Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391461 times)

lisafx · « **Reply #825 on:** January 19, 2011, 15:00 »

Thanks Gostwyck and Dave for posting the additional info. Things just keep getting more complicated and more broken over there. Clearly cause and effect at work.

Hasn't anyone at Getty (or Istock) ever heard of KISS = Keep it Simple Stupid?!

lisafx · « **Reply #826 on:** January 19, 2011, 15:05 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 19, 2011, 14:29

I had two ELs last week where the credits must have been around 60c.

I know this is nothing new, but it really bothers me. I would like to know who these buyers are that are getting credits at less than 2/3 the cheapest advertised price. This has not been adequately answered at all. (I know, big surprise)

jamirae · « **Reply #827 on:** January 19, 2011, 16:01 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 19, 2011, 15:05

Quote from: ShadySue on January 19, 2011, 14:29

I had two ELs last week where the credits must have been around 60c.

I know this is nothing new, but it really bothers me. I would like to know who these buyers are that are getting credits at less than 2/3 the cheapest advertised price. This has not been adequately answered at all. (I know, big surprise)

you probably won't get a real answer. I believe the canned answer is "they are using old credits" .. seriously?! that many people/organizations still have credits from 2003?!

SNP · « **Reply #828 on:** January 19, 2011, 16:20 »

just asking, but have you contacted contributor relations to ask specifically and directly about the miniscule EL royalty? I'd start there and see what they say.

ShadySue · « **Reply #829 on:** January 19, 2011, 16:41 »

Quote from: SNP on January 19, 2011, 16:20

just asking, but have you contacted contributor relations to ask specifically and directly about the miniscule EL royalty? I'd start there and see what they say.

I haven't, but that's only because I did once before and was told it was 'old credits', and I've heard of people being told that, and also being told about huge bulk buyer discounts. Also, I guess if you bought a huge bundle at a 20% credit, because of iStock's cockups, the cost per credit could be very low.

ShadySue · « **Reply #830 on:** January 26, 2011, 15:08 »

Seems to be a total search blank on some version of Firefox on Macs. Two weeks after reporting the problem, the OP, a buyer, said:
"I'm really starting to wonder what istock is doing. This new web site has been a real let down. I have deadlines to meet and i can't wait for istock to get thier act together and fix thier site. i have looked at page after page of "missing" images, messed up search engine results, and wacked-out back button page loads....i have no choice but to look elsewhere.
Get it together istock....or no ones going to be around to see all the amazing website updates you have planned."

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291522&page=1

lisafx · « **Reply #831 on:** January 26, 2011, 17:18 »

Same sh*t, different day.

I know I should be used to this by now, but it still astounds me. How can they be letting this happen?

Thanks for posting Sue

ShadySue · « **Reply #832 on:** January 27, 2011, 05:45 »

Well, some other person posted on that thread on a totally different issue, so Lobo leapt with joy on that excuse to close it, instead of e.g. deleting the other person's thread and dealing with it offline or moving that post to a different thread.

cathyslife · « **Reply #833 on:** January 27, 2011, 07:24 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 26, 2011, 17:18

Same sh*t, different day.

I know I should be used to this by now, but it still astounds me. How can they be letting this happen?

Thanks for posting Sue

You got it.

Not just buyers are bailing.

It's sad because in the last year and one half, any new images I've uploaded have barely gotten any views, which means they've been buried.
It's sad because I have 5 images left in my port at IS now (after deactivating most), and sad that they don't give a sh*t, and actually want contributors to leave.
It's sad because I requested my last payout from IS.
It's sad because I can't depend on IS income anymore.

I'm happy because I don't have to deal with their sh*t anymore. Onward and upward.

ShadySue · « **Reply #834 on:** January 28, 2011, 19:00 »

Another buyer has left:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297572&page=1
ostensibly on the 'price of Vetta/agency/E+' issues, but it's hard to say, as s/he admits that these pictures are 'better' in some way than the normal-priced ones. Like I could complain cashmere isn't as cheap as cotton knits. (and hey, moths don't attack my cotton knits).

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #835 on:** January 28, 2011, 19:01 »

Yeah, it's a weird one. You can't always get what you want.

jamirae · « **Reply #836 on:** January 28, 2011, 19:08 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 28, 2011, 19:00

Another buyer has left:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297572&page=1
ostensibly on the 'price of Vetta/agency/E+' issues, but it's hard to say, as s/he admits that these pictures are 'better' in some way than the normal-priced ones. Like I could complain cashmere isn't as cheap as cotton knits. (and hey, moths don't attack my cotton knits).

interesting. And I think once buyers throw up their arms in frustration like this, go to another site and then find that they can get an image of just as good quality at a price they can afford (and are budgeted to pay) that they aren't going to bother coming back and having to monkey around with search filters, page scrolling and so forth. Most have stuck around because they believe iStock is the only game in town to fulfill their needs and I'm guessing that is mostly because they havent ever really had a need to look elsewhere -- until now with all the bugs and recent price hikes and favoring of higher priced images.

bittersweet · « **Reply #837 on:** January 28, 2011, 19:14 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 28, 2011, 19:00

Another buyer has left:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297572&page=1
ostensibly on the 'price of Vetta/agency/E+' issues, but it's hard to say, as s/he admits that these pictures are 'better' in some way than the normal-priced ones. Like I could complain cashmere isn't as cheap as cotton knits. (and hey, moths don't attack my cotton knits).

The responses are getting pretty predictable, aren't they? You can always count on the buyer being reminded what a great deal they are getting. I also enjoyed this helpful tidbit, posted by Captain Obvious:

Quote

I still think it is the best place to get images that are exclusive to this site.

Really?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #838 on:** January 28, 2011, 19:35 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 28, 2011, 19:00

Another buyer has left:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297572&page=1
ostensibly on the 'price of Vetta/agency/E+' issues, but it's hard to say, as s/he admits that these pictures are 'better' in some way than the normal-priced ones. Like I could complain cashmere isn't as cheap as cotton knits. (and hey, moths don't attack my cotton knits).

BTW, I read the thread before the other agency name was redacted by Mr. Moderator. It was Veer, and the other XXX is for Corbis, Veer's parent.

Regardless of the slightly odd way of expressing his/her frustration, I think the message we keep getting over and over is that buyers at budget prices are feeling ignored/frustrated/priced out of the market. I honestly don't see why having premium collections necessarily results in this - as long as you don't get stupid and greedy and try to push the premium material down everyone's throat.

I hope to see those collection filters in operation very soon. The fact that all the other Getty sites don't offer any sort of ordering of results is not filling me with confidence that we'll see them back at iStock, but we'll just have to see if they do what they said they would and get them working again.

ShadySue · « **Reply #839 on:** January 28, 2011, 19:40 »

Ironically, the first best match photo on that page isn't even 'exclusive' price.

ShadySue · « **Reply #840 on:** January 28, 2011, 19:42 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 28, 2011, 19:35

BTW, I read the thread before the other agency name was redacted by Mr. Moderator. It was Veer, and the other XXX is for Corbis, Veer's parent.

Regardless of the slightly odd way of expressing his/her frustration, I think the message we keep getting over and over is that buyers at budget prices are feeling ignored/frustrated/priced out of the market. I honestly don't see why having premium collections necessarily results in this - as long as you don't get stupid and greedy and try to push the premium material down everyone's throat.

I hope to see those collection filters in operation very soon. The fact that all the other Getty sites don't offer any sort of ordering of results is not filling me with confidence that we'll see them back at iStock, but we'll just have to see if they do what they said they would and get them working again.

I really wonder whether the few who have posted their concerns/complaints are the only ones (so iStock can afford to lose them) or indicative of a larger number who just leave without saying goodbye.

disorderly · « **Reply #841 on:** January 28, 2011, 19:48 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 28, 2011, 19:42

I really wonder whether the few who have posted their concerns/complaints are the only ones (so iStock can afford to lose them) or indicative of a larger number who just leave without saying goodbye.

I don't wonder. Most people don't complain; they just go.

caspixel · « **Reply #842 on:** January 28, 2011, 21:32 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 28, 2011, 19:40

Ironically, the first best match photo on that page isn't even 'exclusive' price.

Maybe they weren't looking for a cruise ship though.

gostwyck · « **Reply #843 on:** January 28, 2011, 23:04 »

Quote from: caspixel on January 28, 2011, 21:32

Maybe they weren't looking for a cruise ship though.

Maybe. Maybe one day IS will wake up to how many customers their overt greed is losing them too.

Let's face it, 'Full fat' Getty and other highly-edited image collections have always had 'better' images than microstock __ but at a price. Don't most customers come to a microstock site because they don't want to pay those prices? Maybe.

ETA: Whoosh __ thread locked after 4 hours. Roughly translated it means ... "Those stupid customers don't deserve IS images because they're obviously too stupid to understand ... er .. things. Kuh!"

lisafx · « **Reply #844 on:** January 28, 2011, 23:48 »

I realize she was just trying to help, and offered some good suggestions, but I think PCC's suggestion to the buyer to just "charge more" is missing the mark.

In this economy, designers risk losing their clients if they charge more - as in 5-10 times more - to cover the cost of Vetta/Agency files. That simply isn't practical. Not to mention that with so many competing sites offering comparable quality for MICROstock prices, it is unnecessary.

I am continuously amazed at how so many at Istock still think there is no other option for buyers

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #845 on:** January 29, 2011, 00:00 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 28, 2011, 19:00

Another buyer has left:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297572&page=1
ostensibly on the 'price of Vetta/agency/E+' issues, but it's hard to say, as s/he admits that these pictures are 'better' in some way than the normal-priced ones. Like I could complain cashmere isn't as cheap as cotton knits. (and hey, moths don't attack my cotton knits).

Yeah, they understand the photographer's costs and pain, blah, blah. They then counterpoint themselves by saying that high production photos have been at Istock for years. True. And it apparently has taken a few years for the genius photographers producing those photos to figure out that blowing $5,000 on a shoot that never breaks even isn't a good business model.

cathyslife · « **Reply #846 on:** January 29, 2011, 08:06 »

Microstock was invented so that most companies, except for ad agencies, could afford stock photos. Getty decides to turn IS into a mid- to trad agency, once again charging higher prices. Of course most of the buyers are going to leave! They didn't have the money in their budgets 6 years ago, they sure as heck don't have more money in their budgets today. I am all for photographers making more money, but the microstock model is still that...a microstock model.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #847 on:** January 29, 2011, 08:16 »

Quote from: cclapper on January 29, 2011, 08:06

Microstock was invented so that most companies, except for ad agencies, could afford stock photos. Getty decides to turn IS into a mid- to trad agency, once again charging higher prices. Of course most of the buyers are going to leave! They didn't have the money in their budgets 6 years ago, they sure as heck don't have more money in their budgets today. I am all for photographers making more money, but the microstock model is still that...a microstock model.

Right. But wasn't it originally a lot of snapshots with low-end cameras?

Agency requirements have risen a lot since I started. And buyers have gotten used to getting images that traditionally were at macro prices for micro money. And why wouldn't they? Contributors have given them high end images and in some cases have probably taken a loss.

Cheap prices should be for cheap images.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #848 on:** January 29, 2011, 09:59 »

Quote from: caspixel on January 28, 2011, 21:32

Quote from: ShadySue on January 28, 2011, 19:40
Ironically, the first best match photo on that page isn't even 'exclusive' price.

Maybe they weren't looking for a cruise ship though.

I thought cruise ships were now banned from the collection. Or is that SS?

caspixel · « **Reply #849 on:** January 29, 2011, 10:02 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 29, 2011, 09:59

Quote from: caspixel on January 28, 2011, 21:32
Quote from: ShadySue on January 28, 2011, 19:40
Ironically, the first best match photo on that page isn't even 'exclusive' price.

Maybe they weren't looking for a cruise ship though.

I thought cruise ships were now banned from the collection. Or is that SS?

You are right. I think they were.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391461 times)

lisafx

lisafx

jamirae

SNP

ShadySue

ShadySue

lisafx

ShadySue

cathyslife

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

jamirae

bittersweet

Jo Ann Snover

ShadySue

ShadySue

disorderly

caspixel

gostwyck

lisafx

PaulieWalnuts

cathyslife

PaulieWalnuts

BaldricksTrousers

caspixel

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors