Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391504 times)

Eyedesign · « **Reply #1475 on:** December 09, 2011, 17:03 »

Yes and no J. Veer, Dreamstimes, and 123RF all have some type of price slider or collection Selector. I think if a site has more than one price point or collection you'll find they have someway to filter the search. The question is if istock's price slider/collection selector to hard for a buyer to understand.

cobalt · « **Reply #1476 on:** December 09, 2011, 17:53 »

I´ll go have a look at them.

The more sites have a price slider, the better it is for istock.

Price range is the other concern.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1477 on:** December 09, 2011, 18:13 »

I'm not sure this is really 'for' this thread, but it's fair enough.

I just did a search on 'zoo'. They're always saying zoo shots won't be accepted without a PR, yet there are well over 20,000 pics with zoo as keywords.

So I did a best match on 'zoo' photos only. And what is totally, totally hogging the first page. You'll have to look for yourselves to believe it, but almost all the top 50 are raster illustrations priced at Vetta, showing cartoons of animals but most NOT in a zoo. All ingested by a faux-exclusive 'group', with a link to the website from where they sell their own illos.

I wonder how many other searches are being affected by this? (Yes, I know raster illos have always been 'photos', but I've never before seen them so totally hog a photo search before).

How to hack off buyers and sellers in one go, iStock. Way to go.

cobalt · « **Reply #1478 on:** December 09, 2011, 18:21 »

http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/zoo/filetype/photos/source/basic#1f62e9bf

That is bad. If you select photos only, you should get only photos.

The most important is excellent search results.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1479 on:** December 09, 2011, 18:26 »

Quote from: cobalt on December 09, 2011, 18:21

http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/zoo/filetype/photos/source/basic#1f62e9bf

That is bad. If you select photos only, you should get only photos.

The most important is excellent search results.

On iStock vector illustrations are 'illustrations' and raster illustrations are 'photos'. I'd think vectors could be 'vectors' and raster illustrations could be 'illustrations', BUT:
1. changing the meaning of 'illustration' now would confuse the sort of buyers who can't use the slider, and
2. it has been validly pointed out that many contributors submit images which are a composite of photos and raster illustration.

But yes, this is what can happen as a result, if you headhunt faux-exclusives and give them preferred placement in the search.

prat · « **Reply #1480 on:** December 09, 2011, 19:11 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 09, 2011, 18:13

I'm not sure this is really 'for' this thread, but it's fair enough.

I just did a search on 'zoo'. They're always saying zoo shots won't be accepted without a PR, yet there are well over 20,000 pics with zoo as keywords.

So I did a best match on 'zoo' photos only. And what is totally, totally hogging the first page. You'll have to look for yourselves to believe it, but almost all the top 50 are raster illustrations priced at Vetta, showing cartoons of animals but most NOT in a zoo. All ingested by a faux-exclusive 'group', with a link to the website from where they sell their own illos.

I wonder how many other searches are being affected by this? (Yes, I know raster illos have always been 'photos', but I've never before seen them so totally hog a photo search before).

How to hack off buyers and sellers in one go, iStock. Way to go.

And what's funnier is that CSA_Images entire portfolio is Vetta. Perhaps that's why it's so incredibly hard to get anything accepted as vetta these days.

briciola · « **Reply #1481 on:** December 09, 2011, 19:18 »

Quote from: prat on December 09, 2011, 19:11

And what's funnier is that CSA_Images entire portfolio is Vetta. Perhaps that's why it's so incredibly hard to get anything accepted as vetta these days.

all 5677 files are vetta. Man these shots must be SO much better than your average exclusive who ony manages to get a small percentage of their files into vetta

Edited - when I say shots I mean illustrations or whatever - like this peach, must have taken a frickin age to do

ShadySue · « **Reply #1482 on:** December 09, 2011, 19:25 »

Quote from: prat on December 09, 2011, 19:11

Quote from: ShadySue on December 09, 2011, 18:13
I'm not sure this is really 'for' this thread, but it's fair enough.

I just did a search on 'zoo'. They're always saying zoo shots won't be accepted without a PR, yet there are well over 20,000 pics with zoo as keywords.

So I did a best match on 'zoo' photos only. And what is totally, totally hogging the first page. You'll have to look for yourselves to believe it, but almost all the top 50 are raster illustrations priced at Vetta, showing cartoons of animals but most NOT in a zoo. All ingested by a faux-exclusive 'group', with a link to the website from where they sell their own illos.

I wonder how many other searches are being affected by this? (Yes, I know raster illos have always been 'photos', but I've never before seen them so totally hog a photo search before).

How to hack off buyers and sellers in one go, iStock. Way to go.

And what's funnier is that CSA_Images entire portfolio is Vetta. Perhaps that's why it's so incredibly hard to get anything accepted as vetta these days.

Must be the same deal as some other faux-exclusives and my old mucker Ed.
BTW, anyone know what EdStock2 is about? There's no port yet, but there must be a 'plan' or something ...

ShadySue · « **Reply #1483 on:** December 09, 2011, 19:31 »

Quote from: cobalt on December 09, 2011, 18:21

The most important is excellent search results.

I couldn't agree more, but here's another fun one. Search Dorling Kindersley in the top search box, but don't accept Dorling_Kindersley.
The search divides into two separate words, and gives you, bizarrely, a choice of 151 files with neither word in their keywords.
I have no idea whether the number of geese files in the search is relevant in another language, I couldn't find that in the keywords either.
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/Dorling%20Kindersley/source/basic#7ed9fe3
Yes, who would look for Dorling Kindersley in two words? But it's surely symptomatic that something is vastly wrong in the whole search system.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1484 on:** December 09, 2011, 19:45 »

The "quality" of things such as ape family:

bear:

and tiger with ice cream cone:

don't even come close to meriting inclusion in Vetta IMO. Forget that iStock wouldn't accept those at all from a regular contributor as they appear to be based on a vector original, but how does it help the site as a whole to charge $125 for one of these turkeys? Buyers see this and it devalues the rest of the work in Vetta, much of which is excellent.

This is all relatively new - from the end of last month. What a total travesty of any pretense of inspection standards. Getty/H&F is just milking whatever they can get from iStock's traffic with no regard for the site's future. They should hang their heads in shame.

ETA: I looked at the rest of CSA images' portfolio, not just the stuff that showed up in the zoo search, and they have some very nice work in amongst the standard, unremarkable (i.e. absolutely main collection) illustrations. My point about automatic Vetta for things that don't merit inclusion still stands, but I did want to note now nice some of their work is, even if it isn't really Vetta.

cobalt · « **Reply #1485 on:** December 09, 2011, 20:00 »

I love the CSA collection, they have some really beautiful stuff. But I don´t understand why everything is Vetta. Makes no sense to me. And it does devalue the Vetta collection if simple drawings are in there too.

I dot have many Vettas, but if I was one of those Vetta shooters, I wouldn´t be happy.

Let´s hope that when they get all those bugs and computer things sorted out they can focus on site basics like search results and collections.

Maybe it is a bug like Ed´s images in Agency?

gostwyck · « **Reply #1486 on:** December 09, 2011, 20:12 »

Quote from: cobalt on December 09, 2011, 20:00

Let´s hope that when they get all those bugs and computer things sorted out they can focus on site basics like search results and collections.

That's Istock you're talking about __ what timescale do you have in mind? I wouldn't like to speculate the decade, much less the year they might achieve that.

cobalt · « **Reply #1487 on:** December 09, 2011, 21:02 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 09, 2011, 20:12

Quote from: cobalt on December 09, 2011, 20:00
Let´s hope that when they get all those bugs and computer things sorted out they can focus on site basics like search results and collections.

That's Istock you're talking about __ what timescale do you have in mind? I wouldn't like to speculate the decade, much less the year they might achieve that.

LOL! You would say that, wouldn´t you? It´s off topic, but your beloved SS hasn´t sold a single video for me yet. istock: 1, SS: 0.

SNP · « **Reply #1488 on:** December 09, 2011, 21:39 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 09, 2011, 19:45

This is all relatively new - from the end of last month. What a total travesty of any pretense of inspection standards. Getty/H&F is just milking whatever they can get from iStock's traffic with no regard for the site's future. They should hang their heads in shame.

I'm afraid this is what is happening too. the alternative explanation, which is also plausible but not any better, is that they're dumping files in and inspecting them and removing them gradually. with the mindset that the good ones will float to the top and sell, and the bad ones will eventually be weeded out by inspectors. and to an extent this is a short-term way to maximize profits.

I understand why you are surmising this could be at the expense of buyer perception when clients see blatant 'turkeys' being sold at Vetta prices, but it would be my guess that buyers wouldn't even notice the turkeys for the most part. wouldn't they be focused on the files they are interested in? disgruntled buyers/contributors might go weeding out turkeys as evidence, but that's not typical buyer behaviour.

wiser · « **Reply #1489 on:** December 09, 2011, 22:20 »

Quote from: sjlocke 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.

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.

Yep, that's me.. Lazy and stoopid. I guess I will be shopping elsewhere. Doh'

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1490 on:** December 09, 2011, 22:44 »

Quote from: cobalt on December 09, 2011, 20:00

I love the CSA collection, they have some really beautiful stuff. But I don´t understand why everything is Vetta. Makes no sense to me. And it does devalue the Vetta collection if simple drawings are in there too.

The only thing I've thought of is that they are using Vetta as a pricing collection, due to the inflexibility of the system. It's just a way to raise the prices for the collection above E+. IMO... If I had a lot of Vetta, I would be annoyed at this stuff flooding the edited collection.

KB · « **Reply #1491 on:** December 09, 2011, 23:53 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 09, 2011, 19:31

Quote from: cobalt on December 09, 2011, 18:21
The most important is excellent search results.

I couldn't agree more, but here's another fun one. Search Dorling Kindersley in the top search box, but don't accept Dorling_Kindersley.
The search divides into two separate words, and gives you, bizarrely, a choice of 151 files with neither word in their keywords.
I have no idea whether the number of geese files in the search is relevant in another language, I couldn't find that in the keywords either.
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/Dorling%20Kindersley/source/basic#7ed9fe3
Yes, who would look for Dorling Kindersley in two words? But it's surely symptomatic that something is vastly wrong in the whole search system.

I've noticed this sort of thing before. If the system doesn't find any results, it sometimes (not always) guesses at what it thinks you meant. 'Kindersley' matches with 'goose' (I have no idea why); 'dorling' (not surprisingly) matches with 'darling'. So the results of 'Dorling Kindersley' are identical to what you get if you typed 'darling goose'.

The system is trying to be smart, but I think it just ends up causing confusion. I'd rather see "no results", or at least an indication (like in Google) that it's actually showing you results of something other than what you typed.

cobalt · « **Reply #1492 on:** December 10, 2011, 00:03 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 09, 2011, 22:44

Quote from: cobalt on December 09, 2011, 20:00
I love the CSA collection, they have some really beautiful stuff. But I don´t understand why everything is Vetta. Makes no sense to me. And it does devalue the Vetta collection if simple drawings are in there too.

The only thing I've thought of is that they are using Vetta as a pricing collection, due to the inflexibility of the system. It's just a way to raise the prices for the collection above E+. IMO... If I had a lot of Vetta, I would be annoyed at this stuff flooding the edited collection.

If the system is inflexible they should have edited the collection manually. Pick the best files for Vetta...and the others will have to wait until a new system is ready. Or put them in the main collection in the meantime. Under no circumstance would I dilute the quality of the Vetta brand. That is very damaging for us all.

SNP · « **Reply #1493 on:** December 10, 2011, 00:58 »

^ I agree with you. philosophically. ethically.

BUT, from a PURELY business point of view, buyers don't look at collections as a whole. they see best match search results with bad files peppered here and there (don't read that as any sort of agreement). Bad files they probably ignore, or dismiss as dislikeable, or, gasp, buy because they have no taste. even if the bad files were not included, we've seen buyers complain about price at all levels of the collection anyways.

isn't there a greater financial advantage to placing everything in higher priced collections and then whittling? therefore increasing potential for greater-profit sales on crap files until they are removed. most of the comments being made operate on the assumption that buyers only buy good material. that's just not true. we see that in the creative briefings they're giving us re: photos....asking for more snapshot-style photos. buyers will spend money on crap as much as they will on good images. we see it everyday. financially it makes sense to do it the way they are doing it. again, I don't personally agree with this policy. but I don't agree with much of what big business does.

cobalt · « **Reply #1494 on:** December 10, 2011, 01:24 »

Hey, if what they do works and brings in money - by all means fill Vetta with snapshots!!

I saw the creative brief and I love the flickr collection. But although it looks like "snapshots with bad lighting", this stuff is probably the most difficult to create. You need to control many, many details to make the image work. And at the same time let go. It is a much more advanced level (IMO) than regular stock and that is already very hard work.

I hope the customers ignore the files they don´t need, maybe I worry too much. But of course I go by what I would expect as a buyer and how I would love istock to represent us as artists in the market.

SNP · « **Reply #1495 on:** December 10, 2011, 01:56 »

good work is effort + experience + talent + evolution.....but, some people spend a lot of time and energy creating bad stuff. effort alone does not good work make. bad shots are sometimes just bad shots, I don't care if they took three weeks to set up and shoot.

buyers don't buy what's best for them, or what's best for suppliers. capitalism works so brilliantly because people buy crap all the time. I don't think iStock are intentionally filling Vetta with crap. that's not at all what I said (is that what it sounded like?). what I'm saying is that buyer behaviour probably suggests that it won't hurt if they dump into Vetta first and sort out later (as long as later doesn't become never). in terms of profiting from the odd sale of the bad files, while the crap is in there, this makes more sense (speaking purely financially).

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1496 on:** December 10, 2011, 07:24 »

Quote from: cobalt on December 10, 2011, 00:03

If the system is inflexible they should have edited the collection manually. Pick the best files for Vetta...and the others will have to wait until a new system is ready. Or put them in the main collection in the meantime. Under no circumstance would I dilute the quality of the Vetta brand. That is very damaging for us all.

I'm not arguing with you.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1497 on:** December 10, 2011, 07:59 »

Quote from: SNP on December 10, 2011, 00:58

^ I agree with you. philosophically. ethically.

BUT, from a PURELY business point of view, buyers don't look at collections as a whole. they see best match search results with bad files peppered here and there

In the example I gave (zoo, photos only) they see almost all cartoons, which are ALL Vetta - they can hardly avoid them. This is almost certainly NOT what someone wanting a zoo photo wants.
I have no idea how many other searches this is affecting.
(I have no personal interest in this particular search, but it's a worrying principle. And they seem to be heavily pushing Vettas down buyers' throats again.)

ShadySue · « **Reply #1498 on:** December 10, 2011, 08:17 »

Quote from: wiser on December 09, 2011, 22:20

Quote from: sjlocke 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.

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.

Yep, that's me.. Lazy and stoopid. I guess I will be shopping elsewhere. Doh'

Not lazy, not stupid, but not in the target market. People without computers aren't lazy or stupid, but not in the target market.
My husband is computer phobic and can't use Amazon (or any other online store). Either I order it for him or he gets what he wants in physical shops.
Should Amazon change?

cobalt · « **Reply #1499 on:** December 10, 2011, 08:18 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 10, 2011, 07:24

Quote from: cobalt on December 10, 2011, 00:03
If the system is inflexible they should have edited the collection manually. Pick the best files for Vetta...and the others will have to wait until a new system is ready. Or put them in the main collection in the meantime. Under no circumstance would I dilute the quality of the Vetta brand. That is very damaging for us all.

I'm not arguing with you.

I know, sorry if it came across that way. The site bugs and other issues are straining my patience. I hope 2012 will be a better year. It would be nice to have just one year of focussing on work without drama. But then - it is istock...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391504 times)

Eyedesign

cobalt

ShadySue

cobalt

ShadySue

prat

briciola

ShadySue

ShadySue

Jo Ann Snover

cobalt

gostwyck

cobalt

SNP

wiser

Sean Locke Photography

KB

cobalt

SNP

cobalt

SNP

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

ShadySue

cobalt

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors