Quote from: markrhiggins on December 07, 2011, 22:10

Many of us now make more per sale at SS than we do at IS. SS has more EL and one off buyers. Why??

Sorry, I'm not able to analyze your sales data.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1412 on:** December 07, 2011, 22:18 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 07, 2011, 21:55

I'm sorry, but all this 'buyers aren't smart enough to know how to buy' stuff is really annoying me today. You can't say the entire buying public is leaving IS because they can't use a filter based on one post.

I'm not saying that and you don't believe that either. The 'buying public' are leaving because Istock bears little or no relation to the original 'microstock' model that they originally bought in to. The fact that via a complex series of filters they might just about arrive at a rather more expensive version of what they once enjoyed (with many of the best images now excluded from them) does not make things 'ok'.

I'm staggered that neither you nor TPTB at Istock seem to be able to grasp such a simple concept __ that the original concept actually worked. Shutterstock, who have largely remained true to the microstock model, with all images priced the same, are cleaning up here at Istock's expense. It's like Istock are just willingly handing over the family silver __ for free! I can't believe they're not even making a fight for the business. Are Istock totally stupid or deluded or what?

markrhiggins · « **Reply #1413 on:** December 07, 2011, 22:21 »

"Folks, these are things that have multiple prices per product, choosable by the buyer. Conveniently, they are sorted into collections, each of which is relatively more expensive then the next. Since they are "relatively" more expensive, an abstract way of representing it is needed."

Said like a true evangalist. What nonsense. The collection they wanted is diffused by confusing price points and inconsistencies. Are P+ better??? Are exclusive images better than independent?? These changes are not about giving better product service and meeting demand and wants. They were about getting more money. Guess what ? If you ignore customers they take their business elsewhere. It seems that the forums at IS are often full of people having to tell customers how to shop, search or work around bugs.

Maybe the customers/buyers should have to do an entry test and training course to buy. Maybe that would make it all rosy. Get rid of the dumbies that can not understand the system?

Suljo · « **Reply #1414 on:** December 07, 2011, 22:25 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 07, 2011, 21:30

Well, for every buyer who can't understand a slider UI, there are many who can.

Well this slider is visible in all Safari versions (I try 3, 4 and 5)
but there is bigger problem and that is that search engine dont work in Safari 3 and 4.
What it means, lets say 1-3% buyers cant find ANYTHING, and in this case purpose of something called "slider" is completely irrelevant.
I do know if this one of indolence bugs is on iSmack s bug list but who cares.

How hQ of iSmackz, gredyimagis, and some H&F dont realize how many long fur coats they can buy to they concubines with this 1-3% lost?!

And its christmas time

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1415 on:** December 07, 2011, 22:27 »

@ markrhiggins

You typed all that, and you still didn't tell me how I should construct a price slider for "product" available at multiple prices. I never said anything about "better". The buyers asked how to exclude certain collections. The existing slider is the answer.

And don't start that "evangelist" crap. Anyone here knows I call it like it see it.

markrhiggins · « **Reply #1416 on:** December 07, 2011, 22:28 »

Sean why ask us how to make a "price slider"?

Maybe it is not what the customers want at all. It would be a good idea to talk to the customers what will best suit their needs and implement it. What happened is change imposed on them and then a slight compromise to give them changes in sorting. Clearly it is not the contributors or buyers who are driving changes. In marketing it may be.

How are the sales reimbursements going? It seems more image theft?

jamirae · « **Reply #1417 on:** December 07, 2011, 22:37 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 07, 2011, 10:52

Well, here goes another one. Unhappy buyer 'tleedycorp', proudly displaying a Corporate Master badge, gives Istock both barrels in the Discussion forum;

"This site sucks now. Photo searches bring one of two possibilities, 1) 2 out of every 10 images are for editorial use only, or 2) "angry baby" appears in my search for Hong Kong. WTH?? This site is nearly useless to me now. Too bad I have 500+ credits to use. I might as well go back to Photos.com and the garbage they had there. Oh, and now practically everything is Vetta collection. Great. Another site that just wastes vast amounts of my time. But, like most things, I am sure nothing will change as a result of feedback. We will just be expected to pay more for a far less functional, and in my opinion, inferior and ineffective image search method. Too bad. This was very useful and helpful to us for a while."

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338061&page=1

Strangely, if you click on their name you arrive at the front page. Maybe their account has been closed already?

interesting theories abound here. but personally I think this last buyer that left is just mad as hell and not going to take it anymore so he left. no price sliders, education on how to exclude vetta or other helpful tips will keep him there. It seems to me that he got frustrated trying to find images and so it was just the last straw and he's moving on.

markrhiggins · « **Reply #1418 on:** December 07, 2011, 22:39 »

"Anyone here knows I call it like it see it."

Sometimes you can be too close to see the big picture. It is not how IS experts can use the software/sort etc. It is about customer service and meeting their needs. I find it really funny to see contributors writing script etc. It is interesting how the "budget basement tag" gets pushed onto SS. For many of us they earn more per image and per sale than IS. It was sad to see independent bashing at IS on the forums when the royalty changes happened. It is also sad to see some of those people now being in a position that they are making the hard transition to go independent. How . did it all happen? Customers? Contributers? It is a puzzle lol

SNP · « **Reply #1419 on:** December 07, 2011, 22:45 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 07, 2011, 22:02

Ok, tell me how to make a price slider. Someone, please. If you set a top price of $10, does it just show you images with only mediums available? Does it bring up all images and just make mediums available? Does it just bring up images with a size with a top price of $10?

Folks, these are things that have multiple prices per product, choosable by the buyer. Conveniently, they are sorted into collections, each of which is relatively more expensive then the next. Since they are "relatively" more expensive, an abstract way of representing it is needed.

This is not Amazon, where a 42" Samsung TV is $400 and only $400.

if you had empirical data, absolute proof, and a shiny new penny to boot....you wouldn't be able to convince this crowd. iStock bad, friend (any other agency) good. good effort Sean.

markrhiggins · « **Reply #1420 on:** December 07, 2011, 22:52 »

woo yay? Really it is not about bashing. It is just about trying to understand the self destructive nature of IS. Of course IS is forging ahead and gaining market share??? As for the trying to justify the changes it sort of sounds like Tea Party devotees trying to explain how giving more to the rich and taking from the poor will save your economy. All great if you do not think too hard or have the misfortune to understand Economics or marketing.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1421 on:** December 07, 2011, 22:56 »

Quote from: SNP on December 07, 2011, 22:45

if you had empirical data, absolute proof, and a shiny new penny to boot....you wouldn't be able to convince this crowd. iStock bad, friend (any other agency) good. good effort Sean.

Huh? Surely it's the other way round? Independents get to see the bigger picture and report things the way they actually are. Exclusives, on the other hand, clutch their precious little crowns and then try to persuade everyone who'll listen that Istock, with whom they've invested their life, is doing really, really well actually __ despite all evidence to the contrary.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1422 on:** December 08, 2011, 00:17 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 07, 2011, 22:02

Ok, tell me how to make a price slider. Someone, please.

Buyers didn't ask for a price slider. They asked for a way to exclude Vetta and Agency images. iStock wouldn't give them that so the price slider - dot slider - was the result. If you gave the buyers what they were asking for back when search results were all Vetta/Agency up front, there'd be no request for a price slider.

The checkboxes for collections UI is simple, used on Getty and many other places (including the downstream bargain bins of Thinkstock and photos.com.

Asking how to make a price slider work is the wrong question.

remsan · « **Reply #1423 on:** December 08, 2011, 00:19 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 07, 2011, 22:27

@ markrhiggins

You typed all that, and you still didn't tell me how I should construct a price slider for "product" available at multiple prices. I never said anything about "better". The buyers asked how to exclude certain collections. The existing slider is the answer.

And don't start that "evangelist" crap. Anyone here knows I call it like it see it.

The search textfield on the first page should only include basic price. You should normally have to check IN Vetta not to check OUT it.
I think is pretty easy to implemement it like that.

Zephyr · « **Reply #1424 on:** December 08, 2011, 00:43 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 07, 2011, 22:18

...I'm staggered that neither you nor TPTB at Istock seem to be able to grasp such a simple concept __ that the original concept actually worked. Shutterstock, who have largely remained true to the microstock model, with all images priced the same, are cleaning up here at Istock's expense. It's like Istock are just willingly handing over the family silver __ for free! I can't believe they're not even making a fight for the business. Are Istock totally stupid or deluded or what?

I think you guys are being naive in regards to Shutterstock and it never having to adjust its business model. Even if its volume of sales overtakes Istock by a huge margin there will come a day when even the highest producing contributors won't be able to keep up with the growth of new competing images if nothing changes.

SS will have to raise standards so high that the amateurs struggle to get anything accepted or they will have to create special higher priced collections to keep the top talent from losing money because of dilution. Higher standards without higher prices could hurt the photographer's bottom line all by itself.

If SS stays true to its original microstock model and just raises standards the majority of contributors, who are not superstars, could become enraged at Shutterstock because of low acceptance rates. I think there's already been a thread at MSG about low acceptance rates.

We can acknowledge it or not but this industry has a supply problem and Vetta is one answer to that problem.

Hold on while I make sure my helmet is strapped on properly.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391533 times)

Sean Locke Photography

gostwyck

markrhiggins

Sean Locke Photography

cathyslife

Sean Locke Photography

gostwyck

Sean Locke Photography

gostwyck

Sean Locke Photography

markrhiggins

Sean Locke Photography

gostwyck

markrhiggins

Suljo

Sean Locke Photography

markrhiggins

jamirae

markrhiggins

SNP

markrhiggins

gostwyck

Jo Ann Snover

remsan

Zephyr

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors