MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock  (Read 387910 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #275 on: September 24, 2010, 10:27 »
0
my sales have been very good this week. I've had two days that were stellar in fact. I think it is far too early to start suggesting sales are plummeting because of an issue being primarily covered in forums, which most buyers don't really visit.

From what I remember, September goes like that sometimes. It's normal, then rallies at the end of the month. Then, October is all awesome.


« Reply #276 on: September 24, 2010, 10:45 »
0
And any buyers leaving are likely to use up their credits first.  Going to have to wait and see if there is a long term impact.  My sales aren't as good as they were in the spring but istock has always been volatile.

I still hate the look of the new site and go there much less often than I used to.  I can understand if designers asked for this bland look but it would be much better if we could choose to have the old colours.  Isn't a brand important?  It just looks like several other sites now.

« Reply #277 on: September 24, 2010, 12:37 »
0
And any buyers leaving are likely to use up their credits first.  Going to have to wait and see if there is a long term impact.  My sales aren't as good as they were in the spring but istock has always been volatile.

I still hate the look of the new site and go there much less often than I used to.  I can understand if designers asked for this bland look but it would be much better if we could choose to have the old colours.  Isn't a brand important?  It just looks like several other sites now.

Yep, I'd largely agree. Mind you, if I were a buyer wanting to express my disatisfaction, I'd actually leave a few credits behind at Istockphoto for those times when I needed an image that perhaps couldn't be found at other sites.

« Reply #278 on: September 24, 2010, 14:48 »
0
my sales have been very good this week. I've had two days that were stellar in fact. I think it is far too early to start suggesting sales are plummeting because of an issue being primarily covered in forums, which most buyers don't really visit.

The last few days were stellar for me, too. 2 to 3 times more downloads than usual.

(Oh, wait, that was on Shutterstock. Sorry...)

« Reply #279 on: September 26, 2010, 22:48 »
0
And any buyers leaving are likely to use up their credits first.  Going to have to wait and see if there is a long term impact.  My sales aren't as good as they were in the spring but istock has always been volatile.

I still hate the look of the new site and go there much less often than I used to.  I can understand if designers asked for this bland look but it would be much better if we could choose to have the old colours.  Isn't a brand important?  It just looks like several other sites now.

Yep, I'd largely agree. Mind you, if I were a buyer wanting to express my disatisfaction, I'd actually leave a few credits behind at Istockphoto for those times when I needed an image that perhaps couldn't be found at other sites.

Yup. ;)

lisafx

« Reply #280 on: September 29, 2010, 16:38 »
0
There are quite a few contributors posting their concerns about how confusing the new pricing and search is for buyers,  and some more buyers leaving in this thread: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255972&page=1] [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255972&page=1[/url]

Here are some specific examples of buyers leaving:

From Wellsource:  I've spent about $4,000 at iStock in the past few years. That doesn't seem like a lot, but it's money I'll probably be taking elsewhere.

From Jallfree:  BUT I went to see the web company that builds sites for the company I work for about a week ago. They employ about 10 people so they are small but a very professional thriving company that produces good work at a fair price. They use iStock for imagery. During discussions they mentioned they were looking elsewhere for stock photography as prices at iStock were getting too high.

From Onfilm: I spoke to a designer friend of mine yesterday. He was one of the buyers here in the early days, but not so much recently. He was looking for an image last week, but didn't buy anything as it was all too expensive, despite the fact that his credits will be expiring soon.

From Esren: i heard a story last night from a friend whos brother is editor at some mag in london, to quote ' we stopped using istock because their prices tripled',


At some point this has to be a wake-up call for whoever is making decisions about Istock, doesn't it?   

« Reply #281 on: September 29, 2010, 16:53 »
0
From Onfilm: I spoke to a designer friend of mine yesterday. He was one of the buyers here in the early days, but not so much recently. He was looking for an image last week, but didn't buy anything as it was all too expensive, despite the fact that his credits will be expiring soon.
This happened to me. I had 10 credits that were going to expire and wanted buy an interesting vector to dissect. I couldn't find anything for that price that I liked. It would have been nice to search by price instead of tier.

« Reply #282 on: September 29, 2010, 17:55 »
0
...
At some point this has to be a wake-up call for whoever is making decisions about Istock, doesn't it?   

That's exactly what I was thinking when I read the comments in that thread.  Besides the possible organization problems I speculated about previously, I wonder (again) if istock listens too much to its (top) contributors and not enough to its buyers.

Not that you have to be a genius to know that you don't mix up identical-looking cans of soup on the same shelf at wildly different prices.  The real bargains belong in bins in the aisles or in other places where the bargain-hunters can zero in on them and the fancy premium goods should be set off in more swank-looking displays for the discriminating buyer.  All you need in this case is extra check boxes or sorting options.  OR, quit trying to be both Kmart and Sachs 5th Avenue at the same time, and create separate micro/mid websites under the same corporate umbrella.  It's hard to see how jumbling up similar-looking cheap and expensive products with only tiny, ambiguous symbols to differentiate between them is going to be anything but a failure.

« Reply #283 on: September 29, 2010, 18:10 »
0
It's hard to see how jumbling up similar-looking cheap and expensive products with only tiny, ambiguous symbols to differentiate between them is going to be anything but a failure.

+1

If I were a buyer, I wouldn't want to waste precious time on IS manually sorting through my search results for prices that fit my budge when sort by price point should be an automatic, built-in search feature. And if I were a new buyer, finding Vetta or Agency files first, before seeing or understanding how to find more reasonably priced images might scare or turn me off IS, right off the bat. And if I were a legacy IS buyer, I might still shop there, but I'd certainly start augmenting my searches and sourcing material with other agencies whose prices are either a) more affordable or, b) easier to immediately distinguish.

« Reply #284 on: September 30, 2010, 00:49 »
0
I like the way Veer has handled the issue of mixed prices. The prices are clearly visible in the result display, and you can very easily limit the output to your budget with a slider on the side.

lisafx

« Reply #285 on: September 30, 2010, 09:49 »
0
I like the way Veer has handled the issue of mixed prices. The prices are clearly visible in the result display, and you can very easily limit the output to your budget with a slider on the side.

This seems very logical and easy to use.  Hope Istock will make the effort to easily distinguish their collections too.  Fingers crossed that is in the works...? 

helix7

« Reply #286 on: September 30, 2010, 11:56 »
0
I like the way Veer has handled the issue of mixed prices. The prices are clearly visible in the result display, and you can very easily limit the output to your budget with a slider on the side.

This seems very logical and easy to use.  Hope Istock will make the effort to easily distinguish their collections too.  Fingers crossed that is in the works...? 

The problem with iStock is that pricing is not only varied but also tied into their best match system (favoring exclusive images, thus more expensive images), and they've made it very clear that they'd never modify the search to put the less expensive content (non-exclusive) anywhere closer to the front of the results. Sorting by price is probably never going to happen at iStock.

Which, for buyers, seems to be extremely annoying. I solved the problem for me as a buyer by not getting images from iStock anymore. I wonder if more buyers will migrate away from iStock for more simplified pricing schemes. Buyers aren't stupid. They'll grow tired of the "1 credit does not equal 1 dollar" system, if they haven't already. It's getting way too complex between varying credit prices, multiple collections, exclusive, non-exclusive, E+, and now Agency.

I prefer to buy images where I know 1 credit equals 1 dollar (or less) and a certain size image is always the same number of credits.

« Reply #287 on: October 18, 2010, 22:42 »
0
now that Agency is filling up the searches, buyers are not happy and voicing it.

check out this thread at iStock
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=266081&page=1

 I wonder how many upset buyers this one post represents since we all know that many buyers do not frequent the forums (or probably even know they exist). 

« Reply #288 on: October 19, 2010, 02:33 »
0
I really don't understand why buyers use istock exclusively.  Some of the other sites have millions of images that istock don't.  Some of them sell at lower prices and with higher commissions, so contributors earn more.

I understand if they have been with istock for years and feel a loyalty but what about the contributors who have been doing this for years and are now getting their commissions cut?  A lot of us wont want to do this job anymore if the sites are going to take nearly all the money.  I think the only way to stop the rapidly increasing prices and reducing commissions is for both contributors and buyers to do something about it.

Fotonaut

« Reply #289 on: October 19, 2010, 02:59 »
0
I really don't understand why buyers use istock exclusively.  Some of the other sites have millions of images that istock don't.  Some of them sell at lower prices and with higher commissions, so contributors earn more.

iStock exclusive contributors. Gives iStock an edge. They are the key component. Lower prices or higher commissions to contributors means nothing if I dont find what I need searching for an image.

« Reply #290 on: October 19, 2010, 03:09 »
0
I really don't understand why buyers use istock exclusively.  Some of the other sites have millions of images that istock don't.  Some of them sell at lower prices and with higher commissions, so contributors earn more.

iStock exclusive contributors. Gives iStock an edge. They are the key component. Lower prices or higher commissions to contributors means nothing if I dont find what I need searching for an image.
What about the top selling non-exclusives that have thousands of images on the other sites that istock don't have?  Yuri is a good example 28,430 on DT, 6,319 on istock.  There are lots of good new contributors that are stuck with the low upload limits with istock and lots that wouldn't use them because the 20% commission was too low.  There must be times when the other sites have something istock don't?  That's why I can't understand buyers using only istock.

rubyroo

« Reply #291 on: October 19, 2010, 04:07 »
0
I remember a lecture at university where we were told that the most successful companies were either 'the first' or 'the best'.  For a while, I think iStock has been perceived to be both.   I'm not sure how designers here feel, but most of the designers I know also have a preoccupation with what's 'cool' - and I think iStock has also been perceived to be 'cool'.

My sense is that it's 'cool' image has taken a battering because of the recent publication of cuts to contributors, and this has made some designers start to question whether, in fact, they are 'the best' any longer.

Just my perception.  FWIW.

« Reply #292 on: October 19, 2010, 04:09 »
0
What about the top selling non-exclusives that have thousands of images on the other sites that istock don't have?  Yuri is a good example 28,430 on DT, 6,319 on istock.  There are lots of good new contributors that are stuck with the low upload limits with istock and lots that wouldn't use them because the 20% commission was too low.  There must be times when the other sites have something istock don't?  That's why I can't understand buyers using only istock.

How do you think Yuri got to 1M downloads on IS with less then 1/4 of his portfolio? By filling his quota with only his best sellers. Its the top 25% (or usually less) that buyers want to see, not wade through the massive bulk of similars.

Also lets not forget that Yuri's images are actually cheaper on IS than FT and in many cases also than on Dreamstime.

« Reply #293 on: October 19, 2010, 04:38 »
0
^^^I wonder how he knows what his bestsellers are when he uploads new images?  I think he got all those sales because istock has the most buyers.  I still think they would be sensible to use at least one other site, just to see what else is available.

« Reply #294 on: October 19, 2010, 04:45 »
0
^^^I wonder how he knows what his bestsellers are when he uploads new images?  I think he got all those sales because istock has the most buyers.  I still think they would be sensible to use at least one other site, just to see what else is available.

With the factories, one image of people in grey suits in a row is the same as the next.  If you're missing out on a couple, it's no big dealio.

« Reply #295 on: October 19, 2010, 05:27 »
0
Sure but it isn't just the factories that have images missing from istock, that was just an example.  Lots of good independents either don't have their full portfolios there or don't use istock at all.  I just think its sensible for buyers to at least have an account with one of the other sites and have a look occasionally.

I understand that istock exclusives want buyers to only use that site and of course I want buyers to look elsewhere, we all have vested interests here but I still see it as a fact that while istock has the exclusive collections, they are missing a lot of top quality images.

« Reply #296 on: October 19, 2010, 05:34 »
0
Sure but it isn't just the factories that have images missing from istock, that was just an example.  Lots of good independents either don't have their full portfolios there or don't use istock at all.  I just think its sensible for buyers to at least have an account with one of the other sites and have a look occasionally.

I understand that istock exclusives want buyers to only use that site and of course I want buyers to look elsewhere, we all have vested interests here but I still see it as a fact that while istock has the exclusive collections, they are missing a lot of top quality images.

The other factor is that each agency has its own license conditions. Some buyers aren't worried by this, but the bigger buyers will want to have every document checked off and procedures to deal with licensing. They don't just swap and change agencies casually. Having an extra set of legal documents to handle is often a much bigger problem for an organisation than sourcing content.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #297 on: October 19, 2010, 06:42 »
0
It's interesting how people who have been okay with 20%, even praising the site, are suddenly in fury with 15%. Is that reasonable? Or is that this always sucked, but they just played the fashionable smiley fanboy and all the frustration building up suddenly burst out with this latest move? I vote for the latter.

« Reply #298 on: October 19, 2010, 07:02 »
0
I am now the 39th person ignoring molka :)

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #299 on: October 19, 2010, 07:12 »
0
Looks like I hit the nail on the head again : )


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
17299 Views
Last post October 23, 2010, 14:12
by gbalex
18 Replies
5818 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 15:34
by lagereek
162 Replies
33339 Views
Last post May 14, 2012, 10:27
by jbryson
20 Replies
7326 Views
Last post February 14, 2013, 17:41
by Poncke
9 Replies
4679 Views
Last post January 15, 2014, 19:56
by djpadavona

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors