pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock  (Read 327084 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Reef

  • astonmars.com
« Reply #1675 on: October 29, 2012, 13:33 »
0
I kind of have to side with iStock on this one. I thought their push for higher prices in the regular collection was good for the industry in general. I can't really defend the agency collection stuff though.

I understand everyone has a budget and micro is supposed to be cheap, but I think some of the expectation for low cost/high quality images has gotten a little out of control. Especially as quality and contributors have improved. Getting images for a buck or two should probably vanish and make way for a more profitable pricing scheme.

Agree. Compared to years ago the quality has vastly improved. It seems there are now 2 clear paths to choose from. I took the red pill!



« Reply #1676 on: October 29, 2012, 13:45 »
0
I kind of have to side with iStock on this one. I thought their push for higher prices in the regular collection was good for the industry in general. I can't really defend the agency collection stuff though.

I understand everyone has a budget and micro is supposed to be cheap, but I think some of the expectation for low cost/high quality images has gotten a little out of control. Especially as quality and contributors have improved. Getting images for a buck or two should probably vanish and make way for a more profitable pricing scheme.

Yep.  And there's a price slider there.  Use it.

The price slider (and it should be called a dot pattern chooser; what amazon.com and many other sites offer has $$ in it) isn't really a help here. His second complaint was that older things had their price jacked up. The sticking point I believe is that there is too much ordinary dreck at high prices. All the spin doctoring about more expensive content is undermined because there's a ton of run-of-the-mill stuff at much higher prices.

If it was only the good or expensive stuff - your shoot on an airplane would be a good example of the type of work that costs more to produce and needs to have a higher price point - I think there'd be a lot less fussing. It just isn't visually or logically clear to buyers why various things have the price tag they do.

As a friend of mine said, complaining about a poorly thought through plan: "I like money" isn't a strategy :)

« Reply #1677 on: October 29, 2012, 14:38 »
0
The price slider (and it should be called a dot pattern chooser; what amazon.com and many other sites offer has $$ in it) isn't really a help here. His second complaint was that older things had their price jacked up. The sticking point I believe is that there is too much ordinary dreck at high prices. All the spin doctoring about more expensive content is undermined because there's a ton of run-of-the-mill stuff at much higher prices.

If it was only the good or expensive stuff - your shoot on an airplane would be a good example of the type of work that costs more to produce and needs to have a higher price point - I think there'd be a lot less fussing. It just isn't visually or logically clear to buyers why various things have the price tag they do.

As a friend of mine said, complaining about a poorly thought through plan: "I like money" isn't a strategy :)

As someone that works quickly and with low production costs, I don't really think work should be penalized because someone else thinks it was easy to do. Frankly, I never really understood why it wasn't all priced the same. You are buying a license to use the image (not quality, size, production costs, etc.).

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1678 on: October 29, 2012, 14:49 »
0
Frankly, I never really understood why it wasn't all priced the same. You are buying a license to use the image (not quality, size, production costs, etc.).
It was to encourage people to do more high-production-value imagery that normally wouldn't be feasible at iStock prices.

« Reply #1679 on: October 29, 2012, 16:07 »
+1
Frankly, I never really understood why it wasn't all priced the same. You are buying a license to use the image (not quality, size, production costs, etc.).
It was to encourage people to do more high-production-value imagery that normally wouldn't be feasible at iStock prices.

No it wasn't __ it was to generate higher profits for Istock. When the 'Vetta collection' was launched it was created entirely from existing content. The supposed 'high production value content' couldn't have been that unfeasible as folk were already submitting it. Istock already had a marketplace for that high-value-imagery and the customers who wanted to pay those prices __ called 'Getty'.

The 'high production value content' excuse is nonsense anyway. There's a bloke called Yuri that spends an incredible amount of money on his shoots and yet he seems to be doing ok without any 'Vetta' images at all. A Vetta image of the Sydney Harbour Bridge for example hasn't necessarily cost any more to shoot than any of the thousand or so non-Vetta images of it. The name of the bridge is misspelt in Istock's ridiculous CV too.

Having supposedly 'invented' microstock, to provide low-cost imagery for the masses, Istock have completely lost their way and, it would seem, a lot of their long-term loyal customers too. Greed and incompetence to blame.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 16:10 by gostwyck »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1680 on: October 29, 2012, 16:11 »
0
Frankly, I never really understood why it wasn't all priced the same. You are buying a license to use the image (not quality, size, production costs, etc.).
It was to encourage people to do more high-production-value imagery that normally wouldn't be feasible at iStock prices.
No it wasn't __ it was to generate higher profits for Istock.
That too, obviously.Goes without saying.
Quote
When the 'Vetta collection' was launched it was created entirely from existing content. 
I was really thinking about Agency, and was talking about the reason, not the 'reality as it panned out'.
Of course, the flood doors opened and we got ingested stuff from Getty and pseudo-exclusives some of which wouldn't pass inspection if most of us submitted it.

« Reply #1681 on: October 29, 2012, 16:19 »
+1
Frankly, I never really understood why it wasn't all priced the same. You are buying a license to use the image (not quality, size, production costs, etc.).
It was to encourage people to do more high-production-value imagery that normally wouldn't be feasible at iStock prices.
No it wasn't __ it was to generate higher profits for Istock.
That too, obviously.Goes without saying.
Quote
When the 'Vetta collection' was launched it was created entirely from existing content. 
I was really thinking about Agency, and was talking about the reason, not the 'reality as it panned out'.
Of course, the flood doors opened and we got ingested stuff from Getty and pseudo-exclusives some of which wouldn't pass inspection if most of us submitted it.

True!Istock should have kept to microstock. If they had there would never have been any shortage of content or customers. Introducing Vetta and Agency was like McDonalds introducing lobster thermidore and fillet mignon to their menus (and then increasing burger prices massively too).

« Reply #1682 on: October 29, 2012, 16:43 »
+2
True!Istock should have kept to microstock. If they had there would never have been any shortage of content or customers. Introducing Vetta and Agency was like McDonalds introducing lobster thermidore and fillet mignon to their menus (and then increasing burger prices massively too).

Yep. That's how they made their millions. I never understood why they didn't leave istock on it's same path, and push people who wanted higher value imagery over to Getty. I guess they thought they could hoodwink the buyers into paying more for the same stuff.

I was all for pushing up prices so contributors could make more, but that's not what they did.

Quote
I also just found out that contributors only get about 20% comission for their work. Well.. what i can say. Blame iS for that. The rest of the civilized world goes by 70-30% commission structure. 30% to digital content distributor, 70% to content creator. Why do buyers have to suffer for the fact that iS is robbing both photographers and designers?

Fortunately, I think he figured out he doesn't have to suffer...he has choices. Use them! And as long as photographers are willing to be robbed, they are going to be, and are.

« Reply #1683 on: October 30, 2012, 01:15 »
0
Frankly, I never really understood why it wasn't all priced the same. You are buying a license to use the image (not quality, size, production costs, etc.).
It was to encourage people to do more high-production-value imagery that normally wouldn't be feasible at iStock prices.

No it wasn't __ it was to generate higher profits for Istock. When the 'Vetta collection' was launched it was created entirely from existing content. The supposed 'high production value content' couldn't have been that unfeasible as folk were already submitting it. Istock already had a marketplace for that high-value-imagery and the customers who wanted to pay those prices __ called 'Getty'.

The 'high production value content' excuse is nonsense anyway. There's a bloke called Yuri that spends an incredible amount of money on his shoots and yet he seems to be doing ok without any 'Vetta' images at all. A Vetta image of the Sydney Harbour Bridge for example hasn't necessarily cost any more to shoot than any of the thousand or so non-Vetta images of it. The name of the bridge is misspelt in Istock's ridiculous CV too.

Having supposedly 'invented' microstock, to provide low-cost imagery for the masses, Istock have completely lost their way and, it would seem, a lot of their long-term loyal customers too. Greed and incompetence to blame.

100% true!  it was done with existing material. Even so, none of this material would pass any house collection at Getty. Simply isnt good enough.

« Reply #1684 on: December 10, 2012, 12:26 »
+1
This thread says a lot about what has gone wrong over there and is now apparent to pretty much everyone.

lisafx

« Reply #1685 on: December 10, 2012, 17:31 »
+1
This thread says a lot about what has gone wrong over there and is now apparent to pretty much everyone.

Yep.  Interesting that so many people who committed in the first few pages to direct their buyers elsewhere have followed through, and the results are profound. 

Here's one from TJHunt in Rebecca's "communication thread" today:
Quote
Posted By 4x6:

People who were once loyal are now deliberately sending their buyer friends to other sites.

I for sure have been. I'm still exclusive, mostly out of laziness and the fact that this is a hobby for me (I'm a designer, first and foremost), but I've been consciously purchasing elsewhere if I can help it (and I don't mean Getty proper). I've been driving other designers away, as well, because of the string of lousy situations and the bad treatment here over the past few years.


I've been a buyer since 2005, too, and have purchased thousands of $ of stock from iS, but happily spend more time looking to spread the love around to other agencies whenever I can. And it's NOT a pricing issue (most of my clients could care less if a good image costs a few hundred dollars); it's NOT a zoom issue, although that's very helpful; it's NOT a best match issue because when I purchased it was actually working, though now it's another reason not to spend much time buying here; and it's NOT a speed issue. It's because of unfair treatment, and I know I'm not the only contributor/purchaser who knows other creatives and has quietly led them away. Maybe 10% of my microstock purchases come from iS now, whereas before it was close to 100%. Anyway, my $0.02 for what it's worth.

« Reply #1686 on: December 10, 2012, 20:59 »
0
amazing to see our individual efforts paid off.. we should just continue to direct buyers elsewhere.. this is killing them..

it's been 2 years and all of us knew from the start that it would get to this point..

I am giving it another 2 years before they close the shop forever..

« Reply #1687 on: December 11, 2012, 01:17 »
0
I was browsing a web site this evening and a Thinkstock ad was on it "Think ahead" with a 15% off deal on image packs through the end of December - 100 and 250 packs

I looked at the credit bundles you can buy on iStock and although there isn't an exact match on prices, the 250 image pack at Thinkstock is $1,499 ($1274 after the 15% discount) and 1,000 credits at iStock is $1,420

If you look at a regular indie XXXL file at 18 credits, you can get 55 of those from your 1,000 credit bundle but 250 - five times as many - from Thinkstock. Even if you step down to large at iStock to save credits, you get 100 vs. 250 at Thinkstock. If you wanted lots of 1 credit blog size images, that might take you to iStock to get the better deal...

The only good news is that we don't pay for the discounts at Thinkstock - we get a flat rate for each bundle or subscription sale :)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1688 on: December 24, 2012, 10:21 »
+1

lisafx

« Reply #1689 on: December 24, 2012, 11:02 »
+3
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350067&page=1
 :( >:(


Good Lord.  Sounds like they were finally able to help him out, but not before he missed his deadline and possibly lost the project. 

Still amazes me when there are buyers who put up with this instead of going elsewhere for images. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1690 on: December 24, 2012, 12:21 »
0
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350067&page=1
 :( >:(


Good Lord.  Sounds like they were finally able to help him out, but not before he missed his deadline and possibly lost the project. 

Still amazes me when there are buyers who put up with this instead of going elsewhere for images.


Maybe they had already chosen some exclusive files?

But isn't it odd how apparently they are frequent victims of credit card fraud, but a buyer can't manage to buy using a CC. (assuming the OP is genuine, and they seem to have been a member since 2010).

lisafx

« Reply #1691 on: December 24, 2012, 17:41 »
+5

But isn't it odd how apparently they are frequent victims of credit card fraud, but a buyer can't manage to buy using a CC. (assuming the OP is genuine, and they seem to have been a member since 2010).

Well there was his mistake then.  He should have used a stolen credit card and all would have gone smoothly ;D

« Reply #1692 on: December 24, 2012, 21:19 »
+1

But isn't it odd how apparently they are frequent victims of credit card fraud, but a buyer can't manage to buy using a CC. (assuming the OP is genuine, and they seem to have been a member since 2010).

Well there was his mistake then.  He should have used a stolen credit card and all would have gone smoothly ;D

F*cking unbelievable isn't it? Literally.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
14686 Views
Last post October 23, 2010, 14:12
by gbalex
18 Replies
5144 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 15:34
by lagereek
162 Replies
25680 Views
Last post May 14, 2012, 10:27
by jbryson
20 Replies
6002 Views
Last post February 14, 2013, 17:41
by Poncke
9 Replies
3851 Views
Last post January 15, 2014, 19:56
by djpadavona

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle