Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391507 times)

lagereek · « **Reply #1450 on:** December 08, 2011, 10:17 »

Quote from: ShadySue 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.

Oh Sue! dont be naive, you know damned well, ofcourse you can pick up a bargain, but in general, the more you pay for something, the better, no matter what product. Only the other day, I was listening to the whining of an AD who had hired a certain photographer for an Advert, this guys dayrate was, 5K, pounds, sterling per/day. He admitted it was worth every penny and he justified his expense by saying, I got exactly what I paid for, top-notch.
In the creative world, you get what you pay for has even got a certain snob value and cache.

Anyhow, how come many buyers then react and say, funny! this so called slider, the price will increase BUT NOT, the quality, so why are we then supposed to pay more?

ShadySue · « **Reply #1451 on:** December 08, 2011, 10:29 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 08, 2011, 10:17

Quote from: ShadySue 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.

Oh Sue! dont be naive, you know damned well, ofcourse you can pick up a bargain, but in general, the more you pay for something, the better, no matter what product.

You're the one who's being disingenuous. There's a factory near here which makes soap. One of their lines goes out to several supermarkets and shops, exactly the same bar or soap but in different wrappings, and is retailled at several prices, the most expensive is 7x the cheapest.

Quote

In the creative world, you get what you pay for has even got a certain snob value and cache.

Yeah, you pay for snob value and cachet, but often the emperor has no clothes, like that expensive photo that sold for over 4m recently.
The 7x soap is sold in Harrods. That's snob value and cachet.

Quote

Anyhow, how come many buyers then react and say, funny! this so called slider, the price will increase BUT NOT, the quality, so why are we then supposed to pay more?

I've also read, at least twice, on iStock forums (before the slider was introduced) that buyers actually perceived the A/V photos as better but were adopting a can't pay/won't pay stance and asking for a way of not seeing these images. That was provided.
This wasn't the stance of the alleged-ex-buyer we are talking about now. He said that 'almost all the photos are Vetta', when the fact is that less than half of the top best match in his search are Vetta and he wouldn't see them at all if he used a simple, though not aesthetically perfect, slider. He was given advice and a screenshot showing how to use it, but has 'apparently' chosen to leave, rather than follow the suggestion.
I go into Harrods, see the price of soap, squeak and walk out again. Will the shop drop their price? There seem to be plenty of people willing to pay a huge premium just to have a bar of soap with a Harrods wrapper.

The OP also mentioned an 'angry baby' in Hong Kong search: I don't see that in the top 100 under best match, age or downloads photos-only as he specified. Of course search bugs and spamming make any site's search less than optimal. The iStock Hong Kong best match photo search actually seems pretty clean.
He also said that "2 in 10 photos are editorial". Again, the first editorial in a Hong Kong photos-only best match search is at position 42 here, possibly a bit higher in a different geographical location.

I don't see how this buyer can be considered 'right' when, on his three stated complaints, he is so demonstrably, wrong.

lagereek · « **Reply #1452 on:** December 08, 2011, 11:18 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 08, 2011, 10:29

Quote from: lagereek on December 08, 2011, 10:17
Quote from: ShadySue 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.

Oh Sue! dont be naive, you know damned well, ofcourse you can pick up a bargain, but in general, the more you pay for something, the better, no matter what product.
you're the one who'se being disingenuous. There's a factory near here which makes soap. One of their lines goes out to several supermarkets and shops, exactly the same bar or soap but in different wrappings, and is retailled at several prices, the most expensive is 7x the cheapest.
Quote
In the creative world, you get what you pay for has even got a certain snob value and cache.
Yeah, you pay for snob value and cachet, but often the emperor has no clothes, like that expensive photo that sold for over 4m recently.
The 7x soap is sold in Harrods. That's snob value and cachet.
Quote
Anyhow, how come many buyers then react and say, funny! this so called slider, the price will increase BUT NOT, the quality, so why are we then supposed to pay more?
I've also read, at least twice, on iStock forums (before the slider was introduced) that buyers actually perceived the A/V photos as better but were adopting a can't pay/won't pay stance and asking for a way of not seeing these images. That was provided.
This wasn't the stance of the alleged-ex-buyer we are talking about now. He said that 'almost all the photos are Vetta', when the fact is that less than half of the top best match in his search are Vetta and he wouldn't see them at all if he used a simple, though not aesthetically perfect, slider. He was given advice and a screenshot showing how to use it, but has 'apparently' chosen to leave, rather than follow the suggestion.

I go into Harrods, see the price of soap, squeak and walk out again. Will the shop drop their price? There seem to be plenty of people willing to pay a huge premium just to have a bar of soap with a Harrods wrapper.

Well, the soap story sounds a hell of a lot cleaner to me then a pretentious Vetta file in an IS wrapper AND thats exactly what I mean ofcourse. why pretend a file higher up on the price-slider should be better then a file at base? when dozens of buyers have said, theyre not! only more expensive.

Glad you see it my way, I know you would.

best. Chris.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1453 on:** December 08, 2011, 11:26 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 08, 2011, 11:18

Glad you see it my way, I know you would.

How's the weather in cloud-cuckooland?

pro@stockphotos · « **Reply #1454 on:** December 08, 2011, 11:34 »

Quote from: nruboc 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As an independent you have the ultimate price slider. Which one is more confusing. Exclusive Images on one site with 4 different groups of pricing based on the collection or an independent contributor on every site that is out there with different pricing for the same images on every site out there.

lagereek · « **Reply #1455 on:** December 08, 2011, 12:14 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 08, 2011, 11:26

Quote from: lagereek on December 08, 2011, 11:18
Glad you see it my way, I know you would.
How's the weather in cloud-cuckooland?

Oh well, cant complain, clowns to right, jokers to the left and here I am stuck in the middle with you.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1456 on:** December 08, 2011, 12:17 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 08, 2011, 12:14

Quote from: ShadySue on December 08, 2011, 11:26
Quote from: lagereek on December 08, 2011, 11:18
Glad you see it my way, I know you would.
How's the weather in cloud-cuckooland?

Oh well, cant complain, clowns to right, jokers to the left and here I am stuck in the middle with you.

Yeah, you're all over the place

stockastic · « **Reply #1457 on:** December 08, 2011, 13:03 »

Ok, in microstock I may be tiny and insignificant, but 30 years in the software business qualify me to say that if users don't like a UI element, or don't 'get' it pretty much at first sight - they'll never use it, and in fact they'll just stop seeing it.

Go ahead and call them dumb, or explain it until you're blue, it makes no difference. There's a huge range of how people's cognitive systems work, and there's no right or wrong about it.

A UI has to produce 'trust' by giving immediate, clear and obvious feedback so you're confident you know what it just did. Doesn't seem to be the case with this 'slider'.

KB · « **Reply #1458 on:** December 08, 2011, 14:15 »

Fooling with the slider for a bit, I'm not sure it would help any if the stopping place was lined up with the dots. In fact, I would find that very confusing. The way it currently is, it's pretty obvious to me when you're including or excluding a price range by where it stops. For a slider, I think it's as clear as it can be.

Everyone is used to using check boxes. They are easy to use and intuitive. They are in the groups above and below the slider. They would also allow someone to make non contiguous selections (such as the cheapest and most expensive -- though I doubt anyone would ever want to do that). Why in the world did the designers feel that a slider was a better choice to implement this functionality than check boxes? Could it be because it just "looks better"?

wiser · « **Reply #1459 on:** December 08, 2011, 19:59 »

Quote from: jsnover 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.

As usual you have hit the nail on the head.

I AM a buyer and that is what we wanted, a button to exclude Vetta AND Photo plus. I tried using the slider, and to be blunt, it sucks. I continue to search the way I did before the slider by looking for those tiny little Vetta and photo plus icons. If the thumbnail has one I just don't look any further. Yeah it takes longer and that is why my company now has subscriptions to both SS and TS. We only buy from IS when we can't find what we need elsewhere, and that happens rarely. My company use to buy exclusively from IS, but those days are over.

hoi ha · « **Reply #1460 on:** December 08, 2011, 20:19 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 08, 2011, 10:29

I go into Harrods, see the price of soap, squeak and walk out again. Will the shop drop their price? There seem to be plenty of people willing to pay a huge premium just to have a bar of soap with a Harrods wrapper.

The problem is too that IS is not Harrods - it is the dollar store acting like it is Harrods - and shoppers at the dollar store do not want to shop at Harrods and shoppers at Harrods do not want top shop at the dollar store - IS has lost its way big time.

KB · « **Reply #1461 on:** December 08, 2011, 20:44 »

Quote from: wiser on December 08, 2011, 19:59

I AM a buyer and that is what we wanted, a button to exclude Vetta AND Photo plus. I tried using the slider, and to be blunt, it sucks. I continue to search the way I did before the slider by looking for those tiny little Vetta and photo plus icons. If the thumbnail has one I just don't look any further. Yeah it takes longer and that is why my company now has subscriptions to both SS and TS. We only buy from IS when we can't find what we need elsewhere, and that happens rarely. My company use to buy exclusively from IS, but those days are over.

I don't disagree with you that a slider was the wrong UI.

But, seriously, you actually find it easier to look at the tiny icons on each image, rather than simply moving the slider as far down as it will go?

wiser · « **Reply #1462 on:** December 08, 2011, 20:57 »

^ yes, because as Sean states moving the slider all the way done eliminates the large and xl sizes that we generally buy as we are mainly print.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1463 on:** December 08, 2011, 21:13 »

Quote from: wiser on December 08, 2011, 20:57

^ yes, because as Sean states moving the slider all the way done eliminates the large and xl sizes that we generally buy as we are mainly print.

No, it doesn't, and that's not what Sean actually said.
It eliminates Agency, Vetta and exclusive+ files, not independent, ind+ and Exclusive files which are available at Large and above.

I double checked by dragging the slider down and searching on business. The very first best match hit is a file by gehringj which is available at XL. The second is a Yuri file which is available at XXXL.

Your search result may be slightly different as there is apparently some geographical weighting with the best match.
Nevertheless, you will get files available up to all sizes in your search.

(There are checkboxes under 'Photo and Illustration Filters' which let you select only photos that are available at XL+, XXL+ and XXXL, but not L+, i.e. excluding M.)

loop · « **Reply #1464 on:** December 08, 2011, 21:14 »

Quote from: KB on December 08, 2011, 20:44

Quote from: wiser on December 08, 2011, 19:59
I AM a buyer and that is what we wanted, a button to exclude Vetta AND Photo plus. I tried using the slider, and to be blunt, it sucks. I continue to search the way I did before the slider by looking for those tiny little Vetta and photo plus icons. If the thumbnail has one I just don't look any further. Yeah it takes longer and that is why my company now has subscriptions to both SS and TS. We only buy from IS when we can't find what we need elsewhere, and that happens rarely. My company use to buy exclusively from IS, but those days are over.
I don't disagree with you that a slider was the wrong UI.

But, seriously, you actually find it easier to look at the tiny icons on each image, rather than simply moving the slider as far down as it will go?

Yes, indeed, very, very curious.

KB · « **Reply #1465 on:** December 08, 2011, 22:35 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 08, 2011, 21:13

It eliminates Agency, Vetta and exclusive files, not independent, ind+ and Exclusive files which are available at Large and above.

A small but possibly confusing typo:

It eliminates Agency, Vetta, and Exclusive+ files. Which is exactly what you are looking for, wiser.

Suljo · « **Reply #1466 on:** December 09, 2011, 00:38 »

How anybody knows how it works. (I mean this fckin slider in different browsers)

Sorry I dont know how to qwote myself
Quote from: sjlocke on Yesterday at 04:30
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.
---------------------------------------------------

As I see here and dont want to explore how this THING called SLIDER behaves in other browsers.
I think there is infinite number of probabilities what you will get from they forced best match or whatever they want to sell.
But I see that iSmacks dont do basic step in programming (compatibility with major browsers and they corrupted database)

What is my proof for this argument?

Well try it by yourself.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1467 on:** December 09, 2011, 04:10 »

Quote from: KB on December 08, 2011, 22:35

Quote from: ShadySue on December 08, 2011, 21:13
It eliminates Agency, Vetta and exclusive files, not independent, ind+ and Exclusive files which are available at Large and above.
A small but possibly confusing typo:

It eliminates Agency, Vetta, and Exclusive+ files. Which is exactly what you are looking for, wiser.

Thanks, stupid typo and an important clarifcation.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #1468 on:** December 09, 2011, 06:39 »

Quote from: KB on December 08, 2011, 20:44

Quote from: wiser on December 08, 2011, 19:59
I AM a buyer and that is what we wanted, a button to exclude Vetta AND Photo plus. I tried using the slider, and to be blunt, it sucks. I continue to search the way I did before the slider by looking for those tiny little Vetta and photo plus icons. If the thumbnail has one I just don't look any further. Yeah it takes longer and that is why my company now has subscriptions to both SS and TS. We only buy from IS when we can't find what we need elsewhere, and that happens rarely. My company use to buy exclusively from IS, but those days are over.
I don't disagree with you that a slider was the wrong UI.

But, seriously, you actually find it easier to look at the tiny icons on each image, rather than simply moving the slider as far down as it will go?

In fact, you don't even have to slide it; you can just click on the bottom dot, which means it's even less effort than having check boxes.

Though I'd agree with what someone else mentioned, it would be nice if there was some pop up hints to describe this when floating the mouse over the thing.

lagereek · « **Reply #1469 on:** December 09, 2011, 06:57 »

I can not believe this, why are people here trying to explain the technical ins and outs of this slider, pulls it, clicks it, etc. Do they really believe that we have a technical issue, problem with the slider? ITS NOT THE SLIDER IN ITSELF!, its what it represents. The brainwaves behind the slider, is meant to try and steer away buyers from the cheapo base-files and prefferably buy exclusive /agency/ Vettas. i.e. to steer the revenues in a certain direction.
Thats OK, actually, its a business after all, if it wasnt at the expense of some 20K non exclusive members whom then got thrown a bone called Photo+. knowing fully well it was all going to end up in the gigatic dump called, TS.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1470 on:** December 09, 2011, 07:58 »

Quote from: wiser on December 08, 2011, 20:57

^ yes, because as Sean states moving the slider all the way done eliminates the large and xl sizes that we generally buy as we are mainly print.

No, what I said, is that you _can't_ make a price slider, because content in all collections comes at a variety of prices due to the paradigm of licensing based on size. However you can make a "collection" slider, an abstract concept that allows you to filter based on the general pricing level of the collections.

If it's too hard for you to click a dot to get what you want, I'm not sure checkboxes or anything else would help you.

Eyedesign · « **Reply #1471 on:** December 09, 2011, 08:01 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 09, 2011, 06:57

I can not believe this, why are people here trying to explain the technical ins and outs of this slider, pulls it, clicks it, etc. Do they really believe that we have a technical issue, problem with the slider? ITS NOT THE SLIDER IN ITSELF!, its what it represents. The brainwaves behind the slider, is meant to try and steer away buyers from the cheapo base-files and prefferably buy exclusive /agency/ Vettas. i.e. to steer the revenues in a certain direction.
Thats OK, actually, its a business after all, if it wasnt at the expense of some 20K non exclusive members whom then got thrown a bone called Photo+. knowing fully well it was all going to end up in the gigatic dump called, TS.

Do you really see it as a tool to "try and steer away buyers from the cheapo base-files and prefferably buy exclusive /agency/ Vettas" Four dots = Agency files, not in your budget range click three dots = Vettas, still not in your budget click two or one dots. Would it be better with little $ signs maybe, but I'm not really seeing the big problem.

lagereek · « **Reply #1472 on:** December 09, 2011, 12:35 »

Quote from: Eyedesign on December 09, 2011, 08:01

Quote from: lagereek on December 09, 2011, 06:57
I can not believe this, why are people here trying to explain the technical ins and outs of this slider, pulls it, clicks it, etc. Do they really believe that we have a technical issue, problem with the slider? ITS NOT THE SLIDER IN ITSELF!, its what it represents. The brainwaves behind the slider, is meant to try and steer away buyers from the cheapo base-files and prefferably buy exclusive /agency/ Vettas. i.e. to steer the revenues in a certain direction.
Thats OK, actually, its a business after all, if it wasnt at the expense of some 20K non exclusive members whom then got thrown a bone called Photo+. knowing fully well it was all going to end up in the gigatic dump called, TS.

Do you really see it as a tool to "try and steer away buyers from the cheapo base-files and prefferably buy exclusive /agency/ Vettas" Four dots = Agency files, not in your budget range click three dots = Vettas, still not in your budget click two or one dots. Would it be better with little $ signs maybe, but I'm not really seeing the big problem.

Hi Thomas! long time, no hear

Well the pricing logic is one thing but you know how the human brain works. Cheap or too cheap it must be rubbish a bit more expensive, still reasonably cheap: better stuff and expensive: must be the best, right?
If you only knew how many times I have heard and seen this reasoning by ADs, ad-agencies, art-buyers, designers, etc, then you would understand my reasoning.

Anyway how goes? soon x-mas, time for a few lagers, hey! all the best. Christian

Eyedesign · « **Reply #1473 on:** December 09, 2011, 12:43 »

Yep, Christian I can understand that is the logic of some buyers, but for all others we have dots..

Doing very well and have a good Holiday season.

cobalt · « **Reply #1474 on:** December 09, 2011, 13:50 »

I dont think the dots are the problem, the problem is that other agencies don´t have them, neither does Getty.

Clients like it simple, they don´t want to waste time learning the ins and outs of the different search engine "tricks". They have no time.

If more agencies introduce a large variety in prices and collections plus different filter options, customers would get used to it. But like this, istock becomes the "odd one out" and I understand that buyers start to say - "for my daily needs I go to the simple, easy to use sites, where all the prices are in the same range"

istock is aware of this and that is why they are pushing photos.com and thinkstock as the "easy to use alternative".

However the price you pay for this strategy is brand dilution and much higher marketing costs because your own agencies are competing with each other. And as an artist, the more successful photos.com is, the more of my files get sold at 20% and I don´t get any RC´s.

But unless they go back to having all files in a similar price range, working with several agencies might be the best way forward. It all depends on the costs necessary to push several agencies.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391507 times)

lagereek

ShadySue

lagereek

ShadySue

pro@stockphotos

lagereek

ShadySue

stockastic

KB

wiser

hoi ha

KB

wiser

ShadySue

loop

KB

Suljo

ShadySue

Gannet77

lagereek

Sean Locke Photography

Eyedesign

lagereek

Eyedesign

cobalt

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors