Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391527 times)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1425 on:** December 08, 2011, 01:05 »

It's interesting, for the sake of comparison, to see how Achilles responded to a similar complaint a few months back. I can't imagine any iStock top executive writing anything like this:

"...you're being heard. Subscriptions are a way to provide you access to those high level files. They require a commitment, it's true, but you can simply balance between credits and subscriptions over time. The way we price the image allows you to reach high quality content at a decent price, but you also need to adapt to various packages or to simply find a different image.

Only a smaller part of the database will cost 15 credits and is not true that level 1 images cost that much. They are 10 credits, while a level 0 image will require 7 credits for the high res. Assuming you use them online, go for a lower size and the prices are as low as 1 credit.

Our prices need to reflect the contributors' efforts. It is a tough market for everyone, but these images are extremely low priced considering their quality. Keep in mind that what you download for $5 might've cost hundreds or thousands to produce. There is a lot of work involved and the image has no guaranteed success. It may sell or it may not.

What you need to do is use the engine to limit it at level 0 or 1 images. These are new images that may soon be level 5. If you download them fast, you will enjoy a lower price.

Try to switch between credits and subscriptions, depending on your needs. And as suggested above, you can upload your own images and then convert earnings into credits. You will also view the other side of the story, unless you're a born talend is not a piece of cake to create great images and to sell them.

Check the free images section and see if you can get a part of your content from there. You can combine a level 5 image with two free ones and get nice content at a lower price.

I'm not trying to persuade you that what you pay is not expensive, that depends on your budget. One could pay half of what you pay and still think it is expensive. What I'm saying is that there are ways to get great content at a lower price without ruining the quality of the images. Give these a try and let us know your experience. "

I'd say that is a model of how the treat your customers: helpful, respectful and understanding, while simultaneously advertising the excellence of the goods on offer and complimenting those who created them.

Just for a laugh (and referring to something a page or two back), the art of serial complaining in a restaurant was demonstrated in its purest form by Stephen Fry in the waiter sketch of The New Statesman.


Stephen Fry in The New Statesman (clips)

. Enjoy.

SNP · « **Reply #1426 on:** December 08, 2011, 01:13 »

reading the expert opinions about iStock in this thread, it's any wonder that iStock and we moronic exclusives can even afford our morning cups of coffee, since the buyers are all gone (because iStock kicked them in the you-know-whats one time too many), and the smart photographers are basking in the endless sunlight of Shutterstock Utopia--where nothing is wrong, there's no competition and buyers get belly rubs every hour on the hour.

nruboc · « **Reply #1427 on:** December 08, 2011, 01:14 »

This is great, I love it, reading these threads makes my day, seeing these IStock exclusives defend their price slider. Why don't you go out to your customers and teach them how easy it is...LOL...instead of having them bail to SS....lol..I can't believe how much my income is up, without submitting in months... whiler reading the pathetic IStock sales thread..... this is too great!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1428 on:** December 08, 2011, 01:14 »

@retrorocket ... collection growth, portfolio growth and sales dilution are genuine issues not just for SS but for suppliers to all agencies. However, they have nothing to do with upset customers.

(Calm down SNP, it's bad for the blood pressure)

SNP · « **Reply #1429 on:** December 08, 2011, 01:17 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 08, 2011, 01:14

@retrorocket ... collection growth, portfolio growth and sales dilution are genuine issues not just for SS but for suppliers to all agencies. However, they have nothing to do with upset customers.

(Calm down SNP, it's bad for the blood pressure)

don't worry, I had a big grin on typing that one.....and I did my five km run earlier this evening

Zephyr · « **Reply #1430 on:** December 08, 2011, 01:41 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 08, 2011, 01:14

@retrorocket ... collection growth, portfolio growth and sales dilution are genuine issues not just for SS but for suppliers to all agencies. However, they have nothing to do with upset customers.

(Calm down SNP, it's bad for the blood pressure)

I agree that's why I added the quote from Gostwyck to point out structural issues that will be problem in the future. I believe the uber positive sales reports given by the independents will continue for a time but not in the long term without changes.

I'm also not defending Istock's customer service or website problems. However, I do think higher priced collections like Vetta provide an answer to future issues now rather than later. There might be a better answer out there. We'll see.

ETA: Yes, I strayed from the original topic about the slider but the conversation became about business models.

cthoman · « **Reply #1431 on:** December 08, 2011, 01:54 »

I have to admit that I haven't read the last several pages of this thread from when I posted early today (too much yada, yada, yada), but mark me down as an early News Year's resolution... No more iStock threads. I'm giving them up. Everyone else is right. I don't care.

lagereek · « **Reply #1432 on:** December 08, 2011, 02:21 »

Sorry guys but this is all a bunch of crock anyway. This slider gives the impression of a quality slider, the higher the price, the better quality, right. Well thousands of buyers didnt swallow that garbage and why? simply because they couldnt see any differance in quality, thats why, so they refused to get fooled. tisk, tisk.

Collections? Vettas? well if you compare the Vettas to the two most accomplished commercial collections in the world ( wildly recognized buy buyers, etc) the Image-Bank and Stones, collections, they will make the Vettas look like Covent-Garden-arts, no more. So whats the big deal?

Look at, say the top 10 guys at IS or any site for that matter, just have a look! all lifestyles shooters, one after another and with models, etc. They all look the same, every single one of them, THE SAME ( no offence), so who is to say that one is better then the other? its a joke.

Yuri, an independant actually, tops every single agency in the world and good luck to him! anybody thinks he is there because he supplies unique imagery? answer is, no, he is there because of his brillant business approach to the industry, thats why.

IS approach to business: like a surgeon deciding to do a heart transplant, when a bypass or a pacemaker would have been more then enough or too simple, so the body rejects the new heart, ahhh! complications! and more complications! ofcourse, the end result is unavoidable.

gbalex · « **Reply #1433 on:** December 08, 2011, 03:09 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 07, 2011, 20:04

Quote from: sjlocke on December 07, 2011, 19:00
... You seem to think that just because something is made of pixels, it costs the same as the next. Well, it doesn't. Life is rough. Use the filter like a big boy.

I'm not the person at whom the comment was directed, but I think the point you're missing is that this "take your medicine and don't complain" approach might work if a buyer had no choices, but when you have one (or several) working sites from which to choose, why would you stick with the site whose interface is confusing, or annoying or both?

iStock has not defined some wonderful new UI paradigm with the price slider; even the people who suggest it should be used don't generally praise it. It's a rather unfortunate compromise design that is based more on what iStock wanted to steer buyers to (after 6 months or more of just ignoring requests to be able to filter out Vetta and Agency images).

Those of you taking a "pro slider" position can argue all you like with buyers or other contributors about how good you think it is and how buyers should just stop fussing, but as long as Getty hasn't bought up all the competition, buyers can shop elsewhere if they don't like what iStock's offering. I just don't see how this wilful dismissal of buyer complaints can lead anywhere good.

Given the buyer had 500+ credits still to use, I find it hard to believe he closed his account - doesn't anyone wonder why it's gone away?

Exactly the high margin push is insulting, we are certainly able to discern quality and value and there are plenty of standard files available that meet or exceed the quality included in the Vetta and Agency collections. Price does not always equal a superior product.

Perry · « **Reply #1434 on:** December 08, 2011, 03:23 »

You don't sell luxury brands at a one-dollar-store, because it just doesn't work. You would feel poor and unwanted when you would be at the shelves that contain cheap products. It's much nicer to go to a one-dollar-store where you can afford anything you see.

Buyers don't like the slider and they don't like a site that rubs into their faces that they are too poor to buy the "good stuff". I'm using apostrophes here, because some of the expensive stuff is inferior to the cheap stuff, also that doesn't make any sense.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1435 on:** December 08, 2011, 05:43 »

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

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

Interesting.
I thought, Surely there are 42" Samsung TVs at different price points, so I hopped along to Amazon.
Remember, the web designer's mantra is "What would Amazon do?"
And at least one poster on that thread on iStock said, "... and just type it in at Amazon and IT WORKS".
So I went to Amazon (UK) and typed in 'just' 42" Samsung TV, and this is what I got:
http://www.lizworld.com/Samsung.jpg
So ... clearly I should have filtered by department.
But what if I don't WANT to filter by department and stamp my little foot and say so?
"Your site sucks. I wanted to buy a 42" Samsung TV and your search brings me anything BUT Samsung TVs"
Either a user opts to learn an interface or an online seller can't offer a wide variety of goods.

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #1436 on:** December 08, 2011, 05:50 »

I think the price slider is a good solution to striking the balance between iStock and its artists' desire to sell higher price files and buyers' desire to limit their expenses if necessary. I don't want buyers coming in and permanently turning off Vetta and Agency, but I do want them to be able to filter them out if they're prepared to put in 10 seconds of effort.

Despite all the moaning about iStock, their higher prices are the only thing that are going to make it worthwhile for us in the long run.

lagereek · « **Reply #1437 on:** December 08, 2011, 06:06 »

Quote from: fotoVoyager on December 08, 2011, 05:50

I think the price slider is a good solution to striking the balance between iStock and its artists' desire to sell higher price files and buyers' desire to limit their expenses if necessary. I don't want buyers coming in and permanently turning off Vetta and Agency, but I do want them to be able to filter them out if they're prepared to put in 10 seconds of effort.

Despite all the moaning about iStock, their higher prices are the only thing that are going to make it worthwhile for us in the long run.

Agreeing 100%, despite all the moaning, etc ( myself included), its only the higher sales that will come to account for something. Thats in fact the ONLY reason Im still there.

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #1438 on:** December 08, 2011, 06:12 »

Oh, and royalty percentages that are actually ethical and realistic, of course.

lthn · « **Reply #1439 on:** December 08, 2011, 06:13 »

Quote from: fotoVoyager on December 08, 2011, 05:50

I think the price slider is a good solution to striking the balance between ...

Yeah, never mind the buyers leaving totally pissed off, it's a good solution, and that's it... 8 )

aluxum · « **Reply #1440 on:** December 08, 2011, 06:14 »

Quote from: fotoVoyager on December 08, 2011, 05:50

I think the price slider is a good solution to striking the balance between iStock and its artists' desire to sell higher price files and buyers' desire to limit their expenses if necessary. I don't want buyers coming in and permanently turning off Vetta and Agency, but I do want them to be able to filter them out if they're prepared to put in 10 seconds of effort.

Despite all the moaning about iStock, their higher prices are the only thing that are going to make it worthwhile for us in the long run.

Agree with you fotoVoyager. The only problem with the price slider is it should have been implemented from the first day Vettas and Agency files appeared. And I would like it to be even more prominent. Fit the budget to customers needs. To all that say that Vetta and Agency have no added value I think this is total nonsense. In any sector of life there are different price ranges depending usually on quality or scarcity. The same holds true for photography. And when I see Vetta/Agency files (with exceptions) I usually understand why they are more expensive. And although the quality in other micros is improving and jumping the gap, I still think the quality of the collection is superior at Istock the same way I see that Getty has still superior content to Istock.

Freedom · « **Reply #1441 on:** December 08, 2011, 06:39 »

Mind you, the dollar store was sold a while ago. The new owner has decided on a different price structure and perhaps to target a different segment of consumers.

Quote from: Perry on December 08, 2011, 03:23

You don't sell luxury brands at a one-dollar-store, because it just doesn't work. You would feel poor and unwanted when you would be at the shelves that contain cheap products. It's much nicer to go to a one-dollar-store where you can afford anything you see.

Buyers don't like the slider and they don't like a site that rubs into their faces that they are too poor to buy the "good stuff". I'm using apostrophes here, because some of the expensive stuff is inferior to the cheap stuff, also that doesn't make any sense.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1442 on:** December 08, 2011, 07:52 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 08, 2011, 02:21

This slider gives the impression of a quality slider, the higher the price, the better quality, right. Well thousands of buyers didnt swallow that garbage and why? simply because they couldnt see any differance in quality, thats why, so they refused to get fooled. tisk, tisk.

That's just silly. It's basically a "collection" slider. If you put a bunch of checkboxes, then you'd whine it's too much work to check things off. Heck, I know on Getty, there are tons of collections, and none of them mean anything to me, and they are all different prices. With the slider, at least, you have an easy way to cut things down a bit. All the price level says, is "here is the price for this image". The price itself doesn't lay claim to any level of quality, if that hurts your feelings. The price is what it is. If it is such garbage, why don't you remove all your work from Getty and put it on allyoucanstock?

Perry · « **Reply #1443 on:** December 08, 2011, 08:01 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 08, 2011, 07:52

Quote from: lagereek on December 08, 2011, 02:21
This slider gives the impression of a quality slider, the higher the price, the better quality, right. Well thousands of buyers didnt swallow that garbage and why? simply because they couldnt see any differance in quality, thats why, so they refused to get fooled. tisk, tisk.

That's just silly. It's basically a "collection" slider.

So you are admitting the price and quality are only weakly connected? Isn't that just annoying and silly from the buyer's perspective?

fujiko · « **Reply #1444 on:** December 08, 2011, 08:27 »

The fact that IS threads turn into such huge and boring texts is proof of how wrong is their site.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1445 on:** December 08, 2011, 08:29 »

Quote from: fujiko on December 08, 2011, 08:27

The fact that IS threads turn into such huge and boring texts is proof of how wrong is their site.

You just failed Logic101

fujiko · « **Reply #1446 on:** December 08, 2011, 09:06 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 08, 2011, 08:29

Quote from: fujiko on December 08, 2011, 08:27
The fact that IS threads turn into such huge and boring texts is proof of how wrong is their site.
You just failed Logic101

In a lab where IS threads are short and interesting and IS site works like charm with no bugs and good management, yes, you are right.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1447 on:** December 08, 2011, 09:16 »

Quote from: Perry on December 08, 2011, 08:01

So you are admitting the price and quality are only weakly connected? Isn't that just annoying and silly from the buyer's perspective?

I am not "admitting" anything. I am saying that everyone has their own impressions of what price indicates. It could be rarity. It could be quality. It could be that that price just indicates how much something costs with no reason. At IS, specifically and literally, price is determined by the collection something is in. Some collections are editor chosen and supposedly driven towards a specific aesthetic. A buyer may find this useful. Other buyers may not.

lagereek · « **Reply #1448 on:** December 08, 2011, 09:59 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 08, 2011, 07:52

Quote from: lagereek on December 08, 2011, 02:21
This slider gives the impression of a quality slider, the higher the price, the better quality, right. Well thousands of buyers didnt swallow that garbage and why? simply because they couldnt see any differance in quality, thats why, so they refused to get fooled. tisk, tisk.

That's just silly. It's basically a "collection" slider. If you put a bunch of checkboxes, then you'd whine it's too much work to check things off. Heck, I know on Getty, there are tons of collections, and none of them mean anything to me, and they are all different prices. With the slider, at least, you have an easy way to cut things down a bit. All the price level says, is "here is the price for this image". The price itself doesn't lay claim to any level of quality, if that hurts your feelings. The price is what it is. If it is such garbage, why don't you remove all your work from Getty and put it on allyoucanstock?

Hi there!

Isnt it logic though, regardless of product, in principle, you get what you pay for and the more you pay, the better quality, right? goes for clothes, cars, shoes, whatever, doesnt it? so the more you push the slider, the more expensive, why? better quality? IMO, hardly.
Yes, I know, its a price-slider but as far as buyers are concerned, they will interpret it as a quality-slider. So what IS, in retrospect is saying, is: independant base-files are garbage, so push the slider a little and get rid of the trash.

At the Getty search, you have a menue, saying, All-stock-files, RM and RF.

best.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1449 on:** December 08, 2011, 10:05 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 08, 2011, 09:59

Isnt it logic though, regardless of product, in principle, you get what you pay for and the more you pay, the better quality, right? goes for clothes, cars, shoes, whatever, doesnt it?

Nope. You and I might, as customers, like to think so; but 'tain't necessarily so.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391527 times)

BaldricksTrousers

SNP

nruboc

BaldricksTrousers

SNP

Zephyr

cthoman

lagereek

gbalex

Perry

ShadySue

fotoVoyager

lagereek

fotoVoyager

lthn

aluxum

Freedom

Sean Locke Photography

Perry

fujiko

ShadySue

fujiko

Sean Locke Photography

lagereek

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors