MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: lisafx on September 09, 2010, 10:06
-
Since most of us appear to agree that changing buyer's behavior is the best response to Istock's unethical money grab, it would be great to read what buyers have to say.
I know that some buyers have voiced plans to leave, but it's really hard to find their posts, buried as they are in all the justifiable contributor outrage.
It would be nice to be able to read what buyers have to say here on MSG. If you are a buyer who is going to leave Istock, or if you have found a post somewhere by a buyer who is leaving, or if any of the buyers you have contacted have responded, could you post it here? It might have a stronger impact if we can see the buyer comments in one place.
-
Thanks to Peresanz for posting links to some of the buyers in istock thread who are going to take their business elsewhere.
Surfing through the enormous thread is a pain. I found three, though:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4613522[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4613522[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4616262[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4616262[/url])
and this one, crying out loud:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4615822[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4615822[/url])
-
Photography is a "hobby" for me and my tiny little port of 250 images at IS will not sway their decision, my REAL job is creative director for fortune 1000 co.
Not only do you have my support in no longer purchasing from IS (have about 50 credits that I'll spend this weekend so that some of you can get your 20% - and I'll buy nothing with a crown : P ), but I'm pulling my port as well. It's only worth about $500 per year, but I'll feel better about myself. We also have monthly "designer meetings" (people from area design companies get together to suck down scotch and crab cakes) and I will take my 10 minutes of speech time to make sure that they're at least aware of this.
It's unfortunate that Wall-St found its way into MS
added: and even if all of this gets IS to modify or completely drop this plan, I'm done with them.
-
MORTON
I'm listening but not hearing much.
Admins, check how much i spend here. And I'm only here because I was referred by a contributor who I'm very fond of. Out of respect for that contributor, and others I am actively looking elsewhere for my images.
I'm sure Getty don't need my money anyway. You have now placed Vetta out of my reach. The agency collection doesn't interest me at all and you are constantly trying to get me to Thinkstock. If I'm looking for a subs package I've found a better deal on another site outside of the Getty empire.
Contributors. It's a big step but you need to get together, take your content and your ethics and reasonable prices and royalties and start up again. Designers will follow. Designers are cool. iStock was cool, Getty isn't.
What a rotten way to treat people.
LIZZIELOU (buyer who has spent more than $10000 over the last five years, documented with a screenshot)
I'll have to go where the images go. I believe this will have to start with the big contributers moving, buyers following then the smaller conrtibutors follow. but in support I will try to shop elsewhere before here especially if the artist is not wearing a crown (which is looking more like a dunce hat)
POLEKSPRESS (member since 2005)
I will never buy credits from Istock again!!!!!!!!!
ABDESIGN
I am the art director for a company who has purchased close to 2500 images here at istock. We will never again purchase images from here. In fact, is there a way to get your current credits refunded. I will be throwing away my crown before the end of the year and moving on. This place disgusts me.
SDbT
In protest ... I just used up the last of my credits and will not purchase further content at iStock until this situation is resolved.
MORTMATCH (corporate master)
I'm a pissed-off buyer. Microstock is cheap to begin with. Giving contributors less of a piece of the pie -- and I pity the non-exclusives taking such a hit as well as the exclusives who bought in to the promise of rewards for selling only to iStock customers -- is beyond greedy and mean-spririted. It's sweatshop labor. Hear that, iStock? S-W-E-A-T-S-H-O-P. I'm disgusted.
A couple of months ago, I had my company open a corporate account for thousands of dollars. And I can change that.
By the way, let me take a crack at running your business. I think I can make those margins sustainable without screwing your artists. I really think I can. How hard can it be to make something profitable when you're raking in 70 percent of the income of a product you don't even make?
anonymous
Photography is a "hobby" for me and my tiny little port of 250 images at IS will not sway their decision, my REAL job is creative director for fortune 1000 co.
Not only do you have my support in no longer purchasing from IS (have about 50 credits that I'll spend this weekend so that some of you can get your 20% - and I'll buy nothing with a crown : P ), but I'm pulling my port as well. It's only worth about $500 per year, but I'll feel better about myself. We also have monthly "designer meetings" (people from area design companies get together to suck down scotch and crab cakes) and I will take my 10 minutes of speech time to make sure that they're at least aware of this.
It's unfortunate that Wall-St found its way into MS
added: and even if all of this gets IS to modify or completely drop this plan, I'm done with them.
GBALEX
I have worked in the advertising industry for years and our clients are mainly medium to small local businesses and a few large local corporations. I became a submitter in early 2004 to and thought seriously about quitting my job to develop a port large enough to live on.
I decided against it because I was afraid that it would end this way. I worried about the # of images flooding the market to the extent our work would be devalued. The writing was on the wall as you started seeing photographers who used to make decent money producing stock start offering workshops and frequenting micro forums to scare up customers simply because the money they made teaching others to produce stock is better than the money they made producing stock content themselves.
The end result has been many more submitters with LCV work burying images that we as buyers actually need for our projects. Those submitters would never have made the cut if they had not been coached and most will never produce the type of work that most agencies and their clients need.
Besides being a buyer of images I know many submitters who have worked long and hard to provide a good living for themselves and I do not take the moves that IS has made lightly! I think IS has forgotten that a great many buyers are also submitters and that as creative's we have respect and empathy for each other.
Micro does need to make changes, however I will not be supporting IS any longer. Even before this move I have been buying my images more and more from sites who support photographers, graphic artists, video & audio producers.
With this move I have discussed this with my co workers and we have decided to no longer buy our content from IS.
I don't see things improving any day soon unless sites make moves to reduce LCV work, improve search engines and also raise prices for the end product. That is hard right now because advertising in general has dropped because of the global recession.
I will encourage other buyers to examine how IS has treated its content providers and I will encourage them to seek other options. Our company will no longer be buying IS content!
cameronpashak
I have continued to be a loyal customer and will buy an image that might not be the best out of all the ones i also found on other sites but still have bought it just because. If this goes thru, I will look at things for a year or so as a contributor. If I do worse next year under this structure, then i will look at my options as i can't really afford the time to upload to other sites at this moment.
But I can assure you the 60% of my earnings that i spend here buying images will definitely be spent somewhere else from the moment this is confirmed. I know that sounds crazy and not fair to our contributors but this is out of principle. If HF want to milk me of my continued hard work....they aint getting one bit of it back in the form of me buying images and I have the assurance of 3 other designer friends (none of which are contributors) of mine they are going to do the same as they see how hard outside of my regular work contributing images to istock.
Full post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4626002)
ForwardDesign
While having been a $1000 - $1400 per year "buyer" at Istockphoto, I'm rather surprised by their indifference to their contributors. We seem to live in a day and age where corporate greed is king. At our 10:00am meeting tomorrow, I will bring this up to our design staff and see if they know of an image source that plays more fairly at the schoolyard. After reading the forum posts, I have to agree that there is a serious difference in the mathematical understanding and a rather callus response from Istockphoto staff. It's likely that somebody upstairs desires a larger paycheck and/or they're jockeying to sell.
CNET (http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20015830-264.html#ixzz0z4KodWD7)
leremy
I am a contributor and also a buyer at istock. I still have 26 credit. I have so far only buy images from istock (I had spent about usd500 so far since 1 year ago), and with this recent development that really irritate me, I will definitely not buy anymore credits from istock. Yes, there are plenty other agencies out there that I can buy pictures from. Just a side note, one of them has helped me in making 6x times more money than what I have made here. The more I think of it, the more it make sense for me to buy elsewhere. [...]
Full post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4645982)
dsteller
[...]I am a contributor and I am a buyer. I am not big in either, but my 2000+ purchases are significant to me. It is sad for me to say but I am going to be purchasing elsewhere from here on out. [...]
Full post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4658722)
caspixel
[...]As a buyer, I am very excited to see some new fresh content at some other sites. You guys provide great content. The best, really. Time to share.
Full post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4661252)
anthony_taylor
As the library depletes, so will the custom. As a contibutor I'm being forced out. As a designer and buyer of images for national retail chain here in the UK I'll be taking my company's business elsewhere.
Full post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4668702)
emrah
[...]I'm definitely not buying any photos and stupid announcements of istock any more
Full post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4669632)
GeoffBlack
I will no longer buy here.
Full post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4656272)
Jancouver
[...]BTW. I also bought 440 files from iStock for our projects but I will NOT buy a single file again from iStock!
Full post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4656922)
ChrisGorgio
Shame on you for treating your long-standing contributors this way. Especially non exclusives who will be dropping to a base rate of 15%. If I'm not mistaken the lowest commission in the industry.
I will no longer be buying here or recommending the site to others.
Unbelievably greedy and ungrateful. Shame
Full post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=251812&messageid=4554592)
Anja_Kaiser
If these changes should actually take effect, I'm going to delete my entire portfolio on new year's eve. *NOONE* will take up to 85% of what *my* work earns. I was almost about to reach the golden canister level and now it's for the trashbin? Plus a huge pay-cut? Plus a slap in my face? NO. Enough is enough. I'll lose about $400 to 500 a month (still), but my pride's worth something, too. iStock will lose me as a contributor and a buyer as well. The whole thing is blatantly barefaced and respectless.
Full post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=251812&messageid=4565412)
JDehoff
I don't upload photos or illustrations of my own, so this does not effect me the same way. However, I have been downloading images to use in design projects from istock for years. The rates for images continue to go up each time I need to buy credits. I thought this would go to overhead and the artists. And now you're giving the artists I depend on a paycut? It seems like you're collecting more from both sides. Has someone gotten greedier?
The allure to istockphoto was that istock was NOT Getty images. I am saddened that istock has chosen to sell out and has opted to grow too large to maintain what made them unique in the first place. Change is only good if you don't lose the core of what made you good to begin with.
I guess I will increase my patronage to other, "smaller" stock image sites in the future in order to support the artists, instead of a corporation. Very disappointing istock.
Full post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=251812&messageid=4578262)
ktasos
I deactivated my second file!!! I have nothing to loose as a non-exclusive contributor.I think if the things remain the same i will delete my entire portfolio soon... plus i will never buy not a single $ from this place anymore
Full post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=251812&messageid=4579722)
Lazyfish
[...]But as a buyer i'm pissed off. I spend several thousand dollars on here every year through my corporate name, and i did that percisely because you guys were not getty. i liked the iStock model and always felt i was helping the little guy with the money my design agency makes. My business partner and I will have to re-evaluate were we spend our money now. I don't feel right giving it to you.
I feel sorry for people making their living on here. Good luck to you all!
Full post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=251812&messageid=4581262)
anonymous
I had dinner tonight with the two people with whom I built the redacted. The artist/co-designer is currently working on an independent film and was shocked when I told him what IS are currently doing - he said that he's spent around $2,000 in the last month at IS on images and videos, and he will no longer buy there.
Full post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4675472#post4675472)
acromedia
Although its been said many times already, I just have to add: Wow.
As a partner/creative director at a web design firm, I've used and steered numerous client to istock for years. I just added up our invoices and we've spent over $6000 here in the past few years.
However, once our credits run out, we will no longer purchase from istock or any other getty sites. It is insane how the contributors here are being treated, and I cannot in good conscious support a company that abuses its suppliers in these manners.
I urge you all to remember that you have a choice; creating thousands of posts is a good way to let of some steam, but I'd encourage you to spend that effort moving your content to other sites, of which I hope to see and buy your work.
Change, take action, send a message.
Full post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255782&messageid=4742382)
Crooky0
[...]I am not a contributor...I merely came here to buy stock photos, and have spent a decent amount of money here over the past few years. I have never boycotted a business in my entirely life before now. Congratulations, iSP...you are the first! How's it feel to be #1?
Full post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4734982)
mericsso
I contribute to iStock for fun. My real job is Art Director at a Canadian Magazine. I'm starting to feel like I'm supporting a big corporation instead of the artists. After I burn up my last batch of credits, I'll be taking my business elsewhere. 85% percent is just too much profit IMO.
Full post (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/buyers-bailing-on-istock/175/)
hqimages
Yup, I'm downloading from Stockfresh now.. it's the only good alternative for me anyway.. but it feels good that there is an alternative with similar quality to istock, and better % for uploaders..
Full post (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/buyers-bailing-on-istock/200/)
luriete
(I'm a photographer, and a client who buys usually 750 credits a year - we'll switch to someone else on that front and ask other agencies we work with to do the same)
Full post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382&messageid=4733342)
-
Should've kept the permalinks though :\
For what? The thread on IS will vanish soon. They can't afford that kind of content creeping into Google.
-
Photography is a "hobby" for me and my tiny little port of 250 images at IS will not sway their decision, my REAL job is creative director for fortune 1000 co.
Not only do you have my support in no longer purchasing from IS (have about 50 credits that I'll spend this weekend so that some of you can get your 20% - and I'll buy nothing with a crown : P ), but I'm pulling my port as well. It's only worth about $500 per year, but I'll feel better about myself. We also have monthly "designer meetings" (people from area design companies get together to suck down scotch and crab cakes) and I will take my 10 minutes of speech time to make sure that they're at least aware of this.
It's unfortunate that Wall-St found its way into MS
added: and even if all of this gets IS to modify or completely drop this plan, I'm done with them.
Thanks anonymous for the support. If anything can make a difference then this kind of action could.
-
Should've kept the permalinks though :\
For what? The thread on IS will vanish soon. They can't afford that kind of content creeping into Google.
Well, that's very true. Better get them posted in here before it's too late.
IS need to open their eyes. These are their buyers.
-
and I'll buy nothing with a crown : P
Why is that? What have exclusive contributors done to earn your wrath? In some ways, we are hurt more by this move than independents. Of course, it's your decision, and your money. I'm just curious why you feel that way.
-
Well, that's very true. Better get them posted in here before it's too late.
IS need to open their eyes. These are their buyers.
You can take screenshots or (better) save the pages offline.
-
and I'll buy nothing with a crown : P
Why is that? What have exclusive contributors done to earn your wrath? In some ways, we are hurt more by this move than independents. Of course, it's your decision, and your money. I'm just curious why you feel that way.
Nothing personal, it just always seems to be the "little guy" that gets crapped on the most and it's the independants that get burned the most in this decision.
-
and I'll buy nothing with a crown : P
Why is that? What have exclusive contributors done to earn your wrath? In some ways, we are hurt more by this move than independents. Of course, it's your decision, and your money. I'm just curious why you feel that way.
Nothing personal, it just always seems to be the "little guy" that gets crapped on the most and it's the independants that get burned the most in this decision.
As a non-exclusive, I think it's the other way around. Well, we're both getting screwed, but exclusives seem to take a bigger hit
-
and I'll buy nothing with a crown : P
Why is that? What have exclusive contributors done to earn your wrath? In some ways, we are hurt more by this move than independents. Of course, it's your decision, and your money. I'm just curious why you feel that way.
Nothing personal, it just always seems to be the "little guy" that gets crapped on the most and it's the independants that get burned the most in this decision.
As a non-exclusive, I think it's the other way around. Well, we're both getting screwed, but exclusives seem to take a bigger hit
Thanks, I do agree with you as far as total income goes. As an independent, I would've lost about 6-8% of my total income. As an exclusive, it's going to be a 16% drop. I'm definitely going to feel more pain as an exclusive than I would've before, an an independent.
-
As a non-exclusive, I think it's the other way around. Well, we're both getting screwed, but exclusives seem to take a bigger hit
Depends on how you look at it. In an absolute dollar sense, you're probably right. Exclusives make more there, so they have more to lose. But that's not the only way to see this one. Exclusives mostly lose potential income growth; everybody at lower canisters will keep the same percentage under the new plan, but will lose the change to ever move up. By iStock's figures, ¾ of them won't see a dime less. But independents all lose; with maybe one or two exceptions, every single independent will be compensated at a significantly lower rate. Mine drops by 20%; others go even further. So in the comparison between those who don't make more and those who make significantly less, I know where my sympathies would lie. If I were disinterested, which of course I'm not.
-
Another Buyer protesting:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4624682 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4624682)
-
Another Buyer protesting:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4624682[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4624682[/url])
Just saw that one. Wow is that huge.
-
Exclusives mostly lose potential income growth; everybody at lower canisters will keep the same percentage under the new plan, but will lose the change to ever move up. By iStock's figures, ¾ of them won't see a dime less.
Your argument would be valid if the 3/4 figure were accurate. I don't believe it is (and I know in my case, as I have said, I will be losing 16% of my income, all other things being equal).
Interesting argument, eh? Who's getting screwed harder.
-
Keep them coming, I'll try to keep my initial post updated
-
Another Buyer protesting:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4624682[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4624682[/url])
I think Mortmatch deserves to be quoted in full on this page. What an exquisitely terse and to-the-point diatribe;
"I'm a pissed-off buyer. Microstock is cheap to begin with. Giving contributors less of a piece of the pie -- and I pity the non-exclusives taking such a hit as well as the exclusives who bought in to the promise of rewards for selling only to iStock customers -- is beyond greedy and mean-spririted. It's sweatshop labor. Hear that, iStock? S-W-E-A-T-S-H-O-P. I'm disgusted.
A couple of months ago, I had my company open a corporate account for thousands of dollars. And I can change that.
By the way, let me take a crack at running your business. I think I can make those margins sustainable without screwing your artists. I really think I can. How hard can it be to make something profitable when you're raking in 70 percent of the income of a product you don't even make?"
ETA: That's interesting __ if you click on Mortmatche's name now he has disappeared! Along with his Corporate Master shield.
-
Yeah, that's pretty to the point.
But if you click on Mortmatch's link it goes to the homepage. Wonder what happened.
ETA: You ETA'd while I was posting.
-
Exclusives mostly lose potential income growth; everybody at lower canisters will keep the same percentage under the new plan, but will lose the change to ever move up. By iStock's figures, ¾ of them won't see a dime less.
Your argument would be valid if the 3/4 figure were accurate. I don't believe it is (and I know in my case, as I have said, I will be losing 16% of my income, all other things being equal).
Interesting argument, eh? Who's getting screwed harder.
I don't think the focus should be on who is getting screwed the most, non-exclusives or exclusives. I think we all agree we ALL are getting screwed one way or another. Let's just leave it at that and stay united. If a buyer has more sympathy towards independents, that his/her right. Let's not make them justify their choices. Stay focused.
-
I don't think the focus should be on who is getting screwed the most, non-exclusives or exclusives. I think we all agree we ALL are getting screwed one way or another. Let's just leave it at that and stay united. If a buyer has more sympathy towards independents, that his/her right. Let's not make them justify their choices. Stay focused.
Well said indeed Cathy!
-
I have worked in the advertising industry for years and our clients are mainly medium to small local businesses and a few large local corporations. I became a submitter in early 2004 and thought seriously about quitting my job to develop a port large enough to live on.
I decided against it because I was afraid that it would end this way. I worried about the # of images flooding the market to the extent our work would be devalued. The writing was on the wall as you started seeing photographers who used to make decent money producing stock start offering workshops and frequenting micro forums to scare up customers simply because the money they made teaching others to produce stock is better than the money they made producing stock content themselves.
The end result has been many more submitters with LCV work burying images that we as buyers actually need for our projects. Those submitters would never have made the cut if they had not been coached and most will never produce the type of work that most agencies and their clients need.
Besides being a buyer of images I know many submitters who have worked long and hard to provide a good living for themselves and I do not take the moves that IS has made lightly! I think IS has forgotten that a great many buyers are also submitters and that as creative's we have respect and empathy for each other.
Micro does need to make changes, however I will not be supporting IS any longer. Even before this move we have been buying content more and more from sites who support photographers, graphic artists, video & audio producers.
With this move I have discussed this with my co workers and we have decided to no longer buy our content from IS.
I don't see things improving any day soon unless sites make moves to reduce LCV work, improve search engines and also raise prices for the end product. That is hard right now because advertising in general has dropped because of the global recession.
I will encourage other buyers to examine how IS has treated its content providers and I will encourage them to seek other options. Our company will no longer be buying IS content!
-
That's interesting __ if you click on Mortmatche's name now he has disappeared! Along with his Corporate Master shield.
Wise move to delete - ban buyers.
-
Interesting argument, eh? Who's getting screwed harder.
don't know who's getting screwed harder, or whether it matters, but this poll http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/poll-what's-your-future-commission-rate-photos!/25/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/poll-what's-your-future-commission-rate-photos!/25/) shows that 99% of indies will be dropping their commission rate, whilst 42% of all exclusives will be maintaining their current commission rate.
-
and I'll buy nothing with a crown : P
Why is that? What have exclusive contributors done to earn your wrath? In some ways, we are hurt more by this move than independents. Of course, it's your decision, and your money. I'm just curious why you feel that way.
Well - when some one pissis on me I for one Piss back.
Beisides - you should thank us, while on your knees whining. Hurting IS on the wallet, is the only thing that can bring the silly management at IS to the negosiationg table. The independents leaving, and taking their businnes and clients with them, is "money talks".
Remeber - there are 80%+ non ex. on IS.
-
Photography is a "hobby" for me and my tiny little port of 250 images at IS will not sway their decision, my REAL job is creative director for fortune 1000 co.
Not only do you have my support in no longer purchasing from IS (have about 50 credits that I'll spend this weekend so that some of you can get your 20% - and I'll buy nothing with a crown : P ), but I'm pulling my port as well. It's only worth about $500 per year, but I'll feel better about myself. We also have monthly "designer meetings" (people from area design companies get together to suck down scotch and crab cakes) and I will take my 10 minutes of speech time to make sure that they're at least aware of this.
It's unfortunate that Wall-St found its way into MS
added: and even if all of this gets IS to modify or completely drop this plan, I'm done with them.
As far as I am concerned you and the other buyers who are leaving on principle are heroes. It's one thing to talk about how things should be. It's another to support the artists and vote with your feet. Thank you!
And thanks also for spreading the word to your fellow designers!
-
All these IS buyers bailing... it's like music to my ears! :)
-
Since most of us appear to agree that changing buyer's behavior is the best response to Istock's unethical money grab, it would be great to read what buyers have to say.
I know that some buyers have voiced plans to leave, but it's really hard to find their posts, buried as they are in all the justifiable contributor outrage.
It would be nice to be able to read what buyers have to say here on MSG. If you are a buyer who is going to leave Istock, or if you have found a post somewhere by a buyer who is leaving, or if any of the buyers you have contacted have responded, could you post it here? It might have a stronger impact if we can see the buyer comments in one place.
FUCK !
how dumb you guys are ?
1 - newspapers
2 - all photo news sites (PDN, etc)
3 - photo blogs
4 - IT blogs (techcrunch, slashdot, etc)
5 - news aggregators
6 - TV (who knows)
7 - photo forums
8 - photo newslettes
9 - photo newsgroups on Usenet
10 - and the list goes ooooonnn......
now, you spend hours talkinh crap.
follow this focking 10 steps for once and you WILL see some results.
trolls knows it better.
-
Just finished reading Thomas' excellent post compiling the buyers' comments. Well done! And thanks so much to the folks who have been able to unearth them in that monster thread!
Most of all, three cheers for the buyers who have supported all of us these past several years, and who are continuing to support the contributors by taking their business to more ethical agencies: Morton, Lizzielou, Polekspress, ABDesign, SDbT, Mortmatch, anonymous, and Gbalex.
Hopefully the list will continue to grow as more designers get word of what's happening.
And Cathy, I totally agree that this shouldn't be about exclusive vs. independent. We are all getting hosed here to one degree or another and this rampant greed threatens everybody.
-
Just finished reading Thomas' excellent post compiling the buyers' comments. Well done! And thanks so much to the folks who have been able to unearth them in that monster thread!
Most of all, three cheers for the buyers who have supported all of us these past several years, and who are continuing to support the contributors by taking their business to more ethical agencies: Morton, Lizzielou, Polekspress, ABDesign, SDbT, Mortmatch, anonymous, and Gbalex.
Hopefully the list will continue to grow as more designers get word of what's happening.
And Cathy, I totally agree that this shouldn't be about exclusive vs. independent. We are all getting hosed here to one degree or another and this rampant greed threatens everybody.
Hear, hear.
-
Hear Hear (also)
-
^^^ +3
-
Hi, I just joined this group. So glad I found it. I just spent the past five years gradually building to get to be exclusive at iStock. I am now knocked down to 15% with no hope of ever crawling out of that hole. I didn't go exclusive, yet, thank goodness. Now I will try starting over at other agencies. A designer friend posted this on my FB page:
Getty owns the whole image world. That is silly that iStock is paying the photographer's less. I am getting tired [of] the costs that keep going up on purchasing images.
-
Hi, I just joined this group. So glad I found it. I just spent the past five years gradually building to get to be exclusive at iStock. I am now knocked down to 15% with no hope of ever crawling out of that hole. I didn't go exclusive, yet, thank goodness. Now I will try starting over at other agencies. A designer friend posted this on my FB page:
Getty owns the whole image world. That is silly that iStock is paying the photographer's less. I am getting tired [of] the costs that keep going up on purchasing images.
Welcome aboard Katzeye! Thanks for posting your designer friend's comment here.
Hope you took the opportunity to tell her about the better paying sites. :)
-
Photography is a "hobby" for me and my tiny little port of 250 images at IS will not sway their decision, my REAL job is creative director for fortune 1000 co.
Not only do you have my support in no longer purchasing from IS (have about 50 credits that I'll spend this weekend so that some of you can get your 20% - and I'll buy nothing with a crown : P ), but I'm pulling my port as well. It's only worth about $500 per year, but I'll feel better about myself. We also have monthly "designer meetings" (people from area design companies get together to suck down scotch and crab cakes) and I will take my 10 minutes of speech time to make sure that they're at least aware of this.
It's unfortunate that Wall-St found its way into MS
added: and even if all of this gets IS to modify or completely drop this plan, I'm done with them.
You can buy from the crown too, we're all getting screwed here.
-
and I'll buy nothing with a crown : P
Why is that? What have exclusive contributors done to earn your wrath? In some ways, we are hurt more by this move than independents. Of course, it's your decision, and your money. I'm just curious why you feel that way.
Well - when some one pissis on me I for one Piss back.
Beisides - you should thank us, while on your knees whining. Hurting IS on the wallet, is the only thing that can bring the silly management at IS to the negosiationg table. The independents leaving, and taking their businnes and clients with them, is "money talks".
Remeber - there are 80%+ non ex. on IS.
Perhaps you should make sure you know who pissed on you before you piss back?
But I'm not going to contribute to this stupid argument any longer; I agree with those that say it's counterproductive. We are all getting screwed by Getty -- that's the part to focus on.
-
and I'll buy nothing with a crown : P
Why is that? What have exclusive contributors done to earn your wrath? In some ways, we are hurt more by this move than independents. Of course, it's your decision, and your money. I'm just curious why you feel that way.
Well - when some one pissis on me I for one Piss back.
Beisides - you should thank us, while on your knees whining. Hurting IS on the wallet, is the only thing that can bring the silly management at IS to the negosiationg table. The independents leaving, and taking their businnes and clients with them, is "money talks".
Remeber - there are 80%+ non ex. on IS.
Perhaps you should make sure you know who pissed on you before you piss back?
But I'm not going to contribute to this stupid argument any longer; I agree with those that say it's counterproductive. We are all getting screwed by Getty -- that's the part to focus on.
It's beacuse you don't get it. IS will keep changing goals until all exclusives are down to the standard Getty 20% royalty. You wil get F* over, and over, and over again.
The only way to get Getty to the negociating table, it to give them a hit on the wallet - i.e. IS sales. This is what the independents are doing for you. We are trying to save your asses. At the same time we free ourselves from the tyranny of Getty by taking our pics, our clients, and our DL's to other sites.
Wake up - wipe the cloth of IS sweettalk from your eyes....
-
The end result has been many more submitters with LCV work burying images that we as buyers actually need for our projects.
What is "LCV" ?
-
^^^ Low Commercial Value __ crap images basically.
-
One more added
-
It's another to support the artists and vote with your feet. Thank you!
That has got to be the most self-interested moronic comment I've read in this whole debate. Why would anyone contributing to IS want people to go elsewhere and thus damage the artists income?
-
Hi People!
Im very tired...but plz spread it on FB and twitter, I started today in swedish...
I don´t think byers know this Istockpolicy, so tell them...pardon from a very tired swede..
pardon the swenglish...
/lena
-
It's another to support the artists and vote with your feet. Thank you!
That has got to be the most self-interested moronic comment I've read in this whole debate. Why would anyone contributing to IS want people to go elsewhere and thus damage the artists income?
LOL. Both self-interested AND moronic? That seems a bit OxyMoronic to me ;D
-
It's another to support the artists and vote with your feet. Thank you!
That has got to be the most self-interested moronic comment I've read in this whole debate. Why would anyone contributing to IS want people to go elsewhere and thus damage the artists income?
To point out to iStock management that their actions have consequences? To put every other agency on notice that we're not just sheep to be fleeced? And that's ignoring the very human "screw with me and I'll screw with you" response to being bullied.
-
. Both self-interested AND moronic
That's right, they exist hapily together, you've just shown that.
To point out to iStock management that their actions have consequence
Look mate, you're hardly a big seller on IS. For a lot of people it's their entire source of income, start chasing buyers away and people are not happy. Duh!
-
It's another to support the artists and vote with your feet. Thank you!
That has got to be the most self-interested moronic comment I've read in this whole debate. Why would anyone contributing to IS want people to go elsewhere and thus damage the artists income?
To point out to iStock management that their actions have consequences? To put every other agency on notice that we're not just sheep to be fleeced? And that's ignoring the very human "screw with me and I'll screw with you" response to being bullied.
Well - the independnts are going to leave IS i masses. So we will naturally redirect our clients to our other sites, as we pull down our stuff from IS.
We'll also stop buying images from IS.
The independents are about 75% of IS contributers in numbers, though not in images, but we buy a lot casuse many of us also run design shops aside the photography.
All that businnes is now leaving IS as we leave IS.
For the exclusives I feel sorry- but you just made a bad business desition.
I remember advicing Lisa some years ago, not to put all her eggs in the IS bag - I bet she glad about that today?
-
That has got to be the most self-interested moronic comment I've read in this whole debate. Why would anyone contributing to IS want people to go elsewhere and thus damage the artists income?
I am not damaging my income if buyers go elsewhere. I am (i.e. my images are) elsewhere.
Istock / Getty are damaging my income (come next year) by lowering the already lowest commission in the industry by another 25%.
-
. Both self-interested AND moronic
That's right, they exist hapily together, you've just shown that.
To point out to iStock management that their actions have consequence
Look mate, you're hardly a big seller on IS. For a lot of people it's their entire source of income, start chasing buyers away and people are not happy. Duh!
In futura I not - I left the place. As in independent I'm noto responsible for YOUR business desitions. I make my own. If I chose to redirect my clients and my network to other sites, that MY desition. If you choose to stay with IS - thats YOUR desition!
-
I am (i.e. my images are) elsewhere.
Oh yeah, I see, 400 sales in 2 years, a real pro!
-
If I chose to redirect my clients and my network to other sites, that MY desition.
Oh, I bet you're another big seller!
-
Look mate, you're hardly a big seller on IS. For a lot of people it's their entire source of income, start chasing buyers away and people are not happy. Duh!
They made the choice to go all-in with one source of income. I'm not going to remain supportive of a company like istock just to keep a few exclusives happy.
-
Looks like threats of driving buyers away from istock to better paying sites have upset some folks. That's a good thing.
Vlad is the first, but definitely not the last to try and derail our attempts to respond to this situation by trolling up the forum threads and dragging us off topic.
This thread makes a lot more sense and is much more on topic now I've put him on ignore :)
-
I remember advicing Lisa some years ago, not to put all her eggs in the IS bag - I bet she glad about that today?
I don't know who you are, but if you were one of the folks who gave me that excellent advice about staying diversified, THANK YOU. I am indeed glad!
-
If I chose to redirect my clients and my network to other sites, that MY desition.
Oh, I bet you're another big seller!
"vlad_the_imp",
Do what you have to do, we'll do what we have to do.
-
This thread makes a lot more sense and is much more on topic now I've put him on ignore :)
Indeed. You're a wise woman, Lisa. I spent tens of seconds working on a reply before I reached the same conclusion.
-
I have had decent sales today at a couple of sites that are usually dead in the water - Canstock and Crestock. And my Fotolia sales are up by about 50% over what they usually are on a weekday.
It's probably way too soon to see a noticeable difference from customers moving, but it did seem unusual. Anyone else experiencing the same?
-
I have had decent sales today at a couple of sites that are usually dead in the water - Canstock and Crestock. And my Fotolia sales are up by about 50% over what they usually are on a weekday.
It's probably way too soon to see a noticeable difference from customers moving, but it did seem unusual. Anyone else experiencing the same?
I just see a very good performance at 123RF
-
Me too , especially on 123RF , 3x usual last 2 days ;D
-
Evidently the istock inspectors formed a union or started a boycott or something ... I seem to have a lot of files piled up in the queue.
Not sure but I think maybe this company did the business equivalent of shouting, "Hey watch me step on this rake!"
-
so, there is really no point to not uploading as a protest strategy.
-
so, there is really no point to not uploading as a protest strategy.
Why do you say that? I'm not disagreeing necessarily. But I'd expect that sort of protest to take a lot of people over a lot of weeks to get anyone's attention at all. Heck, my upload slots don't open up again for another 24 hours.
-
Why do you say that?
it seems the reviewers are on strike indefinitely. it doesn't matter whether you upload or not. i still have files from the first of the month.
-
Why do you say that?
it seems the reviewers are on strike indefinitely. it doesn't matter whether you upload or not. i still have files from the first of the month.
That may just be the US holiday this past weekend. I have a batch from last Friday that's waiting for review, but everything else is caught up.
-
Maybe the reviewers are on strike too? Aren't they all exclusives? Think they are happy>?
-
Not Having internet or cable for almost 3 days and look what i missed! I will be notifying my designer friends to go elsewhere with their stock dollars. IStock's decision is completely asinine.
-
I’ve been reading about the IS debacle and see a lot of people allowing their emotions to get the better of them. Istock has been on a downward slide for months now and everyone should have expected this to happen. Probably not so soon but it was definitely on the cards. Istock has made one bad decision after another and their last attempt at improving their website has probably blown their budget causing the big Kahunas at the top to kick ass, forcing them to reduce costs. Of course the quickest way to do this is to reduce commissions.
I see people have stopped uploading and are pulling (or talking about pulling) their portfolios. Istock is worried about their bottom line so I advise contributors to do the same. For those earning a living, don’t let your emotions drive you to make a bad decision. Instead make this a slow and steady process. Set up your position on other viable sites and slowly reduce your portfolio on IS. Don’t do anything hasty that will you hurt you.
The other thing everyone needs to remember is that this isn’t necessarily an Istock problem. This is a microstock problem. You could remove your portfolio and dump it onto another site but the same thing will happen in the future. The new site will grow, money will be invested, bad decisions will be made, budgets will be blown out and eventually they’ll be forced to shaft the contributor.
The only solution to all of this is, as a few have pointed out, to educate the buyer. Stop referring contributors and buyers to sites that make you the most revenue. Instead, refer them to sites that give you both greater commission and a better deal for the buyer.
The poll results on the left are biased and do nothing more than give power to the already greedy agents. It's flawed because not everyone gets to vote for starters and because it's about sales volume rather than RPD. This table should be scrapped and replaced with a table that displays the fairest pricing and commission structure for both buyers and contributors. Buyers should be able to look at this table and it should immediately influence them on making a decision where to buy. It should also influence contributors to upload to the site that gives them and the buyer the best deal and it should also influence the agents to strive to be at the top of the list.
This table could possibly be made into something like a widget that can be placed on everyone’s websites and blogs and is always kept up to date. Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and all social networking sites should be used to educate the buyer. There’s no point driving them to an agent that makes you more money if it doesn’t give them the best price. The majority of buyers don’t care where they buy their images as long as it’s the cheapest alternative. If they find the same image on two websites that are both cheap only then will the contributor’s commission influence their decision and this is what we need to play on.
So if it's going to hurt you and your family, leave your IS portfolios sit for a while, promote the fairer sites and the buyers will follow if we start promoting agents with the interests of the buyer at heart. Even if it’s a new site with no buyers yet, just add your portfolios and at least give the buyer the option of buying them there.
As for Istock, there is no need to punish them. They’re already finished. They cannot come out on top of this one. Even if they reverse their decision, contributors and some buyers have already lost faith in them. And this is the other thing, it is silly to be loyal to any agent. These agents are supposed to have the buyers and the contributors’ best interest at heart but the world doesn’t work that way. Forget about loyalty. Instead favour the agent that’s the fairest at any given time and never become exclusive. Doing that only gives the agent the power to screw you over you by locking you in.
-
Maybe the reviewers are on strike too? Aren't they all exclusives? Think they are happy>?
Maybe the review payments were reduced too? ;D
-
You make some good points pseudonymous
-
pseudonymous, great post, thank you for your input and welcome. Denis
-
You make some good points pseudonymous
very
-
Sales all over my sites (FOT, DT, SS, Alamy) are going up, and up and up these past two days.
And to Lisa FX - we had a mail discution some years back about going exclusive or not, and I recommended you to take a look at the alternatives, such as Alamy, DT, SS etc. My nick on IS was Asist.
I was really glad to see when you started to diversify - it will keep you and our family on your feet, even though IS income will drop or disapear. In time IS will selfdsestruct, and we gain the loss on our other sites.
-
I have had decent sales today at a couple of sites that are usually dead in the water - Canstock and Crestock. And my Fotolia sales are up by about 50% over what they usually are on a weekday.
It's probably way too soon to see a noticeable difference from customers moving, but it did seem unusual. Anyone else experiencing the same?
I experience the same for the last two days, but with iStockphoto ::)
Might be the season.
-
Sales all over my sites (FOT, DT, SS, Alamy) are going up, and up and up these past two days.
And to Lisa FX - we had a mail discution some years back about going exclusive or not, and I recommended you to take a look at the alternatives, such as Alamy, DT, SS etc. My nick on IS was Asist.
I was really glad to see when you started to diversify - it will keep you and our family on your feet, even though IS income will drop or disapear. In time IS will selfdsestruct, and we gain the loss on our other sites.
I'm seeing nothing anywhere that is not easily explained by old "ebb and flow". In fact on many sites I am doing worse than I would expect. I wouldn't expect to see anything happening at this stage though, it took months for the signs of possible buyer resistance to turn up in the sales pattern after the last price hike.
-
I'm seeing nothing anywhere that is not easily explained by old "ebb and flow". In fact on many sites I am doing worse than I would expect. I wouldn't expect to see anything happening at this stage though, it took months for the signs of possible buyer resistance to turn up in the sales pattern after the last price hike.
Well - that what I see, but ofcourse, it too early to judge a long term effect, but I hear a lof of others reporting the same - but we will have to wait and see the long term effect of all this.
-
My sales on all other sites are good indeed in these last few days.
But it's early for me to say if it's an effect of disillusionment or just September.
Let's hope you are right.
-
For Exclusives at IS thinking about alternatives I have some help for them which is found here below.
It is a submission portal called Isyndica (url supplied below)
[url]http://vds.isyndica.com/Affiliate/sumos[/url] ([url]http://vds.isyndica.com/Affiliate/sumos[/url])
Well, this may be very good information, Sumos, but you seem to be spamming the site by posting the same thing to every single thread in the IS forum.
Not to mention it is totally OT, as this is a thread about buyers and their intentions to buy at other sites instead of Istock.
-
For Exclusives at IS thinking about alternatives I have some help for them which is found here below.
It is a submission portal called Isyndica (url supplied below)
[url]http://vds.isyndica.com/Affiliate/sumos[/url] ([url]http://vds.isyndica.com/Affiliate/sumos[/url])
Well, this may be very good information, Sumos, but you seem to be spamming the site by posting the same thing to every single thread in the IS forum.
Not to mention it is totally OT, as this is a thread about buyers and their intentions to buy at other sites instead of Istock.
Seriously, stop spamming sumos, no one cares
-
Here's another buyer bailing.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4645982 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4645982)
-
Here's another buyer bailing.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4645982[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4645982[/url])
Thanks for posting that link Nancy. Just to add to the summary that Thomas is compiling, here's the relevant portion of Leremy's comments:
"I am a contributor and also a buyer at istock. I still have 26 credit. I have so far only buy images from istock (I had spent about usd500 so far since 1 year ago), and with this recent development that really irritate me, I will definitely not buy anymore credits from istock. Yes, there are plenty other agencies out there that I can buy pictures from. Just a side note, one of them has helped me in making 6x times more money than what I have made here. The more I think of it, the more it make sense for me to buy elsewhere."
-
Another one : http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193 (http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193)
-
Another one : [url]http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193[/url] ([url]http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193[/url])
Fantastic article. Yay Ember Studios! This is so well written and explains the problem so succinctly, this will probably be the blog I link to in my future e-mails explaining the situation. Thanks for posting Eric :)
-
Yeah I thought about posting a link to it on Facebook
-
I got more than 50 referred buyers on Istock. Maybe I could ask them for the opinion?
-
Another one : [url]http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193[/url] ([url]http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193[/url])
Sorry to disappoint, but that's my blog. :)
I keep a separate website and blog for my design business. But in light of this week's news, I figured a little overlap was needed. ;)
Glad everyone likes the post. Feel free to link to it wherever.
-
Another one : [url]http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193[/url] ([url]http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193[/url])
Sorry to disappoint, but that's my blog. :)
I keep a separate website and blog for my design business. But in light of this week's news, I figured a little overlap was needed. ;)
Glad everyone likes the post. Feel free to link to it wherever.
I thought that was yours....great post by the way. It describes what was going on exactly how it is.
-
Thanks. Just trying to spread the word any way I can. My design site/blog gets a decent amount of traffic from marketing professionals, other designers, etc., so it seemed like a good place to share some info and opinion on what's going on in stock.
-
Maybe the reviewers are on strike too? Aren't they all exclusives? Think they are happy>?
Maybe the review payments were reduced too? ;D
I had a bunch of files reviewed in the last 24 hours ... evidently the reviewers were distracted for a day or so while they read all the forum threads and calculated their new commission levels, then got back to work.
-
I doubt most buyers are the lemmings they are being made out to be. this is another fiasco a la istock forums. the very fact that TPTB haven't shut it down proves its relative impotence. no business is going to sit there and let their suppliers bitch and moan to the detriment of their survival. anyone with half a brain reading that thread is going to think it is exactly what it is, a collection of pissed off, knee jerk reactions.
Lisa - you're always going to be one of the best, nicest contributors out there and I do sincerely feel for non-exclusives like you. I hope for the ultimate well-being of your business, but I was surprised to see you start this thread and applaud some of the attitudes and actions taking place. you're so much better than that.
-
yet another one (found via the istock threat):
http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193 (http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193)
-
Never mind.
-
Another one : [url]http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193[/url] ([url]http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193[/url])
Sorry to disappoint, but that's my blog. :)
No disappointment here :)
-
Istock seems to be evolving further towards higher priced images. I'd not be surprised if they're happy to loose all but the top layer of contributors. Though I'm puzzled how the new commission schedule will attract new sellers. For someone like me, ShutterStock is still the place to be. However I'm earning more in other royalties in a few months than I ever did with microstock -- so maybe microstock in general won't be my main focus at all.
-
Lisa - you're always going to be one of the best, nicest contributors out there and I do sincerely feel for non-exclusives like you. I hope for the ultimate well-being of your business, but I was surprised to see you start this thread and applaud some of the attitudes and actions taking place. you're so much better than that.
Hahaha. Maybe she has some honestly left.
-
Lisa - you're always going to be one of the best, nicest contributors out there and I do sincerely feel for non-exclusives like you. I hope for the ultimate well-being of your business, but I was surprised to see you start this thread and applaud some of the attitudes and actions taking place. you're so much better than that.
Thanks a lot for the kind words. You know I think highly of you too :)
I have not been on board with bashing of exclusives, so that is not an attitude I have supported, but I certainly do support protesting this terrible change. And as people with much more business acumen than I have said the best way to protest is to direct buyers to sites that offer a fairer commission, then that seems like a good starting place.
I know that as a person with the highest integrity (which I think describes you very well) you would do the same if it is what you thought was right...
-
I doubt most buyers are the lemmings they are being made out to be. this is another fiasco a la istock forums. the very fact that TPTB haven't shut it down proves its relative impotence. no business is going to sit there and let their suppliers bitch and moan to the detriment of their survival. anyone with half a brain reading that thread is going to think it is exactly what it is, a collection of pissed off, knee jerk reactions.
I really hope you are wrong. I am sorry that as an exclusive your fate is tied so closely that of IStock, but as an independent I feel that if IStock is allowed to get away with this there will be no end to the shafting we'll get from the industry.
Independents have historically had to put up with one of the lowest rates in the industry from IStock and now they want to cut it by 25%.
We are the ones who have supported the site and helped to bankroll a lot of benefits for exclusive that we just don't get as non exclusives. There is only so far people can be pushed.
I for one will continue to spread the word that IStock should not be supported by buyers because of its treatment of contributors.
-
Buyer's bailing on iStock? That is the real question. The new royalty structure will hurt some contributors, but not all. What will hurt all contributors though, and iStock themselves, is if buyers do start bailing.
These messages that keep coming out from Kelly which are getting worse sounding, and more insulting to the contributors each time, could be the real start of the downfall of iStock.
I assume these messages are a collective thought process of all the admins at iStock, but obviously they are all a bit clueless on what to put out there at this point considering the backlash from contributors increases with each new post from KK.
This is the more worrysome part. People laugh at the inept sounding replies, but they are really no joke. They could hurt the company and in turn hurt the contributors even more than the new royalty scheme changes.
At this point I think the best thing everyone can hope for is that iStock decides to hire a proper PR firm to try and clean up the PR disaster started by Kelly.
Knowing that Kelly probably doesn't have a strong enough corporate management background to properly deal with the spiraling situation he started means that he should take a back seat at this point and let someone who is more capable handle the situation.
Getty, who are a bunch of serious corporate players, have to be scratching their heads at this point wondering if they have the right team in place at iStock to handle this sort of corporate disaster.
I am sure iStock admins are giving Getty assurances they have it under control, that this is just the usual ranting and raving that goes on from contributors when they make changes, and that it will all comfortably blow over very soon.
I am afraid it might not be the case though time time and iStock might have opened up a can of whoop-ass on themselves this time around that they are not capable of handling.
Lets hope they get things back under control very soon for the greater good of everyone.
-
Buyer's bailing on iStock? That is the real question. The new royalty structure will hurt some contributors, but not all. What will hurt all contributors though, and iStock themselves, is if buyers do start bailing.
Nope, those buyers will not stop buying images, just buy elsewhere. IStock have just made themselves the worst place for independents to sell work, the only thing that prevents independents pulling portfolios is the volume of sales. Once those sales move to other sites there will be no reason to keep on with IStock (or what's left of it). We'll still get our money, just from other sites that pay and are managed better.
-
Buyer's bailing on iStock? That is the real question. The new royalty structure will hurt some contributors, but not all. What will hurt all contributors though, and iStock themselves, is if buyers do start bailing.
Nope, those buyers will not stop buying images, just buy elsewhere. IStock have just made themselves the worst place for independents to sell work, the only thing that prevents independents pulling portfolios is the volume of sales. Once those sales move to other sites there will be no reason to keep on with IStock (or what's left of it). We'll still get our money, just from other sites that pay and are managed better.
I agree with you 100%. I think you might have slightly misunderstood my post though. I did not say buyers would stop buying images, but might start bailing on iStock, which means buying images elsewhere. So I am in full agreement with you. Please reread what I wrote. Cheers. Tyler.
-
Now is the time to move buyers to our better paying sites. A 25% cut and 15% base is not good enough, so heres what everybody should do:
1: Stop linking to Istock from your website, your blog, and from forum threads. This will help better paying agencies move up in Google rank, thus getting in more buyers.
2: Stop buying images at IS, try everyone else before going there. Why put money in to venture bankers pockets, when you can put money in to artists pockets.
3: Tell everyone in your network to please do the same as the above. And tell them to tell their network too.
4: Tell everyone around you, that buying at IS, is just putting money in to bankers pockets, and tell everone you know that they exploit artists by paying them as litte as 15%.
5: Do the storytelling on your website, on your blok, on twitter, in magacines etc. all over the world.
Following the above will quickly lead to a massive raise in sales in the better paying agencies, god for all independent artist - bad for greedy bankers.
Now GO and ACT![/color]
-
Buyer's bailing on iStock? That is the real question. The new royalty structure will hurt some contributors, but not all. What will hurt all contributors though, and iStock themselves, is if buyers do start bailing.
Nope, those buyers will not stop buying images, just buy elsewhere. IStock have just made themselves the worst place for independents to sell work, the only thing that prevents independents pulling portfolios is the volume of sales. Once those sales move to other sites there will be no reason to keep on with IStock (or what's left of it). We'll still get our money, just from other sites that pay and are managed better.
I agree with you 100%. I think you might have slightly misunderstood my post though. I did not say buyers would stop buying images, but might start bailing on iStock, which means buying images elsewhere. So I am in full agreement with you. Please reread what I wrote. Cheers. Tyler.
Sorry I was referring to the bit I quoted "What will hurt all contributors though.... is if buyers do start bailing." I was pointing out that it would not hurt all contributors.
I did read your post carefully, I agree with everything else you said, I think the evaluation of the situation in IStock was spot on.
-
pseudonymous, great post, thank you for your input and welcome. Denis
Thanks Denis.
-
Buyer's bailing on iStock? That is the real question. The new royalty structure will hurt some contributors, but not all. What will hurt all contributors though, and iStock themselves, is if buyers do start bailing.
These messages that keep coming out from Kelly which are getting worse sounding, and more insulting to the contributors each time, could be the real start of the downfall of iStock.
I assume these messages are a collective thought process of all the admins at iStock, but obviously they are all a bit clueless on what to put out there at this point considering the backlash from contributors increases with each new post from KK.
This is the more worrysome part. People laugh at the inept sounding replies, but they are really no joke. They could hurt the company and in turn hurt the contributors even more than the new royalty scheme changes.
At this point I think the best thing everyone can hope for is that iStock decides to hire a proper PR firm to try and clean up the PR disaster started by Kelly.
Knowing that Kelly probably doesn't have a strong enough corporate management background to properly deal with the spiraling situation he started means that he should take a back seat at this point and let someone who is more capable handle the situation.
Getty, who are a bunch of serious corporate players, have to be scratching their heads at this point wondering if they have the right team in place at iStock to handle this sort of corporate disaster.
I am sure iStock admins are giving Getty assurances they have it under control, that this is just the usual ranting and raving that goes on from contributors when they make changes, and that it will all comfortably blow over very soon.
I am afraid it might not be the case though time time and iStock might have opened up a can of whoop-ass on themselves this time around that they are not capable of handling.
Lets hope they get things back under control very soon for the greater good of everyone.
It isn't the greater good of everyone, it would be for the greater good of the exclusives who will be losing money. I don't really care if IS hires a PR firm to handle their disaster or not. If you think Kelly's speeches were a bunch of crap, wait until you hear what spin a PR firm would put on things. Sorry, I disagree with you.
-
There was a recent post on iS from a contributor/designer saying he sourced images for a major UK company's national ad campaigns and would be going elsewhere. I can't find the link - it's either gone or buried too deep.
-
9 more added.
-
9 more added.
Where are the nine more? I thought they were going into this thread.
-
9 more added.
Where are the nine more? I thought they were going into this thread.
Sorry for not explaining
They are in my first post on page 1 of this thread. Just in order to have them in one place
...More to come
-
9 more added.
Where are the nine more? I thought they were going into this thread.
You are correct. They are added on the first page, in the fourth message.
-
I am an exclusive contributor to istock. I will go from 40% to 35% most likely (at least if sales keep up). But I for one would like this to really hurt for istock. They have stabbed me in the back. I put my trust in them, and this is what they do! Unfortunately Im too dependent on the money since its my main income, otherwise I would leave immediately. Now it has to be a more long term goal, but I will work towards it.
There are few things I hate more than greed, and I feel this is motivated by nothing but pure, ugly greed. H&F want some more money on top of the pile they already got. I hope buyers leave by the thousands. That's the only thing that will really hurt them. And I hope all non exclusive contributors that are not dependant on the money will leave as well. 15% is an insult! Don't let the remaining 85% go to Getty/H&F.
Unfortunately I don't think the other microstock companies that I have checked out seem like such great ones either. I hate subscriptions, and it seems on most of them you cant opt out of that. We should get paid reasonably for our work. If I were to start a site there would be no subscriptions. The contributors would get a fair royalty and a good percentage of the profit would be given back as bonus to the contributors at the end of the year. I really wish there was a site that was focused on representing the contributors/artists in a successful and sustainable (real world sustainable, not H&F/Getty greed sustainable) way rather than focused on making the most possible profit.
-
I personally know of a London based photographer who is a pretty heavy contributor but he is also a big partner in an Advertising/designer agency, who for ages obviously have bought all their stock from IS.
Im pretty darned sure, when he gets hold of this news though, his agency will probably go elsewhere.
see, the trouble is, sooner or later you pick on the wrong crowd, dont you.
-
I personally know of a London based photographer who is a pretty heavy contributor but he is also a big partner in an Advertising/designer agency, who for ages obviously have bought all their stock from IS.
Im pretty darned sure, when he gets hold of this news though, his agency will probably go elsewhere.
see, the trouble is, sooner or later you pick on the wrong crowd, dont you.
I think the bean counter missed this. Many part time contributers work in the design and advertising industri, and often spent more money on IS buying pics, than they do earn i royalties from their portfolios. So they are going to migrate, take their pics with them, and taking their business somewhere else. I think thins goes for at lot part timers, especially those non exclusive.
It has to hurt IS renevue badly
-
9 more added.
Where are the nine more? I thought they were going into this thread.
Sorry for not explaining
They are in my first post on page 1 of this thread. Just in order to have them in one place
...More to come
Perfect, that works best. Will go check the first page.
-
Could explain why my sales have tanked these last three days, Okay Saturday is to be expected! but Thursday and Friday?
-
Thanks a lot Thomas, for keeping the list updated. And thanks again to the additional buyers who are showing support for the artists and looking elsewhere for images!
-
Could explain why my sales have tanked these last three days, Okay Saturday is to be expected! but Thursday and Friday?
There appears to have been a HUGE best match shift -- at least in the one series of mine that I checked. That might also explain it.
-
Could explain why my sales have tanked these last three days, Okay Saturday is to be expected! but Thursday and Friday?
There appears to have been a HUGE best match shift -- at least in the one series of mine that I checked. That might also explain it.
Absolutely: I've had a few sales from longstanding low sellers.
-
Another
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4675472 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4675472)
Edited to fix link
-
Could explain why my sales have tanked these last three days, Okay Saturday is to be expected! but Thursday and Friday?
There appears to have been a HUGE best match shift -- at least in the one series of mine that I checked. That might also explain it.
Absolutely: I've had a few sales from longstanding low sellers.
The strange thing is, I've now checked some other series, and they don't show any surprising shift at all. It was only that one series. Weird!
-
Another
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4675472[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4675472[/url])
Edited to fix link
Good catch Massman! I hope David won't mind my quoting it here:
I had dinner tonight with the two people with whom I built the redacted. The artist/co-designer is currently working on an independent film and was shocked when I told him what IS are currently doing - he said that he's spent around $2,000 in the last month at IS on images and videos, and he will no longer buy there.
-
I know that Scott Kelby buys from Istock, wonder if he knows what the agency is doing and if it would change a thing... .
-
I know that Scott Kelby buys from Istock, wonder if he knows what the agency is doing and if it would change a thing... .
Probably not as long as they buy advertising space from him.
-
I've just had a lot of sales elsewhere, particularly at 123, DT and FT which is unusual for this time of the week. Is this a coincidence or have buyers already switched to another side? Anyone else notice an increase in sales at other agencies?
-
Good catch Massman! I hope David won't mind my quoting it here:
Not at all, but for clarity, that was something I posted for a friend anonymously, not a personal experience. One of the other contributors got flustered with me over there about it.
-
I know that Scott Kelby buys from Istock, wonder if he knows what the agency is doing and if it would change a thing... .
Has anyone contacted him, he describes his personal philosophy as "You never go wrong by doing the right thing". Someone should at least sound him out.
-
Good idea if you can get some big names on board? What are Lise and Yuri saying? If you can get some heavy weights to support us it would be great. However they are so rich they probably don't care about the poor man and woman who has to scrap money together to put food on the table.
-
Ha! For a moment there I thought you said Lisa - and was about to jump in and defend her. :D
-
I know that Scott Kelby buys from Istock, wonder if he knows what the agency is doing and if it would change a thing... .
Has anyone contacted him, he describes his personal philosophy as "You never go wrong by doing the right thing". Someone should at least sound him out.
I don't think someone should sound him out, I think we all should sound him out. Did you contact him yet? ;)
-
Good catch Massman! I hope David won't mind my quoting it here:
Not at all, but for clarity, that was something I posted for a friend anonymously, not a personal experience. One of the other contributors got flustered with me over there about it.
Thanks for allowing me to post it. This is exactly the type of information we need to post here and exactly what the folks at Getty should be listening to. Not everyone feels they can be open about who they are for fear of retaliation, but their money is just as green and their business is just as gone.
Ha! For a moment there I thought you said Lisa - and was about to jump in and defend her. :D
Yeah, I am more in the "struggling to put food on the table" category than the top dogs are, but definitely can't just quietly accept something like this. To be honest, with so much to lose I am surprised the top tier are not making more of a stink.
In the case of exclusives like Lise, most likely they will be staying on the 40% they already get, so not really losing anything beyond some imaginary higher level. And perhaps Yuri has been so busy building huge ports at other sites, and selling his services, blogs, etc. that perhaps IS is only a tiny part of his income at this point?
Have to give Sean credit, he is one of the only top people to be making an issue of this. Perhaps it is because he is smart enough to see that, even though it doesn't affect his income NOW, the moving goal posts, outside content, and departing buyers WILL almost certainly affect his income in the future.
-
Have to give Sean credit, he is one of the only top people to be making an issue of this. Perhaps it is because he is smart enough to see that, even though it doesn't affect his income NOW, the moving goal posts, outside content, and departing buyers WILL almost certainly affect his income in the future.
I have been meaning to say something about Sean and this is a perfect place. I really appreciate that he spends time here in this forum, offering advice and even setting everyone straight when needed. As an exclusive, he didn't have to do that, but he impresses me as being a good business person, taking the time to keep a finger on the pulse of the microstock community, not just on his wallet. He has a huge portfolio and does a good business...I appreciate that he is being vocal on this.
-
Good idea if you can get some big names on board? What are Lise and Yuri saying? If you can get some heavy weights to support us it would be great. However they are so rich they probably don't care about the poor man and woman who has to scrap money together to put food on the table.
Lise has some big Admin job at istock, so I guess her lips are sealed.
-
Lisa - you're always going to be one of the best, nicest contributors out there and I do sincerely feel for non-exclusives like you. I hope for the ultimate well-being of your business, but I was surprised to see you start this thread and applaud some of the attitudes and actions taking place. you're so much better than that.
Thanks a lot for the kind words. You know I think highly of you too :)
I have not been on board with bashing of exclusives, so that is not an attitude I have supported, but I certainly do support protesting this terrible change. And as people with much more business acumen than I have said the best way to protest is to direct buyers to sites that offer a fairer commission, then that seems like a good starting place.
I know that as a person with the highest integrity (which I think describes you very well) you would do the same if it is what you thought was right...
you are right, I would. and of course I respect and admire your principles, even if in this instance I think they are misguided, if for no other reason, but prematurity. but I stand behind even though I disagree and certainly know that as an independent, you are in a completely different situation.
-
my brother is designing websites for huge and famous companies.( cannot say names here) 6 years ago he advised me to sell on IS.Now it was my turn to tell him to quit buying at IS. he will he promised me.
-
my brother is designing websites for huge and famous companies.( cannot say names here) 6 years ago he advised me to sell on IS.Now it was my turn to tell him to quit buying at IS. he will he promised me.
Good for you Erik, and good for your brother too :)
-
Posted by Kat in another thread:
The company I work for has already purchased thousands of credits before this announcement, so we have to use them up. We purchase at other sites as well so we don't get all our images from iStock, but we do get a lot of them there. I have started looking at other sites for images for the second half of the project because I suspect what we have so far will use up the credits by the end of the year.
-
I wonder what will happen when IS finally launches LOGOs and re-opens that wound. That will probably be another ugly mess with the logo contributors having to defend their own interests against the buyers.
-
I've just had a lot of sales elsewhere, particularly at 123, DT and FT which is unusual for this time of the week. Is this a coincidence or have buyers already switched to another side? Anyone else notice an increase in sales at other agencies?
Interesting. I know that with my volume it is extremely minor sign, but I see sudden DT increase (first time I see - ahead of SS). Buyers, way to go!
-
A friend tweeted me to say that he will be shopping elsewhere.
-
Recently posted:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4696662 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4696662)
Should the thread be deleted anytime, here is the post:
"Well, if anyone is still interested in another buyer's perspective, here's my latest. I have been looking at other stock sites and I am pleasantly surprised at the variety and quality of images I'm finding. I bought into the hype that iStock was the best site to find images, and while you contributors certainly, hands down, do a fantastic job there are also others out there who are also doing a fantastic job (some are independents who also upload here).
I am going be happy to support sites that offer their contributors a fairer percentage, especially when I can get equally as great quality images for less than what iStock is now charging.
Thanks for all the many years contributors!"
-
Thanks all ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ :).
-
I've done an almost complete search for the word "buy" on every page of the three threads. I Imagine I would find some more searching for "purchase" or better yet "purchas", but it takes ages :)
Also left out plenty of comments from contributors saying they had already persuaded their designer friends to go to other agencies. It leads me to believe the buyers' comments are only the tip of the iceberg as both contributors and buyers have extensive networks in the design business.
It's sad, but I can only hope the IS managers will take this seriously and re-think their strategy.
-
better hope that SS/DT/Fotolia etc., don't piss you off next, because your buyer friends will only do this once for you. next time they'll see the outcry for what it is.
-
Thomas, use this:
http://davidgilder.com/misc/iStockfulator/noindex.cgi (http://davidgilder.com/misc/iStockfulator/noindex.cgi)
Just plug in the the thread id, it will read the entire thread and compile it into a single page. Once it loads right-click and view source, you should be able to search there pretty easily. Some of the quotes still get picked up multiple times but it should be pretty easy to figure it out when you see it.
-
It may not be exactly what we want to read but I think there is some food for thought in this post from another buyer at Istock, Sassafras;
"Wow, what a kahuna thread, yikes. It was only a matter of time before the squeeze was put on the producers, and not just the buyers. That being said I am sure there will yet "another" pricing hike for us as well. I feel sorry for many of you. Reading the comments discussing the loss of the "community" hits a familiar chord. In a few short years IS has moved from the 1-2-3 dollars to almost $20 for a large image. While the pricing has gone up exponentially, how much more of the roughly 600% price hike has ended up in the contributers pockets? Yet even after reading through these enormous threads I doubt anyone on the "inside" is going to listen. Money speaks louder than words.
From a buyers viewpoint the endless rate hiking has been a challenge. We do talk amongst ourselves, and a lot of us developed similar coping strategies. We buy a lot less, we buy smaller, and we don't keep a large bank of credits (after being burned on multiple occasions). Most importantly IS has gone from the first spot to look, to the last (which is a shame, as there is a lot of good stuff by some very talented folks). I don't know of ANY business that can successfully pull off a 600% rate hike over such a short time. Guess it wasn't enough to satisfy the hunger for profit.
IS has pretty much destroyed the microstock market that it pretty much created. Mission accomplished?
Do any buyers bother posting here anymore?"
-
I'd say that is exactly what some of you want to hear. FWIW, any buyers at agencies here that I've spoken to, who I work with daily, don't really care. they aren't generally concerned with how the artists are being compensated. they are too busy working. I'm a designer first, it is how I ended up selling my photos on iStock, I see the outrage as just another iStock forum meltdown. it's like crying wolf now and it's always the same contributors, more or less, who are upset.
that doesn't mean that many contributors don't have a reason to be worried, concerned or angry about what they will be losing. but sending buyers away from a site is just plain stupid. talk about shooting off your entire leg.
-
I'd say that is exactly what some of you want to hear. FWIW, any buyers at agencies here that I've spoken to, who I work with daily, don't really care. they aren't generally concerned with how the artists are being compensated. they are too busy working. I'm a designer first, it is how I ended up selling my photos on iStock, I see the outrage as just another iStock forum meltdown. it's like crying wolf now and it's always the same contributors, more or less, who are upset.
that doesn't mean that many contributors don't have a reason to be worried, concerned or angry about what they will be losing. but sending buyers away from a site is just plain stupid. talk about shooting off your entire leg.
It's only shooting yourself in the leg if you are exclusive, if not it's good business. Am I missing something?
-
I'd say that is exactly what some of you want to hear. FWIW, any buyers at agencies here that I've spoken to, who I work with daily, don't really care. they aren't generally concerned with how the artists are being compensated. they are too busy working. I'm a designer first, it is how I ended up selling my photos on iStock, I see the outrage as just another iStock forum meltdown. it's like crying wolf now and it's always the same contributors, more or less, who are upset.
that doesn't mean that many contributors don't have a reason to be worried, concerned or angry about what they will be losing. but sending buyers away from a site is just plain stupid. talk about shooting off your entire leg.
It's only shooting yourself in the leg if you are exclusive, if not it's good business. Am I missing something?
+1
-
that doesn't mean that many contributors don't have a reason to be worried, concerned or angry about what they will be losing. but sending buyers away from a site is just plain stupid. talk about shooting off your entire leg.
It's only shooting yourself in the leg if you are exclusive, if not it's good business. Am I missing something?
Exactly. For independent contributors it's about survival.
I can understand how to an exclusive contributor it would feel threatening to have buyers directed to sites that don't sell your work. But to continuously characterize efforts to save our incomes as "whining" and "stupid" is really downright insulting and demeaning (not to mention wildly OT).
Feel free to disagree. You have in the past, and you are entitled to your opinion, but it would be very much appreciated if you could keep the insults and personal attacks out of it. Thank you.
-
... sending buyers away from a site is just plain stupid. talk about shooting off your entire leg.
No __ going exclusive in the first place is shooting yourself in the leg. Why on earth risk your own income (not to mention that of others) by helping one agency maintain such a dangerously dominant position? That's the really stupid bit.
You haven't seen anything yet either __ Istock will soon want your arms and your other leg too.
-
Today I had two of the smallest sales; one on DT and one on IS. The sale at IS gave me $0.19, the one on DT gave me 0.30. In january the minimum price at IS will be $0.14
Please explain how it will hurt me if I ask my designer friends to shop at DT, when I get twice as much money per sale there.
-
but sending buyers away from a site is just plain stupid. talk about shooting off your entire leg.
If we are going to talk about legs, this is more like "shooting off your entire leg, and growing a new stronger leg as a replacement"
-
... but sending buyers away from a site is just plain stupid. talk about shooting off your entire leg.
I'd say that sending buyers away from the site that'll pay me 17% and directing them to the site that will pay me 50% is more like getting a fancy new shoe and pair of pants for that leg. Fancy pants, with all that extra income from every single sale.
:)
-
... but sending buyers away from a site is just plain stupid. talk about shooting off your entire leg.
I'd say that sending buyers away from the site that'll pay me 17% and directing them to the site that will pay me 50% is more like getting a fancy new shoe and pair of pants for that leg. Fancy pants, with all that extra income from every single sale.
:)
LOL! good analogy!
-
Today I had two of the smallest sales; one on DT and one on IS. The sale at IS gave me $0.19, the one on DT gave me 0.30. In january the minimum price at IS will be $0.14
Please explain how it will hurt me if I ask my designer friends to shop at DT, when I get twice as much money per sale there.
Not only is it NOT hurting non-exclusives by sending buyers to other sites, it is actually saving buyers money, too. Using basic minimum credit purchases to illustrate, a L image on IS costs $15.20, I get $3.00. The exact same image on DT costs the buyer $13.20 while I make $4.07.
Going exclusive made sense IF IS had honored their side of the bargain, but they have not. Now exclusives are SOL. And trust me I am not gloating. I have friends who have been with them from the start and it sucks big time that after all their commitment, they are getting the shaft.
-
Lisa - I'm sorry you feel I was personally attacking you, which I would never do, to you, or to anyone. but I feel very strongly that it is very bad business to be pushing buyers away from any site and that it could backfire for all of us, short-term and in the long run. leaving iStock out of it entirely....it would be a bad decision, IMO, with any site. biting the hand that feeds you in many ways. having said that, I certainly have acknowledged that I am not in the position of independents. but I am privy to a number of conversations happening at agencies, and it also bothers me to see fellow contributors I know and care about going off the rails and making themselves look less than professional.
you can't really expect support when you are intentionally trying to take business away from all of us. and as I said earlier, which I think is still valid, that this strategy, if you can even call it that, will only work once. if I put myself in the shoes of an independent, you are setting yourselves up to be fairly beholden and vulnerable to the agencies where you put your work after you burn the iStock bridge.
but I do apologize if my tone was rude. the negativity and attempts to pull business from us all have put all of us in very bad moods. no one is enjoying the diatribes.
-
Not only is it NOT hurting non-exclusives by sending buyers to other sites, it is actually saving buyers money, too. Using basic minimum credit purchases to illustrate, a L image on IS costs $15.20, I get $3.00. The exact same image on DT costs the buyer $13.20 while I make $4.07.
Going exclusive made sense IF IS had honored their side of the bargain, but they have not. Now exclusives are SOL. And trust me I am not gloating. I have friends who have been with them from the start and it sucks big time that after all their commitment, they are getting the shaft.
And in January (if the prices aren't upped) the difference for me will be IS: 2.28, DT: 4.07
I wonder what choice is better for me? ::)
-
...you can't really expect support when you are intentionally trying to take business away from all of us...
Who's taking business away from everyone? I'm only intent on taking it away from iStock. I'm fairly sure that most buyers leaving iStock will end up on one of the 14 sites I have my work available at, so it's just relocating business, not taking it away entirely.
-
well, I guess there's not any real point in pushing the issue. but I would never pull any buyers into this kind of fight in this way. I think it is so unprofessional and assumptive to cause buyers the trouble of taking sides. A: it assumes they can't make up their own minds based on the agency they wish to buy from, and B: it sends to another agency or multiple agencies, who could turn around tomorrow and do something else or similar in terms of pricing.
I get being upset, I get trying to leverage your position in any way that you can...but to take this approach less than a week after the announcements, with barely half the information and to alienate yourselves from your peers and clients by taking such an inflammatory position. it just doesn't make sense. don't underestimate how many contributors are angry about this, even non-exclusives who realize that sending business away is never good, for anyone.
in any case, we're all in it together...whether it seems like it or not. the agencies and contributors combined make one big ecosystem, and that's the biggest concern.
-
well, I guess there's not any real point in pushing the issue. but I would never pull any buyers into this kind of fight in this way. I think it is so unprofessional and assumptive to cause buyers the trouble of taking sides. A: it assumes they can't make up their own minds based on the agency they wish to buy from, and B: it sends to another agency or multiple agencies, who could turn around tomorrow and do something else or similar in terms of pricing...
It also does a service to the client by directing them to sites that are also cheaper than iStock, so they're saving money. I doubt any client would be offended by me suggesting they save money and shop elsewhere. Certainly wouldn't call it "unprofessional" to offer a client a better option.
And so what if an agency I send buyers to cuts their rates. What are they going to do, cut from 50% to 48%? 45%? Still beats the crap out of iStock's rates.
...I get being upset, I get trying to leverage your position in any way that you can...but to take this approach less than a week after the announcements, with barely half the information and to alienate yourselves from your peers and clients by taking such an inflammatory position...
You're assuming that independent contributors are only directing buyers away from iStock since last week. I've always directed buyers to the 50%+ sites, and promoted those sites exclusively on my website. Sending buyers away from iStock is nothing new. Just more people are doing it in light of last week's announcement.
...in any case, we're all in it together...whether it seems like it or not. the agencies and contributors combined make one big ecosystem, and that's the biggest concern.
No we aren't. There's the iStock ecosystem where sub-20% rates are acceptable, and the rest of the stock world where that sort of rate is disgustingly low. Sorry, but we're not in this together. You're hoping to maintain the status quo at iStock and encourage buyers to keep paying higher prices and contributors to keep accepting the lowest pay rate. I'm hoping to see iStock fall and see a fair trade company rise. A company that pays fairly and offers fair pricing for buyers.
-
in any case, we're all in it together...whether it seems like it or not. the agencies and contributors combined make one big ecosystem, and that's the biggest concern.
I agree 100% with the above. I can't speak to anyone else's motivations, but for myself, I am making the biggest stink possible for one reason - to try and benefit the entire ecosystem, not just my own tiny part of it.
This isn't just about istock, this is about a precedent in the industry. The 20% barrier has been broken. The "protect our exclusives" barrier has been broken.
This doesn't just affect us on istock. The other sites are watching.
If we don't protest this in the strongest terms, and do whatever we can to show istock this will hurt their financial bottom line, the other sites will quickly follow suit. Then independents will be completely screwed and so will exclusives, because if you should find you are getting a raw deal at istock, you will no longer have the safety net of going independent to recover your income. If istock succeeds and profits from shafting its contributors this way, very soon there won't be any place to do to get a better deal.
-
well, I guess there's not any real point in pushing the issue. but I would never pull any buyers into this kind of fight in this way. I think it is so unprofessional and assumptive to cause buyers the trouble of taking sides. A: it assumes they can't make up their own minds based on the agency they wish to buy from, and B: it sends to another agency or multiple agencies, who could turn around tomorrow and do something else or similar in terms of pricing.
I get being upset, I get trying to leverage your position in any way that you can...but to take this approach less than a week after the announcements, with barely half the information and to alienate yourselves from your peers and clients by taking such an inflammatory position. it just doesn't make sense. don't underestimate how many contributors are angry about this, even non-exclusives who realize that sending business away is never good, for anyone.
in any case, we're all in it together...whether it seems like it or not. the agencies and contributors combined make one big ecosystem, and that's the biggest concern.
I'm exclusive now and for nonexclusives to ask buyers to leave with them is completely understandable. If IS goes ahead with the changes they have announced, I will leave and the extra buyers at other sites will be good for me. If IS reverses the changes then hopefully a lot of buyers won't leave. Remember a lot of smaller buyers are contributors too and when they get screwed they keep saying they are leaving and taking their buying $ to other sites. People still need images so there is no way that a net loss will result from any of this, no business is being sent away it's just redirected to fairer paying companies.
-
Lisa - I'm sorry you feel I was personally attacking you, which I would never do, to you, or to anyone. but I feel very strongly that it is very bad business to be pushing buyers away from any site and that it could backfire for all of us, short-term and in the long run. leaving iStock out of it entirely....it would be a bad decision, IMO, with any site. biting the hand that feeds you in many ways. having said that, I certainly have acknowledged that I am not in the position of independents. but I am privy to a number of conversations happening at agencies, and it also bothers me to see fellow contributors I know and care about going off the rails and making themselves look less than professional.
you can't really expect support when you are intentionally trying to take business away from all of us. and as I said earlier, which I think is still valid, that this strategy, if you can even call it that, will only work once. if I put myself in the shoes of an independent, you are setting yourselves up to be fairly beholden and vulnerable to the agencies where you put your work after you burn the iStock bridge.
but I do apologize if my tone was rude. the negativity and attempts to pull business from us all have put all of us in very bad moods. no one is enjoying the diatribes.
After your conversations with the agencies and fellow buyers why would you be in a very bad mood if you do not feel that any significant number of buyers will shift to agencies which offer contributors and buyers better incomes/prices?
You have reason to be upset only if you believe that both sides can benefit from change and if that is the case then why in the world would you support or risk your livelihood with an agency that is less than beneficial to both buyers and contributors?
-
Another relevant buyer post on Istock:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4712662 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4712662)
Text by Aleishaknight here:
Oh, I think more people are upset that are not posting. I've been a long time buyer, but just started contributing photos about two weeks before the big announcement. (Seriously, ugh.) I haven't said anything because I felt that everything that needed to be said has been posted already, (and my whole 27 files don't matter way one or the other). I have been trying to get the word out, though, encouraging all the buyers I know to write in and tell IS that they will only do business with a company that gives fair commissions.
-
All of your questions presume that your point of view on the situation provides an accurate prediction of the future available to us at istock. I don't have the same point of view, but I'm not an independent. And taking business from me to suit your career choices (remaining independent) is pretty crappy. Anyways, just offering my ten cents, because there's s pretty big bias here most of the time. But I suspect no one is interested is discussing the value of another perspective. I do hope that istock reconsiders the floor for independents to 20%. Believe it or not, exclusives do care what happens with independents. But you're eroding that sense of support, at least speaking for myself.
-
in any case, we're all in it together...whether it seems like it or not. the agencies and contributors combined make one big ecosystem, and that's the biggest concern.
I agree 100% with the above. I can't speak to anyone else's motivations, but for myself, I am making the biggest stink possible for one reason - to try and benefit the entire ecosystem, not just my own tiny part of it.
This isn't just about istock, this is about a precedent in the industry. The 20% barrier has been broken. The "protect our exclusives" barrier has been broken.
This doesn't just affect us on istock. The other sites are watching.
If we don't protest this in the strongest terms, and do whatever we can to show istock this will hurt their financial bottom line, the other sites will quickly follow suit. Then independents will be completely screwed and so will exclusives, because if you should find you are getting a raw deal at istock, you will no longer have the safety net of going independent to recover your income. If istock succeeds and profits from shafting its contributors this way, very soon there won't be any place to do to get a better deal.
I totally agree with Lisa on this. Talking about us pushing business to other site, are not making business like deecitions are bull.
You've got to draw a line somewhere. Thres also ethics in business - god and bad.
Istock are like doing business wiht the mafia - the photo mafia - and I for one don't want to contribute, or in any other way be assosisated with the kind os business IS practices.
As for directing buyers to sites where the price for the same product are lower,a nd my indcome higher, can I not se hurting me, nor the buyer - it's a win-win situation.
As for the exclusives at Istock - sorry - you made your own decition about doing so - now you have to take whatever crap comes down from above at the IS halls...
-
Believe it or not, exclusives do care what happens with independents. But you're eroding that sense of support, at least speaking for myself.
To be honest the best support you could give to us and to yourself is to abandon exclusivity. Collectively we need to reduce Istock's power. Quite simply Istock shouldn't have the nerve to attempt such a stunt let alone have the ability to get away with it. The power they have comes mainly from their base of exclusive contributors which is why 74% of them are getting away relatively unscathed (at least for now).
-
As for the exclusives at Istock - sorry - you made your own decition about doing so - now you have to take whatever crap comes down from above at the IS halls...
Thank you for these kind words :)
-
Well gostwyck, your expectations of me supporting that kind of tactic are way off the mark. Especially if how people are treating other people is any kind of factor. I'm exclusive for a lot of reasons, but I also actively educate myself about the other sites constantly. Everything I know keeps me at istock. I think they continue to lead and bring us new and sustainable business. That does not imply absolute support for each and every decision they make, but I know where I want to be and that has not changed. And the support I do give to independents has been carried out in the form of cr sitemails to hq and on conversations with admins about the reduction for independents. But I don't support anyone pulling business out, no way.
-
...And taking business from me to suit your career choices (remaining independent) is pretty crappy...
Kind of sounds like the argument a lot of traditional stock photographers used when iStock contributors were taking their business to suit their careers.
Anyway, why should I alter my career to suit your choice to go all-in with one agency? Sounds pretty crappy to me, asking independent artists to sacrifice their careers and not encourage buyers to shop where we stand to gain the most, just so that you can maintain your status at iStock.
You made your choice, and now you don't like that you're locked in at the most unethical company in the business. I'm not going to stop supporting the companies that pay fair rates so that you can keep your earnings. Sorry.
-
All of your questions presume that your point of view on the situation provides an accurate prediction of the future available to us at istock. I don't have the same point of view, but I'm not an independent. And taking business from me to suit your career choices (remaining independent) is pretty crappy. Anyways, just offering my ten cents, because there's s pretty big bias here most of the time. But I suspect no one is interested is discussing the value of another perspective. I do hope that istock reconsiders the floor for independents to 20%. Believe it or not, exclusives do care what happens with independents. But you're eroding that sense of support, at least speaking for myself.
Fair enough
Support is a two way street, what are you as a group of exclusive contributors willing to do to support independent contributors besides "hoping"?
What productive options do you see available for independents to recover their lost income on IS and how can exclusives help support that process?
-
Just been posted in 'That thread' :) if you are gathering Quotes from Buyers
"Since 2006, i've spent over 7k with istock. Me and other art buyers are starting to realize this is like buying cloths made in China. I stock is like a third world county, where say Veer or Almay are thridworld too, but at least they are fair trade. I'm going to start buying photos from agencys that pay their continbutors more then 15%. Istock if you think this mess is just pissed off your contributors, think again. Art buyers have a conscience too"
-
Well gostwyck, your expectations of me supporting that kind of tactic are way off the mark. Especially if how people are treating other people is any kind of factor. I'm exclusive for a lot of reasons, but I also actively educate myself about the other sites constantly. Everything I know keeps me at istock. I think they continue to lead and bring us new and sustainable business. That does not imply absolute support for each and every decision they make, but I know where I want to be and that has not changed. And the support I do give to independents has been carried out in the form of cr sitemails to hq and on conversations with admins about the reduction for independents. But I don't support anyone pulling business out, no way.
Classic! I know all about your 'support'.
-
All of your questions presume that your point of view on the situation provides an accurate prediction of the future available to us at istock. I don't have the same point of view, but I'm not an independent. And taking business from me to suit your career choices (remaining independent) is pretty crappy. Anyways, just offering my ten cents, because there's s pretty big bias here most of the time. But I suspect no one is interested is discussing the value of another perspective. I do hope that istock reconsiders the floor for independents to 20%. Believe it or not, exclusives do care what happens with independents. But you're eroding that sense of support, at least speaking for myself.
Fair enough
Support is a two way street, what are you as a group of exclusive contributors willing to do to support independent contributors besides "hoping"?
What productive options do you see available for independents to recover their lost income on IS and how can exclusives help support that process?
Well - support is nice, even if it only as hope for the better...
But look - we have to get the most out of your business - if that includes attracting buyers to other sites that IS, where we earn the lowest commision - thats a sound business decition for us.
I recon, that you as an excluse got an other perspective, but that dosen't change the way we have to do businnes - and survice. And a paltry 15% is not enough to survive...
On a personal level, one feels sorry for those exclusive and lockes up with an unethical company, but funny thing is that you folks did so to maximise your profits short term. (sounds familiar?) Nothing wron with that, but dont whine when things change, and your bedpartner in the morning suddenly looks way less attractive :)
-
Believe it or not, exclusives do care what happens with independents. But you're eroding that sense of support, at least speaking for myself.
To be honest the best support you could give to us and to yourself is to abandon exclusivity. Collectively we need to reduce Istock's power. Quite simply Istock shouldn't have the nerve to attempt such a stunt let alone have the ability to get away with it. The power they have comes mainly from their base of exclusive contributors which is why 74% of them are getting away relatively unscathed (at least for now).
74% of 16% are getting away unscathed? Where did you figure out that those exclusives wouldn't be effected at all? I'm just a lowly independent losing 25% of my low income, in 2011. Can you explain the figure? Seems to me that many more of the low exclusives, the ones with under 500 lifetime downloads, will be taking a cut as well.
-
74% of 16% are getting away unscathed? Where did you figure out that those exclusives wouldn't be effected at all? I'm just a lowly independent losing 25% of my low income, in 2011. Can you explain the figure? Seems to me that many more of the low exclusives, the ones with under 500 lifetime downloads, will be taking a cut as well.
The 74% was originally quoted by Kelly T. It was investigated by DGilder who worked out how the figures had been arrived at (basically most exclusives are currently at the base levels and therefore cannot actually drop any further). You'll need to keep up with the threads though if you want the full story.
-
I don't think exclusives should worry about us taking away buyers because a lot of us aren't uploading to istock now and might be forced to start deleting our portfolios. You will earn more from the buyers that stay with istock if there is less competition.
The buyers can always keep their istock accounts to buy from exclusives, I have no problem with that but they will need to use the other sites to see new images from a lot of us.
-
Just been posted in 'That thread' :) if you are gathering Quotes from Buyers
"Since 2006, i've spent over 7k with istock. Me and other art buyers are starting to realize this is like buying cloths made in China. I stock is like a third world county, where say Veer or Almay are thridworld too, but at least they are fair trade. I'm going to start buying photos from agencys that pay their continbutors more then 15%. Istock if you think this mess is just pissed off your contributors, think again. Art buyers have a conscience too"
Thanks a lot for posting Iclick. How nice of you to actually post ON TOPIC ;D
-
74% of 16% are getting away unscathed? Where did you figure out that those exclusives wouldn't be effected at all? I'm just a lowly independent losing 25% of my low income, in 2011. Can you explain the figure? Seems to me that many more of the low exclusives, the ones with under 500 lifetime downloads, will be taking a cut as well.
The 74% was originally quoted by Kelly T. It was investigated by DGilder who worked out how the figures had been arrived at (basically most exclusives are currently at the base levels and therefore cannot actually drop any further). You'll need to keep up with the threads though if you want the full story.
If you mean wading through the IS forums, no thanks, I'll just trust you to sort out all that pit of sludge. :)
But thanks for explaining that they are already at base levels, so it won't drop 74% of them. I was looking at it from the top down, not the bottom up. Which means it looks positive that 74% won't lose anything, because they are under preforming to start with.
It's like the government unemployment figures saying that less people are applying for benefits each month. Well yes, that's true, but if 15% of all people are unemployed and some people have run out of benefits. the figure is a nice spin on a bad situation. The bottom 74% losing nothing, is leaving out that the top 26% are losing something!
The automatic is everyone else, losing 25% of their income, no matter what! :(
Please don't ask me to read the other forums, I'm not as strong hearted as I used to be.
-
in any case, we're all in it together...whether it seems like it or not. the agencies and contributors combined make one big ecosystem, and that's the biggest concern.
I agree 100% with the above. I can't speak to anyone else's motivations, but for myself, I am making the biggest stink possible for one reason - to try and benefit the entire ecosystem, not just my own tiny part of it.
This isn't just about istock, this is about a precedent in the industry. The 20% barrier has been broken. The "protect our exclusives" barrier has been broken.
This doesn't just affect us on istock. The other sites are watching.
If we don't protest this in the strongest terms, and do whatever we can to show istock this will hurt their financial bottom line, the other sites will quickly follow suit. Then independents will be completely screwed and so will exclusives, because if you should find you are getting a raw deal at istock, you will no longer have the safety net of going independent to recover your income. If istock succeeds and profits from shafting its contributors this way, very soon there won't be any place to do to get a better deal.
very well said. I couldn't agree with you more.
As for a comment about independents pulling your portfolio from iStock, I say don't do it. just leave it, you don't have to upload more, but iStock actually will be making less money off of independents when the new royalty structure takes effect. Their incentive will be to keep people exclusive because that is where they will make the most money. So keep your port there, at least you'll benefit from some sales, even it is smaller, but it would be better than no sales. but then again, I completely understand if you want to pull it due to the principal of the whole thing.
-
Frankly sharpshot, I think it is best that independents continue to add diversity to istock. I don't think good riddance like many other very competitive contributors think. Istock is better with the mix of contributor types IMO. But taking that many steps further and trying to erode the business there has the potential to make that decision rather permanent.
-
in any case, we're all in it together...whether it seems like it or not. the agencies and contributors combined make one big ecosystem, and that's the biggest concern.
I agree 100% with the above. I can't speak to anyone else's motivations, but for myself, I am making the biggest stink possible for one reason - to try and benefit the entire ecosystem, not just my own tiny part of it.
This isn't just about istock, this is about a precedent in the industry. The 20% barrier has been broken. The "protect our exclusives" barrier has been broken.
This doesn't just affect us on istock. The other sites are watching.
If we don't protest this in the strongest terms, and do whatever we can to show istock this will hurt their financial bottom line, the other sites will quickly follow suit. Then independents will be completely screwed and so will exclusives, because if you should find you are getting a raw deal at istock, you will no longer have the safety net of going independent to recover your income. If istock succeeds and profits from shafting its contributors this way, very soon there won't be any place to do to get a better deal.
I completely agree... i and I'm doing all I can to get the word out...... posting in designer forums, emailing to companies which have used IStock/ThinkStock images.. they're easy to find because they credit IS/TS on the image, talking to designer friends, etc, there's lots we can do
-
Frankly sharpshot, I think it is best that independents continue to add diversity to istock. I don't think good riddance like many other very competitive contributors think. Istock is better with the mix of contributor types IMO. But taking that many steps further and trying to erode the business there has the potential to make that decision rather permanent.
I was finding it hard to stay motivated with 20% commission. My earnings have declined, now they want to reduce them more. Why would I want to continue uploading? They would just keep cutting commissions. There really doesn't seem to be another option. I have nothing against exclusives but I'm not going to add diversity to istock unless they reward me adequately. I do this for the money, not a feel good factor.
-
I do this for the money, not a feel goof factor.
:D
-
I'm convinced that iStock dropped independent's royalties at least in part so exclusives wouldn't feel singled out for mistreatment. "You think you're suffering at our hands? That's nothing to what we've done to those guys." Maybe they really thought they could get away with paying us a pittance, and maybe they're right, but we're just collateral damage in iStock's attack on the artists who make the big money: the exclusives.
So we have to respond, or we're left accepting an unacceptable situation. And to the degree we succeed, exclusives suffer. Making them the collateral damage in our response to being made collateral damage. Regrettable but unavoidable.
(Except for hawk_eye. The more he attacks and insults our actions, the less I regret any damage done to him. You reap what you sow, dude, just as we do.)
-
Frankly sharpshot, I think it is best that independents continue to add diversity to istock. I don't think good riddance like many other very competitive contributors think. Istock is better with the mix of contributor types IMO. But taking that many steps further and trying to erode the business there has the potential to make that decision rather permanent.
Your comment makes my decision NOT to buy images at Istock feel like the right decision. Why would I want to buy images from IS exclusives with so little empathy for their associates and very willing to build their success on the misery of contributors who have also worked hard to earn a living.
Why should independents stay to add diversity to istock when is is quite clear that they will not be compensated fairly for the product that they offer?
Because many of us use corporate accounts to buy images, I think istock has underestimated the number of contributors who are also buyers.
-
^^^ Hey, hey, hey __ we are all being screwed and we all need to stick together. H-E's views are not in any way those of most exclusives.
-
All of your questions presume that your point of view on the situation provides an accurate prediction of the future available to us at istock. I don't have the same point of view, but I'm not an independent. And taking business from me to suit your career choices (remaining independent) is pretty crappy. Anyways, just offering my ten cents, because there's s pretty big bias here most of the time. But I suspect no one is interested is discussing the value of another perspective. I do hope that istock reconsiders the floor for independents to 20%. Believe it or not, exclusives do care what happens with independents. But you're eroding that sense of support, at least speaking for myself.
Wow, what a victory for IStock, people thinking that independents remaining at 20% is a fair deal and something to be aimed for. Don't forget that this was already pretty much the lowest rate in the industry and a disgusting insult. Lowering to 15% was just unbelievable.
Again, sorry people like you and Vlad who have so much invested in IStock that you can't seem to see how this action helps the majority who made different business choices.
-
I see, so the empathy is a one way street. I'm supposed to have empathy while you point buyers away from my work. Anyways, I didn't post here to fight, but I'm certainly not a minority and I don't view this as us vs them anyways. You guys are the ones fueling that culture. You can insinuate that I don't care about non-exclusive welfare, but you are dead wrong. I just don't happen to agree with the sample of contributors in here most of the time.
-
I don't expect your sympathy at all, our interests conflict too much. You want people to buy from Istock, because you have chosen to stick by them, I want them to buy elsewhere where independents get a better deal.
Our roads have diverged.
I would like your understanding. I understand why you hate the idea of people moving away from Istock, it's taking money out of your pocket.
I'm not sure why you don't seem understand why people buying from Istock (rather than elsewhere) is taking money out of mine.
-
I do understand and appreciate what that means for non-exclusives. In any case, best to everyone. I for one will be sincerely disappointed to see some of you leaving istock. If you infer otherwise from my posts, then I'm not achieving anything by posting here.
-
(Except for hawk_eye. The more he attacks and insults our actions, the less I regret any damage done to him. You reap what you sow, dude, just as we do.)
OTOH she's performing a valuable service by continuing to bump up the thread. ;)
Let's not get distracted from the important purpose of continuing to post buyers accounts of how they are leaving Istock. If you know of anyone, please post here. Don't let the shrill voices of defeatism intimidate you...
-
Thomas' post is missing quite a few from the most recent thread, I would dig them out, but I'm a bit busy deleting images at the moment ;)
-
Thomas' post is missing quite a few from the most recent thread, I would dig them out, but I'm a bit busy deleting images at the moment ;)
No problem David. You have your work cut out for you.
I will head over and look for more. If anyone else finds them, please keep posting.
-
I dont know if this means she is bailing or not, but when I posted on my Facebook page last week that I may be joining other stock agencies a designer/buyer friend of mine quickly responded to me asking me to be sure to let her know what other agency (or agencies) I join so that she can add that to her image sources. Don't think she would drop iStock completely but if she needs to purchase one of my images and can find it cheaper elsewhere, I am sure she will go there. I would guess she may continue to find other images on another site if she found it cheaper with just as much variety and quality as istock.
-
Well done Jami!
I have never been on Facebook and, other than this forum, I pretty much stay away from "social media", but this situation makes me realize what valuable tools Facebook, Twitter, etc. can be.
-
Well done Jami!
I have never been on Facebook and, other than this forum, I pretty much stay away from "social media", but this situation makes me realize what valuable tools Facebook, Twitter, etc. can be.
yes, The Twitter is all a rage still about the iStock issue. some good, some bad, some misleading. It's very interesting to see the wide variety of perspectives out there.
-
doesnt matter
-
Hawk_Eye is right-Buyers buy from a microsite for one or more of the following reasons:
1-It provide a product at the cheapest price with the quality needed.
2-The product is readily available with great support.
3-The product is only available at this location.
But Istock does not produce the product-the contributors do.
So if for what ever reason ,the contributors do not provide Istock with products that buyers need and meets the above conditions-Istock will fail.
Now I don't know if the reactions to Istock latest rule changes will be a tipping point or not- but it might be.
Smiling Jack
miling
-
Now I don't know if the reactions to Istock latest rule changes will be a tipping point or not- but it might be.
If this is not the tipping point, I suspect that will come in January. Kelly has promised the exclusives they will all be making more money. Since royalties are being cut, that additional money will most likely come from yet another price hike.
It is harder and harder for buyers to find cheap images on Istock. They will soon be buried behind the Agency collection, Vetta (which is getting a price hike), and Exclusive collection (which needs to be hiked to make up for royalty cuts).
Most likely there will be a lot more fodder for this thread in January. If the treatment of contributors isn't enough of a tipping point, the relentless price increases will be.
-
If this is not the tipping point, I suspect that will come in January. Kelly has promised the exclusives they will all be making more money. Since royalties are being cut, that additional money will most likely come from yet another price hike...
I'm actually kind of surprised that a price increase wasn't part of last week's announcement. I doubt HQ would have guessed that there would be any buyer reaction to the royalty cut, so they could have logically concluded that rolling out a royalty cut and price increase would work. They might have had to deal with a double backlash, but it would have probably been on two separate fronts. And it would have possibly lessened the damage done since contributors might have been more likely to quietly go along with it if they knew that a price increase might offset the royalty cut losses.
Now they've got a major contributor backlash, on top of which buyers are becoming more aware of iStock's industry-low pay rates. Maybe that alone doesn't move very many buyers away from iStock, but a January price increase sure would.
I can get why iStock would try to pull off a price increase in January, but I think it could be that very tipping point that destroys the company. This contributor backlash they'll survive. There won't be enough of a wide-spread reaction by contributors, and buyers don't have too much incentive to take their business elsewhere based on royalty rates alone. But a price increase on top of the already highest prices in microstock, and then on top of the royalty issue that buyers are aware of (even if that alone doesn't make them react), could be that proverbial last straw that makes buyers say, "Enough already!"
-
I contribute to iStock for fun. My real job is Art Director at a Canadian Magazine. I'm starting to feel like I'm supporting a big corporation instead of the artists. After I burn up my last batch of credits, I'll be taking my business elsewhere. 85% percent is just too much profit IMO.
(http://blog.michaelericsson.com/history.png)
-
85% profit is not an accurate number. sigh. too bad, leaving takes away your support from many artists in fact.
-
I contribute to iStock for fun. My real job is Art Director at a Canadian Magazine. I'm starting to feel like I'm supporting a big corporation instead of the artists. After I burn up my last batch of credits, I'll be taking my business elsewhere. 85% percent is just too much profit IMO.
Thanks a lot Mericsso! Really appreciate your taking such a principled stand.
I am sure you will find what you need elsewhere, and probably cheaper too :)
-
I contribute to iStock for fun. My real job is Art Director at a Canadian Magazine. I'm starting to feel like I'm supporting a big corporation instead of the artists. After I burn up my last batch of credits, I'll be taking my business elsewhere. 85% percent is just too much profit IMO.
([url]http://blog.michaelericsson.com/history.png[/url])
Thanks for your support Mericsso, it's much appreciated!!!!!!!!!! Hopefully if more buyers make the same decision, IStock will reverse course.
-
I contribute to iStock for fun. My real job is Art Director at a Canadian Magazine. I'm starting to feel like I'm supporting a big corporation instead of the artists. After I burn up my last batch of credits, I'll be taking my business elsewhere. 85% percent is just too much profit IMO.
Thanks Michael! Great to see you here and your support is really appreciated.
If that post's not worth a 'heart' I don't know what is!
-
Yup, I'm downloading from Stockfresh now.. it's the only good alternative for me anyway.. but it feels good that there is an alternative with similar quality to istock, and better % for uploaders..
-
Just been posted in 'That thread' :) if you are gathering Quotes from Buyers
"Since 2006, i've spent over 7k with istock. Me and other art buyers are starting to realize this is like buying cloths made in China. I stock is like a third world county, where say Veer or Almay are thridworld too, but at least they are fair trade. I'm going to start buying photos from agencys that pay their continbutors more then 15%. Istock if you think this mess is just pissed off your contributors, think again. Art buyers have a conscience too"
Thanks a lot for posting Iclick. How nice of you to actually post ON TOPIC ;D
But here's the rub. Although we (including me) are all here complaining about being ripped off etc, and Iclick says it's like buying clothes made in China (so I trust you'll be moving to macro to buy your images), all of us (of course I'm including me) could be providing images which supply companies which source their goods from sweatshops, and there's nothing we can do about that other than don't upload anything (just about) anywhere.
A bit ironic, huh?
-
too bad, leaving takes away your support from many artists in fact.
He will support many other artists in fact, on the agencies where he will purchase images. And obviously better support than istock contributors will get.
Is it just me, or this whole istock fiasco is starting to create frictions between exclusives and independents? ::)
-
I contribute to iStock for fun. My real job is Art Director at a Canadian Magazine. I'm starting to feel like I'm supporting a big corporation instead of the artists. After I burn up my last batch of credits, I'll be taking my business elsewhere. 85% percent is just too much profit IMO.
Thanks a lot Mericsso! Really appreciate your taking such a principled stand.
I am sure you will find what you need elsewhere, and probably cheaper too :)
+1
-
85% profit is not an accurate number. sigh. too bad, leaving takes away your support from many artists in fact.
I give up
-
85% profit is not an accurate number. sigh. too bad, leaving takes away your support from many artists in fact.
The minority at iStock. And 85% is accurate for the majority.
Leaving supports more artists and in a greater way.
-
I contribute to iStock for fun. My real job is Art Director at a Canadian Magazine. I'm starting to feel like I'm supporting a big corporation instead of the artists. After I burn up my last batch of credits, I'll be taking my business elsewhere. 85% percent is just too much profit IMO.
([url]http://blog.michaelericsson.com/history.png[/url])
Excellent!
Just had lunch with VP of one of the top three online "travel" sites, went back to his office, and got him set up on a new stock site (I won't pimp it). He slapped the credit card down then and there. These guys spend a LOT of scratch on images, mostly EL's since they use them in print and television as well.
Rock On Garth!
-
I know 85% isn't an accurate number, it's just the angry number to throw around. It's very complex to try and figure out what they are really making as an average percentage based on the whole. I like the previous post where the guy touched on fair trade and china. I don't think what he was getting at was moving to macro. For me I have a freelancer, micro and macro budget. As an art buyer I do love iStock for my micro needs. It's priced right, and the content is good. "made in china" doesn't mean its bad. I have an iPhone thats made in China and its awesome! Since I've dipped into the stock world, I have a soft spot for it. I know how hard it is to make a go of it.
If I have say $2000.00 per year, and I spend all that at istock, its a safe bet that about 20-35% will go to the artists. So if I'm trying to support the artists first, I'm better to spend that money at stockfresh of another place where the contributor gets paid more.
In the coffee world, the farmers yelled and screamed for more money, but it wasn't until people started to realized the benefits of fair trade that the farmers started to get paid fairly for there work. Art buyers are mostly socially conscience people, I think the industry should start a movement for fair trade royalties. Maybe that just crazy I don't know, just trying help and give a different perspective.
-
Is it just me, or this whole istock fiasco is starting to create frictions between exclusives and independents?
Of course it has the potential to do so. An independents best interests are to tempt buyers to a site where they get the best price for their photos, an exclusive wants all buyers at iStock. If you're trying to take my income away I'm not happy. This is devisive, can't be anything but.
Two things lessen the friction, firstly I've had a good week on IS (I'm an exclusive) so buyers are buying and the more people leave the more likely it is that my work will get bought.
Now to act as devil's advocate, I could say that buyers are using their last credits and the crash will come, but to be honest I can't see 99.9% of buyers caring, or even knowing, or caring if they did know. Again I could be wrong and for the first time I am casting glimpses at other sites in case a dropping of exclusivity becomes finally necessary, but somehow I think it unlikely. The people i think will really suffer are those who give up IS exclusivity and try and achieve similar earning on other sites, starting from the bottom again.
-
Is it just me, or this whole istock fiasco is starting to create frictions between exclusives and independents?
Of course it has the potential to do so. An independents best interests are to tempt buyers to a site where they get the best price for their photos, an exclusive wants all buyers at iStock. If you're trying to take my income away I'm not happy. This is devisive, can't be anything but.
Two things lessen the friction, firstly I've had a good week on IS (I'm an exclusive) so buyers are buying and the more people leave the more likely it is that my work will get bought.
Now to act as devil's advocate, I could say that buyers are using their last credits and the crash will come, but to be honest I can't see 99.9% of buyers caring, or even knowing, or caring if they did know. Again I could be wrong and for the first time I am casting glimpses at other sites in case a dropping of exclusivity becomes finally necessary, but somehow I think it unlikely. The people i think will really suffer are those who give up IS exclusivity and try and achieve similar earning on other sites, starting from the bottom again.
Yes, that's why it is important for us independents to get the word out, it will be a prolonged effort, and is why it is so important for us to keep up the fight long term (unless IStock reverses this decision). I disagree with you on the part about not caring if they did know. I'm sure many would care knowing the most expensive site is also the same site who shafts its contributors with the lowest commissions.
-
I disagree with you on the part about not caring if they did know. I'm sure many would care knowing the most expensive site is also the same site who shafts its contributors with the lowest commissions.
So you would like me to lose sales, you'd like to shaft me? You'd like to take food out of my children's mouths? Where's the solidarity in that?
Are you actually an IS contributor? How long have you been there, how many sales?
-
Is it just me, or this whole istock fiasco is starting to create frictions between exclusives and independents?
Of course it has the potential to do so. An independents best interests are to tempt buyers to a site where they get the best price for their photos, an exclusive wants all buyers at iStock. If you're trying to take my income away I'm not happy. This is devisive, can't be anything but.
Two things lessen the friction, firstly I've had a good week on IS (I'm an exclusive) so buyers are buying and the more people leave the more likely it is that my work will get bought.
Now to act as devil's advocate, I could say that buyers are using their last credits and the crash will come, but to be honest I can't see 99.9% of buyers caring, or even knowing, or caring if they did know. Again I could be wrong and for the first time I am casting glimpses at other sites in case a dropping of exclusivity becomes finally necessary, but somehow I think it unlikely. The people i think will really suffer are those who give up IS exclusivity and try and achieve similar earning on other sites, starting from the bottom again.
I would think too, that dropping exclusivity for a long time contributor is not the way to go. Right now the market is oversaturated everywhere and also at all big 4 agencies long time contributors have a huge advantage in sales. Regardless portfolio quality, the guy who started in 2004 will make more than the guy who started in 2008. So that would mean dropping exclusivity is a no-go.
What I foresee when 2011 will come is a big drop in uploads by independents, and possibly many of their images removed.
-
So you would like me to lose sales, you'd like to shaft me? You'd like to take food out of my children's mouths?
iStock is doing all of those things to you starting January 1
-
So you would like me to lose sales, you'd like to shaft me? You'd like to take food out of my children's mouths?
iStock is doing all of those things to you starting January 1
^^^ Perfect, that's all the response needed right there
-
iStock is doing all of those things to you starting January 1
Perfect, that's all the response needed right there
Do you not understand the point I'm making?
-
What I foresee when 2011 will come is a big drop in uploads by independents, and possibly many of their images removed.
I believe it will not only be independants, with more and more divisions/collections being created within Exclusive Contributers there's a bigger pecking order there than Old Macdoanals Farm ;) and with the addition of the new outside collection many will make loose patience if they have not already
-
If I have say $2000.00 per year, and I spend all that at istock, its a safe bet that about 20-35% will go to the artists. So if I'm trying to support the artists first, I'm better to spend that money at stockfresh of another place where the contributor gets paid more.
At least for independents Istock has always been the place paying the lowest commissions. Many people accepted that due to their high sales volumes. But from a "fair trade" standpoint Istock has never been the perfect place to buy from.
But the really outrageous thing is that they now even want to lower the already lowest commission further.
I can only applaud you for your actions and for your motivation to do so. If enough buyers would follow, in the end a bigger part of the money spent ends up in artists' pockets, that can only be a positive move for the whole industry.
And, as you are referring to Stockfresh, there are more sites out there paying 50% or more to contributors:
Yaymicro, GraphicLeftovers, Clipdealer, Zoonar, The3dStudio, Alamy to mention the few that come to my mind.
Many of these are low earners for the most of us right now, but that doesn't mean they should stay unmentioned. They deserve our support as well.
In the coffee world, the farmers yelled and screamed for more money, but it wasn't until people started to realized the benefits of fair trade that the farmers started to get paid fairly for there work. Art buyers are mostly socially conscience people, I think the industry should start a movement for fair trade royalties. Maybe that just crazy I don't know, just trying help and give a different perspective.
I don't think that's crazy, a "fair trade seal" for stock sites has been discussed elsewhere on this board. I think it would be a good thing to have, but it will need work to get it going...
-
I am having trouble seeing why exclusives and independents should be working at cross purposes here. This time around exclusives are taking their hits right along with independents.
It is in the interest of BOTH groups of sellers to stop istock gauging contributors this way. We may differ in how we want to address the problem, but it's really surprising to me that both sides are having trouble even agreeing there IS a problem ???
It's the same old "divide and conquer".
-
What I foresee when 2011 will come is a big drop in uploads by independents, and possibly many of their images removed.
I believe it will not only be independants, with more and more divisions/collections being created within Exclusive Contributers there' a bigger pecking order there than Old Macdoanals Farm ;) and with the addition of the new outside collection many will make loose patience if they have not already
^^ I agree and if ThinkStock is not a wake up call, I don't know what is. One only has to do a quick search over there to see where things are headed. I do believe IStock has a exclusive "list" of contributors they will make sure are taken care of. It only makes sense, most companies identify their top talent, the ones they can't afford to lose and they're the ones who get the perks. I feel bad for those not on that list.
Also, do think it is a coincidence the site was re-designed right before this announcement. Think about it.
-
...Art buyers are mostly socially conscience people, I think the industry should start a movement for fair trade royalties. Maybe that just crazy I don't know, just trying help and give a different perspective.
That would be great. If buyers and contributors got together, we would all be better off. There are sites that pay us more and charge you less. They also listen to us and don't have shareholders and hedge funds taking all their profits and demanding more each year.
-
It's the same old "divide and conquer".
Of course, and there's always someone who'll step in and take the place of someone who steps down. It's a hungry world out there. I know of one exclusive who gave up her exclusivity. She is now back in the IS fold, 9 months and considerably poorer later. Nobody who is a good seller on IS now is going to give up exclusivity unless they are completely mad.
-
It's the same old "divide and conquer".
Of course, and there's always someone who'll step in and take the place of someone who steps down. It's a hungry world out there. I know of one exclusive who gave up her exclusivity. She is now back in the IS fold, 9 months and considerably poorer later. Nobody who is a good seller on IS now is going to give up exclusivity unless they are completely mad.
I dont know if I'd be considered a "good seller" or not at iS, but I must be completely mad. I'll be cancelling my exclusivity at istock this weekend and starting the 30 day countdown. I think I can get a good start at a few other agencies with the port I have and port I'm building. I'll let you know in 9 months how I'm doing as an independent. :)
-
85% profit is not an accurate number. sigh. too bad, leaving takes away your support from many artists in fact.
leaving gives more to the artists. There are some great exclusives but go back through the istock forums, take the view you are an independant and see the snide, derogatory remarks about the independants. 6 indys for each excl, but on the forum it's about 1 to 20 the other way.
personally yaymicro are now offering 20% for referrals thats more than istock are offering me for my own sales.
I'm still yet to see a good reason to support istock in all this.
istock will increase marketing to compensate for royalty loss (yeah right), but that is stealing my customers from other sites where I earn more. Thinkstock was created to go after SS, where I earn more. They get applauded for it, but we get critisiced?
-
I'll let you know in 9 months how I'm doing as an independent.
Well I wish you luck and hope it's good new to report. I'd like to know how you get on and would be more than happy if it's a success, it will give hope to everyone.
-
Seems that some of the buyers really have relocated. Since there has been a big push to get them to try out Stockfresh, I find it interesting that I have had more sales at SF the past three days than I did the previous 6 weeks my portfolio was up there.
Hard to imagine this is just a coincidence.
-
WOW, the Agency collection is already hitting iStock. Remember how it wasn't supposed to have things on par with iStock's current collection? Check this one out, and note the prices:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241845-woman-reading-airplane-ticket-outside-of-airport.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241845-woman-reading-airplane-ticket-outside-of-airport.php)
A bunch of images from this photographer just moved through the queue, and I haven't seen much that I would think would qualify for Vetta, let alone a higher price point. Note the new Vetta pricing tops out at 150, this one is 200 just for XXL.
The new 'The Agency' contributor's portfolio link doesn't work yet because the images haven't been indexed. Guess we will find out tomorrow or the day after just how they will fall into the search rankings.
Poor, poor buyers. These are the 'top images' that will be bumped even higher than Vetta in the search results.
-
Here are two more:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241908-man-holding-gift.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241908-man-holding-gift.php)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14156766-beautiful-young-woman-with-shopping-bags.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14156766-beautiful-young-woman-with-shopping-bags.php)
OMG iStock, this is what you are pinning your future one?
-
look at the keywording of the airline ticket one
-
Yup, I'm downloading from Stockfresh now.. it's the only good alternative for me anyway.. but it feels good that there is an alternative with similar quality to istock, and better % for uploaders..
Thanks Hilary!
-
Another buyer bailing, in case anyone misses it. I think the crap storm is going to hit hurricane force here again soon after a slight reduction to a tropical storm over the past couple days.
I think more painful than the changes themselves was how iSP has tried to pull one over on people by:
- Making the explanation of the changes as confusing as possible (read the original thread)
- Including only positivity in the announcement of the changes, including saying things like most people would not receive less commission, which as evidenced by the vast amount of negative replies, is clearly false.
- Sticking with said positivity in their 2nd thread after a sea of negative response
- Creating this "look what we've done for you people" thread to pat themselves on the back while urging contributors to let their royalty rates get raped.
- Not maintaining a dialogue with this sentiment from their contributors throughout this debacle.
I am not a contributor...I merely came here to buy stock photos, and have spent a decent amount of money here over the past few years. I have never boycotted a business in my entirely life before now. Congratulations, iSP...you are the first! How's it feel to be #1?
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4734982 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4734982)
-
I contribute to iStock for fun. My real job is Art Director at a Canadian Magazine. I'm starting to feel like I'm supporting a big corporation instead of the artists. After I burn up my last batch of credits, I'll be taking my business elsewhere. 85% percent is just too much profit IMO.
Thanks a lot Mericsso! Really appreciate your taking such a principled stand.
I am sure you will find what you need elsewhere, and probably cheaper too :)
Ditto, thanks for the support, it is most appreciated!
-
Another buyer bailing, in case anyone misses it. I think the crap storm is going to hit hurricane force here again soon after a slight reduction to a tropical storm over the past couple days.
I think more painful than the changes themselves was how iSP has tried to pull one over on people by:
- Making the explanation of the changes as confusing as possible (read the original thread)
- Including only positivity in the announcement of the changes, including saying things like most people would not receive less commission, which as evidenced by the vast amount of negative replies, is clearly false.
- Sticking with said positivity in their 2nd thread after a sea of negative response
- Creating this "look what we've done for you people" thread to pat themselves on the back while urging contributors to let their royalty rates get raped.
- Not maintaining a dialogue with this sentiment from their contributors throughout this debacle.
I am not a contributor...I merely came here to buy stock photos, and have spent a decent amount of money here over the past few years. I have never boycotted a business in my entirely life before now. Congratulations, iSP...you are the first! How's it feel to be #1?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4734982[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4734982[/url])
Excellent! I hope you are right about the hurricane and crap storm.
-
The initial royalty reduction announcement was handled incredibly poorly, but I think this Agency rollout might trump even that. All I can say is wow to what I'm witnessing. I really didn't think things could get much lower. I bet vector artists are on the edges of their seats to hear what their "good news" is going to be.
-
Although its been said many times already, I just have to add: Wow.
As a partner/creative director at a web design firm, I've used and steered numerous client to istock for years. I just added up our invoices and we've spent over $6000 here in the past few years.
However, once our credits run out, we will no longer purchase from istock or any other getty sites. It is insane how the contributors here are being treated, and I cannot in good conscious support a company that abuses its suppliers in these manners.
I urge you all to remember that you have a choice; creating thousands of posts is a good way to let of some steam, but I'd encourage you to spend that effort moving your content to other sites, of which I hope to see and buy your work.
Change, take action, send a message.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255782&messageid=4742382 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255782&messageid=4742382)
-
Here are two more:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241908-man-holding-gift.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241908-man-holding-gift.php[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14156766-beautiful-young-woman-with-shopping-bags.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14156766-beautiful-young-woman-with-shopping-bags.php[/url])
OMG iStock, this is what you are pinning your future one?
Proves what I've been saying for years - we at istock are already beating the pants off Getty in the quality department. Sure there's a lot of lower-end stuff to wade through, but that's a small price to pay to avoid having to spend $300 on a single photo, and you can usually find a better quality one to boot.
-
Here are two more:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241908-man-holding-gift.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241908-man-holding-gift.php[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14156766-beautiful-young-woman-with-shopping-bags.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14156766-beautiful-young-woman-with-shopping-bags.php[/url])
OMG iStock, this is what you are pinning your future one?
Hahaha, how lame ;D
The one with the woman looks like at least one of the strobes didn't fired :P
-
Just added the last four comments posted in here. I've been busy with a client the last couple of days and I'm finding it hard to keep track of all the relevant buyer comments. Probably missed a lot already.
But please, keep them coming. Post it in here whenever you see one.
-
This one just now in the "We the undersigned vote of no confidence" thread Lisa
Quote: "name removed Contributer and buyer (2800 files purchased so far)"
-
I just got a mail from a friend who always purchased his pictures here, saying that he've had enough and will go elsewhere next time.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4746452 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4746452)
-
Thanks a lot Carolynne, for posting these! You deserve credit as both and ethical buyer and as someone who has always advocated for fairness for both buyers and sellers.
Thanks, Thomas for keeping your post updated. Glad you were able to get away for a couple of days and get some real work done. More than I have managed since this fiasco started....
And yeah, those Agency images are just horrible. Complete embarrassment. The buyers that don't know or care about the contributor situation will surely start leaving when they see that crap cluttering up the searches :P
-
Thanks, Thomas for keeping your post updated. Glad you were able to get away for a couple of days and get some real work done. More than I have managed since this fiasco started....
Believe me, it was a big struggle to get started but we agreed upon a deadline before all of this mess. I even had to postpone it with three days and give a discount because my thoughts were elsewhere (and still are)
-
85% profit is not an accurate number. sigh. too bad, leaving takes away your support from many artists in fact.
You're right it's not. I assume IS has some average that they are trying to achieve. My guess would be somewhere between 20-25%. I assume if enough independents leave to mess up their ratio, they'll have to come back and lower exclusives' portion again. Whatever that target number is somebody has to suffer to help them hit it. Right now, it's mostly independents, but exclusives may have to carry the weight in the future.
-
Another buyer leaving, posted here in the Istock thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4746452 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4746452)
-
They're offering 10% off prices for minimum 50 credit packs for the next week as an apology for today's outage. Is that normal? Or is it a sign of other concerns?
-
They're offering 10% off prices for minimum 50 credit packs for the next week as an apology for today's outage. Is that normal? Or is it a sign of other concerns?
You bet it is!
But of course what concerns me is that this is a discount we contributors will be paying for. Once again we get to eat Istock's mistakes.
-
Once again we get to eat Istock's mistakes.
Istock? Mistakes? When?
-
They're offering 10% off prices for minimum 50 credit packs for the next week as an apology for today's outage. Is that normal? Or is it a sign of other concerns?
If you read the fine print, that expired in July...or was there yet another outage where they changed the message, because this is the one I saw: To reward your patience, get 15% off your next purchase of 50 credits or more next time you visit by using promo code UPGRADE. But use it fast — it's only good for a little while (offer expires July 10, 2010).
In other news, I was just discussing stock photos with a colleague and told her I am phasing out iStock as my stock site and gave her the names a couple other sites. She said she did not know they existed, but was relieved to know there are others out there, because she is seeing all the Vetta images and was beginning to get outraged about the prices. And then I told her about the commission fiasco and she was appalled. She is no longer going to be shopping at iStock.
-
They're offering 10% off prices for minimum 50 credit packs for the next week as an apology for today's outage. Is that normal? Or is it a sign of other concerns?
If you read the fine print, that expired in July...or was there yet another outage where they changed the message, because this is the one I saw: To reward your patience, get 15% off your next purchase of 50 credits or more next time you visit by using promo code UPGRADE. But use it fast — it's only good for a little while (offer expires July 10, 2010).
In other news, I was just discussing stock photos with a colleague and told her I am phasing out iStock as my stock site and gave her the names a couple other sites. She said she did not know they existed, but was relieved to know there are others out there, because she is seeing all the Vetta images and was beginning to get outraged about the prices. And then I told her about the commission fiasco and she was appalled. She is no longer going to be shopping at iStock.
^^ Great news, thanks for the support. That is the only way things are going to change.... with the customers
-
They're offering 10% off prices for minimum 50 credit packs for the next week as an apology for today's outage. Is that normal? Or is it a sign of other concerns?
If you read the fine print, that expired in July...or was there yet another outage where they changed the message, because this is the one I saw: To reward your patience, get 15% off your next purchase of 50 credits or more next time you visit by using promo code UPGRADE. But use it fast — it's only good for a little while (offer expires July 10, 2010).
In other news, I was just discussing stock photos with a colleague and told her I am phasing out iStock as my stock site and gave her the names a couple other sites. She said she did not know they existed, but was relieved to know there are others out there, because she is seeing all the Vetta images and was beginning to get outraged about the prices. And then I told her about the commission fiasco and she was appalled. She is no longer going to be shopping at iStock.
^^ Great news, thanks for the support. That is the only way things are going to change.... with the customers
they actually tweeted the discount offer- use code REDEEM10 for 10% off credit packs of 50 or more (for one week only). so that July one is different. wonder what contributors get as a "gift" for the outage... oh wait.. nevermind.
-
they actually tweeted the discount offer- use code REDEEM10 for 10% off credit packs of 50 or more (for one week only). so that July one is different. wonder what contributors get as a "gift" for the outage... oh wait.. nevermind.
Well that explains it. I don't follow iStock twitter...or any twitter for that matter. :D Doesn't really matter for me though, as I will not be buying a 50 credit pack there.
-
They're offering 10% off prices for minimum 50 credit packs for the next week as an apology for today's outage. Is that normal? Or is it a sign of other concerns?
If you read the fine print, that expired in July...or was there yet another outage where they changed the message, because this is the one I saw: To reward your patience, get 15% off your next purchase of 50 credits or more next time you visit by using promo code UPGRADE. But use it fast — it's only good for a little while (offer expires July 10, 2010).
No, they have just sent new 10% offers out to customers. It's not the old message.
-
they actually tweeted the discount offer- use code REDEEM10 for 10% off credit packs of 50 or more (for one week only). so that July one is different. wonder what contributors get as a "gift" for the outage... oh wait.. nevermind.
Well that explains it. I don't follow iStock twitter...or any twitter for that matter. :D Doesn't really matter for me though, as I will not be buying a 50 credit pack there.
so... where are you buying credits from these days? (am I allowed to ask that? okay if you prefer to keep that to yourself, of course). I'm working on building ports elsewhere soon as my exclusivity contract is canceled. :)
-
....I'm working on building ports elsewhere soon as my exclusivity contract is canceled. :)
My advice would be to put your portfolio on lots of sites, try the top 10 in the earnings poll here first and if you get sales with them, try some more. Don't bother with crestock though, most people have very high rejections there and mostly $0.25 subs sales.
-
At this point I think the best thing everyone can hope for is that iStock decides to hire a proper PR firm to try and clean up the PR disaster started by Kelly.
Sounds like the way BP handled the oil spill or the pope took care of the child abuse scandal in the church. :P
-
My advice would be to put your portfolio on lots of sites, try the top 10 in the earnings poll here first and if you get sales with them, try some more. Don't bother with crestock though, most people have very high rejections there and mostly $0.25 subs sales.
Over time, it might be best to upload to lots of sites. I am currently on 10. But since 90% of my earnings come from the big four, it may be a more realistic goal for departing Istock exclusives to just focus on getting their portfolios on FT, DT, and SS. Once they are getting steady earnings there, then they would have time to explore the other sites.
-
Over time, it might be best to upload to lots of sites. I am currently on 10. But since 90% of my earnings come from the big four, it may be a more realistic goal for departing Istock exclusives to just focus on getting their portfolios on FT, DT, and SS. Once they are getting steady earnings there, then they would have time to explore the other sites.
It might be a good idea to support those sites that actually pay fair commissions as well (if time permits), even if they currently don't provide a big portion of sales. If they don't have our portfolios, they never will be big sellers - and the other big sites will have it easier following Istock and lowering our commissions.
Some of those agencies have been listed here (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/fair-trade-logo/).
-
My advice would be to put your portfolio on lots of sites, try the top 10 in the earnings poll here first and if you get sales with them, try some more. Don't bother with crestock though, most people have very high rejections there and mostly $0.25 subs sales.
Over time, it might be best to upload to lots of sites. I am currently on 10. But since 90% of my earnings come from the big four, it may be a more realistic goal for departing Istock exclusives to just focus on getting their portfolios on FT, DT, and SS. Once they are getting steady earnings there, then they would have time to explore the other sites.
Thanks for the tips. I'm planning to start with the Big Four plus StockFresh. I may test the water on other sites after the first of the year.
-
At this point I think the best thing everyone can hope for is that iStock decides to hire a proper PR firm to try and clean up the PR disaster started by Kelly.
Sounds like the way BP handled the oil spill or the pope took care of the child abuse scandal in the church. :P
I absolutely do NOT want a PR spin. I want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
But I'm almost certainly whistling down the wind.
-
they actually tweeted the discount offer- use code REDEEM10 for 10% off credit packs of 50 or more (for one week only). so that July one is different. wonder what contributors get as a "gift" for the outage... oh wait.. nevermind.
Well that explains it. I don't follow iStock twitter...or any twitter for that matter. :D Doesn't really matter for me though, as I will not be buying a 50 credit pack there.
so... where are you buying credits from these days? (am I allowed to ask that? okay if you prefer to keep that to yourself, of course). I'm working on building ports elsewhere soon as my exclusivity contract is canceled. :)
At the moment, Dreamstime and StockFresh are the ones I am going to focus on. I like their lower priced credit packages, because I just don't have the purchasing power to plunk down a lot of money at this time. I also liked the quality of images I was seeing on ShutterStock, but I do not want to sign up for a subscription plan, I just don't buy enough images to justify that cost and their "OnDemand" pricing is still a little rich for my blood.
I am still a pretty small buyer, but I am hoping that business will continue to pick up for me.
-
Conveniently, I happen to have both a dreamstime and stockfresh account, :) so this is good news for me.
-
they actually tweeted the discount offer- use code REDEEM10 for 10% off credit packs of 50 or more (for one week only). so that July one is different. wonder what contributors get as a "gift" for the outage... oh wait.. nevermind.
Well that explains it. I don't follow iStock twitter...or any twitter for that matter. :D Doesn't really matter for me though, as I will not be buying a 50 credit pack there.
so... where are you buying credits from these days? (am I allowed to ask that? okay if you prefer to keep that to yourself, of course). I'm working on building ports elsewhere soon as my exclusivity contract is canceled. :)
At the moment, Dreamstime and StockFresh are the ones I am going to focus on. I like their lower priced credit packages, because I just don't have the purchasing power to plunk down a lot of money at this time. I also liked the quality of images I was seeing on ShutterStock, but I do not want to sign up for a subscription plan, I just don't buy enough images to justify that cost and their "OnDemand" pricing is still a little rich for my blood.
I am still a pretty small buyer, but I am hoping that business will continue to pick up for me.
my wife buys the odd image (about 1-2 month), we have credits at dt, ft and is which is a pain. now she buys at canstock, becuase they are cheap and you can transfer credits at any amount, so she just transfers 2 credits from earnings when she needs it and grabs her small image. I'm not being real clear sorry, but for contributor and buyer it's nice and might be worth a look.
-
The problem with stockfresh is that most would-be contributors are locked out of it because they can't cope with the numbers. Or maybe they secretly want an elite site, which would make sense.
-
^^^I'm sure it's just to keep costs to a minimum, can't be elite if I'm in it :) It would be crazy to invest heavily in a new microstock site when you see how well all the new ones have done recently. It would also be really bad if they were swamped with images and had lots of IT problems, building it up slowly is much easier.
-
^^^I'm sure it's just to keep costs to a minimum, can't be elite if I'm in it :) It would be crazy to invest heavily in a new microstock site when you see how well all the new ones have done recently. It would also be really bad if they were swamped with images and had lots of IT problems, building it up slowly is much easier.
On the other hand, achieving an impact on the market requires a large collection and their main cost should be advertising. Slowly-slowly is not the way to catch the leaders.
-
Well,that depends partly on whether the leaders trip and fall on their faces and their pocket change falls out and lands in your pocket. Improbable? Yes. Impossible? No.
-
My sales are horrible this week. I think damage to the company has been done.
-
Because many of us use corporate accounts to buy images, I think istock has underestimated the number of contributors who are also buyers.
I am a buyer and a contributor and I know that in the grand scheme of things, I don't amount to even a blip on their radar screen. I have less than 500 images in my portfolio, so when I gave back my crown last year, they didn't care. I have a portfolio with both illustrations and photos, so I'm certainly destined for the lowest bracket since my redeemed credits will be split between the two media, and illustrators have to achieve levels twice that of photographers, so they clearly don't care about that either.
I'll admit to being guilty of complacency over the past year. I gave back my crown on principle, but I've continued to spend my dollars there, even if not as many as I once did. I made many excuses: It was too easy to convert my earnings to credits as I went along. I was familiar with the search engine, and often times was on a tight deadline and didn't want to take the extra time to search elsewhere and have to pay out of pocket for credits. But no more. I have some projects for which I've already done mock-ups using exclusive images. Once those are purchased, I will no longer be spending my earnings for credits.
Maybe my tiny portfolio and the 1000 images I've purchased from istock aren't important to them, but I wonder how many other "insignificant" buyers are out there in the istock fold.
-
Maybe my tiny portfolio and the 1000 images I've purchased from istock aren't important to them, but I wonder how many other "insignificant" buyers are out there in the istock fold.
It was all those "insignificant" buyers that turned iStock into a multi-million dollar company. I think iStock/Getty takes that for granted these days. Enough of them leave and the impact will be felt.
-
It was all those "insignificant" buyers that turned iStock into a multi-million dollar company. I think iStock/Getty takes that for granted these days. Enough of them leave and the impact will be felt.
Exactly. Isn't it the nature of design as a profession that many who do it are either self-employed or work for small outfits? I'd say individual designers are a core market and en masse become highly significant.
-
Maybe my tiny portfolio and the 1000 images I've purchased from istock aren't important to them, but I wonder how many other "insignificant" buyers are out there in the istock fold.
I think any business is making a big mistake when they consider any buyer insignificant. Hope you are able to find what you need elsewhere. :)
-
My sales are horrible this week. I think damage to the company has been done.
Something has definitely changed, at least for me. The last 4 months have been one BME after another . . . until "the announcement". Since then only one sale, slow is an understatement.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...)
-
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. ;)
-
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 (http://[url)[/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?
-
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.
-
...
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...?
-
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.
-
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 (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).
-
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.
-
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 don’t find what I need searching for an image.
-
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 don’t 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
^^^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.
-
^^^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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I am now the 39th person ignoring molka :)
-
Looks like I hit the nail on the head again : )
-
MORTON
I'm listening but not hearing much.
Admins, check how much i spend here. And I'm only here because I was referred by a contributor who I'm very fond of. Out of respect for that contributor, and others I am actively looking elsewhere for my images.
I'm sure Getty don't need my money anyway. You have now placed Vetta out of my reach. The agency collection doesn't interest me at all and you are constantly trying to get me to Thinkstock. If I'm looking for a subs package I've found a better deal on another site outside of the Getty empire.
Contributors. It's a big step but you need to get together, take your content and your ethics and reasonable prices and royalties and start up again. Designers will follow. Designers are cool. iStock was cool, Getty isn't.
What a rotten way to treat people.
LIZZIELOU (buyer who has spent more than $10000 over the last five years, documented with a screenshot)
I'll have to go where the images go. I believe this will have to start with the big contributers moving, buyers following then the smaller conrtibutors follow. but in support I will try to shop elsewhere before here especially if the artist is not wearing a crown (which is looking more like a dunce hat)
POLEKSPRESS (member since 2005)
I will never buy credits from Istock again!!!!!!!!!
ABDESIGN
I am the art director for a company who has purchased close to 2500 images here at istock. We will never again purchase images from here. In fact, is there a way to get your current credits refunded. I will be throwing away my crown before the end of the year and moving on. This place disgusts me.
SDbT
In protest ... I just used up the last of my credits and will not purchase further content at iStock until this situation is resolved.
MORTMATCH (corporate master)
I'm a pissed-off buyer. Microstock is cheap to begin with. Giving contributors less of a piece of the pie -- and I pity the non-exclusives taking such a hit as well as the exclusives who bought in to the promise of rewards for selling only to iStock customers -- is beyond greedy and mean-spririted. It's sweatshop labor. Hear that, iStock? S-W-E-A-T-S-H-O-P. I'm disgusted.
A couple of months ago, I had my company open a corporate account for thousands of dollars. And I can change that.
By the way, let me take a crack at running your business. I think I can make those margins sustainable without screwing your artists. I really think I can. How hard can it be to make something profitable when you're raking in 70 percent of the income of a product you don't even make?
anonymous
Photography is a "hobby" for me and my tiny little port of 250 images at IS will not sway their decision, my REAL job is creative director for fortune 1000 co.
Not only do you have my support in no longer purchasing from IS (have about 50 credits that I'll spend this weekend so that some of you can get your 20% - and I'll buy nothing with a crown : P ), but I'm pulling my port as well. It's only worth about $500 per year, but I'll feel better about myself. We also have monthly "designer meetings" (people from area design companies get together to suck down scotch and crab cakes) and I will take my 10 minutes of speech time to make sure that they're at least aware of this.
It's unfortunate that Wall-St found its way into MS
added: and even if all of this gets IS to modify or completely drop this plan, I'm done with them.
GBALEX
I have worked in the advertising industry for years and our clients are mainly medium to small local businesses and a few large local corporations. I became a submitter in early 2004 to and thought seriously about quitting my job to develop a port large enough to live on.
I decided against it because I was afraid that it would end this way. I worried about the # of images flooding the market to the extent our work would be devalued. The writing was on the wall as you started seeing photographers who used to make decent money producing stock start offering workshops and frequenting micro forums to scare up customers simply because the money they made teaching others to produce stock is better than the money they made producing stock content themselves.
The end result has been many more submitters with LCV work burying images that we as buyers actually need for our projects. Those submitters would never have made the cut if they had not been coached and most will never produce the type of work that most agencies and their clients need.
Besides being a buyer of images I know many submitters who have worked long and hard to provide a good living for themselves and I do not take the moves that IS has made lightly! I think IS has forgotten that a great many buyers are also submitters and that as creative's we have respect and empathy for each other.
Micro does need to make changes, however I will not be supporting IS any longer. Even before this move I have been buying my images more and more from sites who support photographers, graphic artists, video & audio producers.
With this move I have discussed this with my co workers and we have decided to no longer buy our content from IS.
I don't see things improving any day soon unless sites make moves to reduce LCV work, improve search engines and also raise prices for the end product. That is hard right now because advertising in general has dropped because of the global recession.
I will encourage other buyers to examine how IS has treated its content providers and I will encourage them to seek other options. Our company will no longer be buying IS content!
cameronpashak
I have continued to be a loyal customer and will buy an image that might not be the best out of all the ones i also found on other sites but still have bought it just because. If this goes thru, I will look at things for a year or so as a contributor. If I do worse next year under this structure, then i will look at my options as i can't really afford the time to upload to other sites at this moment.
But I can assure you the 60% of my earnings that i spend here buying images will definitely be spent somewhere else from the moment this is confirmed. I know that sounds crazy and not fair to our contributors but this is out of principle. If HF want to milk me of my continued hard work....they aint getting one bit of it back in the form of me buying images and I have the assurance of 3 other designer friends (none of which are contributors) of mine they are going to do the same as they see how hard outside of my regular work contributing images to istock.
Full post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4626002[/url])
ForwardDesign
While having been a $1000 - $1400 per year "buyer" at Istockphoto, I'm rather surprised by their indifference to their contributors. We seem to live in a day and age where corporate greed is king. At our 10:00am meeting tomorrow, I will bring this up to our design staff and see if they know of an image source that plays more fairly at the schoolyard. After reading the forum posts, I have to agree that there is a serious difference in the mathematical understanding and a rather callus response from Istockphoto staff. It's likely that somebody upstairs desires a larger paycheck and/or they're jockeying to sell.
CNET ([url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20015830-264.html#ixzz0z4KodWD7[/url])
leremy
I am a contributor and also a buyer at istock. I still have 26 credit. I have so far only buy images from istock (I had spent about usd500 so far since 1 year ago), and with this recent development that really irritate me, I will definitely not buy anymore credits from istock. Yes, there are plenty other agencies out there that I can buy pictures from. Just a side note, one of them has helped me in making 6x times more money than what I have made here. The more I think of it, the more it make sense for me to buy elsewhere. [...]
Full post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4645982[/url])
dsteller
[...]I am a contributor and I am a buyer. I am not big in either, but my 2000+ purchases are significant to me. It is sad for me to say but I am going to be purchasing elsewhere from here on out. [...]
Full post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4658722[/url])
caspixel
[...]As a buyer, I am very excited to see some new fresh content at some other sites. You guys provide great content. The best, really. Time to share.
Full post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4661252[/url])
anthony_taylor
As the library depletes, so will the custom. As a contibutor I'm being forced out. As a designer and buyer of images for national retail chain here in the UK I'll be taking my company's business elsewhere.
Full post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4668702[/url])
emrah
[...]I'm definitely not buying any photos and stupid announcements of istock any more
Full post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4669632[/url])
GeoffBlack
I will no longer buy here.
Full post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4656272[/url])
Jancouver
[...]BTW. I also bought 440 files from iStock for our projects but I will NOT buy a single file again from iStock!
Full post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4656922[/url])
ChrisGorgio
Shame on you for treating your long-standing contributors this way. Especially non exclusives who will be dropping to a base rate of 15%. If I'm not mistaken the lowest commission in the industry.
I will no longer be buying here or recommending the site to others.
Unbelievably greedy and ungrateful. Shame
Full post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=251812&messageid=4554592[/url])
Anja_Kaiser
If these changes should actually take effect, I'm going to delete my entire portfolio on new year's eve. *NOONE* will take up to 85% of what *my* work earns. I was almost about to reach the golden canister level and now it's for the trashbin? Plus a huge pay-cut? Plus a slap in my face? NO. Enough is enough. I'll lose about $400 to 500 a month (still), but my pride's worth something, too. iStock will lose me as a contributor and a buyer as well. The whole thing is blatantly barefaced and respectless.
Full post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=251812&messageid=4565412[/url])
JDehoff
I don't upload photos or illustrations of my own, so this does not effect me the same way. However, I have been downloading images to use in design projects from istock for years. The rates for images continue to go up each time I need to buy credits. I thought this would go to overhead and the artists. And now you're giving the artists I depend on a paycut? It seems like you're collecting more from both sides. Has someone gotten greedier?
The allure to istockphoto was that istock was NOT Getty images. I am saddened that istock has chosen to sell out and has opted to grow too large to maintain what made them unique in the first place. Change is only good if you don't lose the core of what made you good to begin with.
I guess I will increase my patronage to other, "smaller" stock image sites in the future in order to support the artists, instead of a corporation. Very disappointing istock.
Full post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=251812&messageid=4578262[/url])
ktasos
I deactivated my second file!!! I have nothing to loose as a non-exclusive contributor.I think if the things remain the same i will delete my entire portfolio soon... plus i will never buy not a single $ from this place anymore
Full post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=251812&messageid=4579722[/url])
Lazyfish
[...]But as a buyer i'm pissed off. I spend several thousand dollars on here every year through my corporate name, and i did that percisely because you guys were not getty. i liked the iStock model and always felt i was helping the little guy with the money my design agency makes. My business partner and I will have to re-evaluate were we spend our money now. I don't feel right giving it to you.
I feel sorry for people making their living on here. Good luck to you all!
Full post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=251812&messageid=4581262[/url])
anonymous
I had dinner tonight with the two people with whom I built the redacted. The artist/co-designer is currently working on an independent film and was shocked when I told him what IS are currently doing - he said that he's spent around $2,000 in the last month at IS on images and videos, and he will no longer buy there.
Full post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4675472#post4675472[/url])
acromedia
Although its been said many times already, I just have to add: Wow.
As a partner/creative director at a web design firm, I've used and steered numerous client to istock for years. I just added up our invoices and we've spent over $6000 here in the past few years.
However, once our credits run out, we will no longer purchase from istock or any other getty sites. It is insane how the contributors here are being treated, and I cannot in good conscious support a company that abuses its suppliers in these manners.
I urge you all to remember that you have a choice; creating thousands of posts is a good way to let of some steam, but I'd encourage you to spend that effort moving your content to other sites, of which I hope to see and buy your work.
Change, take action, send a message.
Full post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255782&messageid=4742382[/url])
Crooky0
[...]I am not a contributor...I merely came here to buy stock photos, and have spent a decent amount of money here over the past few years. I have never boycotted a business in my entirely life before now. Congratulations, iSP...you are the first! How's it feel to be #1?
Full post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4734982[/url])
mericsso
I contribute to iStock for fun. My real job is Art Director at a Canadian Magazine. I'm starting to feel like I'm supporting a big corporation instead of the artists. After I burn up my last batch of credits, I'll be taking my business elsewhere. 85% percent is just too much profit IMO.
Full post ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/buyers-bailing-on-istock/175/[/url])
hqimages
Yup, I'm downloading from Stockfresh now.. it's the only good alternative for me anyway.. but it feels good that there is an alternative with similar quality to istock, and better % for uploaders..
Full post ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/buyers-bailing-on-istock/200/[/url])
luriete
(I'm a photographer, and a client who buys usually 750 credits a year - we'll switch to someone else on that front and ask other agencies we work with to do the same)
Full post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382&messageid=4733342[/url])
The problem is that there are no reasonably big numbers showing. I used Istock for about 2,5 half years working for a BTL agency. It wasn' big, wasn't small either, but very busy. I was in very good termns with the owners, and the one doing the finances told me that we used (7th month) more than 2,5 million HUF for buying stock, which is about 13 000 dollars... and that was only a mid sized agency.
-
From the designers who I personally know, they still consider Istock the best.
From a contributor's perspective, in all fairness, Vetta, Agency Collection and E+ give me a sense that I can grow into higher end of photography and will not stay at micro level forever, if I improve my work. If the buyers cannot afford the higher end prices, they still have Thinkstock (and perhaps Dollar Bin) to shop from.
-
and I'll buy nothing with a crown : P
Why is that? What have exclusive contributors done to earn your wrath? In some ways, we are hurt more by this move than independents. Of course, it's your decision, and your money. I'm just curious why you feel that way.
Well - when some one pissis on me I for one Piss back.
Beisides - you should thank us, while on your knees whining. Hurting IS on the wallet, is the only thing that can bring the silly management at IS to the negosiationg table. The independents leaving, and taking their businnes and clients with them, is "money talks".
Remeber - there are 80%+ non ex. on IS.
Perhaps you should make sure you know who pissed on you before you piss back?
But I'm not going to contribute to this stupid argument any longer; I agree with those that say it's counterproductive. We are all getting screwed by Getty -- that's the part to focus on.
It's beacuse you don't get it. IS will keep changing goals until all exclusives are down to the standard Getty 20% royalty. You wil get F* over, and over, and over again.
The only way to get Getty to the negociating table, it to give them a hit on the wallet - i.e. IS sales. This is what the independents are doing for you. We are trying to save your asses. At the same time we free ourselves from the tyranny of Getty by taking our pics, our clients, and our DL's to other sites.
Wake up - wipe the cloth of IS sweettalk from your eyes....
why . do you ppl think it's just getty being The Bad Guy here? I even heard laughable crap like how Istuck used to be a nice communinty site.. yeh, for a few months in 2004 or smthng like that, I guess. The site has been around for more than 5 years, and in all that time they developed these rich features for contributors:
1. a single file upload button : )))
2. their very own village idiot running auroud in their forums insulting and mocking the the ppl who actually work for his pay, STFU-ing them by bans and locked threads if they wanted to discuss anything more serious then what they would like to have for next lunch.
3. random rejections from maltrained granpas pretending to be quality controllers.
They have been treating you like turds for years with or without getty... and getty's low commision were at least on several times higher prices.
-
If the buyers cannot afford the higher end prices, they still have Thinkstock (and perhaps Dollar Bin) to shop from.
heh heh...yeah...THAT's the ticket ::)
-
I posted this under the" Istock changing royality structure" and thought I'd post it here as well since it does really have to do with buyers
I noticed an ad on my opening e-mail page for Istock....it says:
"WE MISS YOU...you know you want royalty-free images and videos for $1.....get 10% off and 10 free images"
Recon they really MISS their buyers..
-
Well, that same email was sent many times over the years, I don't think it's due to some drop in revenue. For me every month is better than the previous, so people are still buying. I'm as upset about the changes in royalty amounts as anyone, but just bad mouthing and trying to start panic isn't the answer. As much as we would like to think buyers would go elsewhere because IS doesn't pay contributors enough it's not going to happen.
I posted this under the" Istock changing royality structure" and thought I'd post it here as well since it does really have to do with buyers
I noticed an ad on my opening e-mail page for Istock....it says:
"WE MISS YOU...you know you want royalty-free images and videos for $1.....get 10% off and 10 free images"
Recon they really MISS their buyers..
-
^^^So what is the answer? I don't think carrying on as if nothing has happened is right either. They will just carry on taking more money from us. I don't like doing weddings but I am even thinking about doing them now. Anything is better than working for such a small slice of the money.
-
As much as we would like to think buyers would go elsewhere because IS doesn't pay contributors enough it's not going to happen.
You're probably right - just the fact that Istock is lowballing contributors isn't enough to get buyers to change agencies. But if you add the fact that Istock is also squeezing buyers, then you get some traction. If I was exclusive to Istock, posts like the following would really scare the he11 out of me. Even as an independent they are unsettling.
Some highlights from the thread Jami linked to:
From Gracevinyard (the OP)
...In Summary for our us as a buyer over the last year: Less value, more time wasted, poor customer service.
As a serious question it seems that increasingly Istock is pitching for a different market now perhaps? Maybe smaller buyers like us should be at other microstock sites?
From Joebelanger:
I work for a $2 billion dollar company who uses/used Istock and they (last week) opened an account at another agency because of much of what you mention. They know I upload on several micros and asked me what's going on at IS and I simply directed them to the link, "where do we go from here".
From 8bm:
This is EXTREMEMLY ANNOYING. Thankyou for voicing this. Getting sick of having to advance search everything. Making it harder for us to exclude higher priced files WILL NOT tempt us to buy them - It is just frustrating and not to mention very obvious to buyers with nouse what is trying to be achieved.
From MortonS:
I came to this place a few years ago on the recommendation of a photographer. I wanted good quality cheap images - I'm sorry about that, I feel guilty now, but that's what made iStock stand out in the first place.
My last 600 credit pack dollars nearly went elsewhere, i had a 15% off code so I used it, but that will probably be the last time.
I know I'm a small scale buyer - about 5000 credits per year - but I feel that I am not welcome here. It's too confusing with standard collection, exclusive (which aren't), exclusive +, vetta, agency, dollar bin - have i missed any?
And don't get me started on the iStock exchange rate scam - a tip for buyers, don't EVER by in your local currency because you will probably pay 50% more for your credits.
And add to that the appalling redesign. The fonts are too small and nothing lines up. this place has gone from the designers secret to a designers nightmare. Flickr looks better quite frankly.
My last support query took several days to be answered - there is no excuse for that. Free services have faster response times.
The next time i need credits, I'm going to try another site. It might not be any better, but it can't be much worse.
From Sandypaige:
We don't buy huge amounts, I'm about the smallest fry out there. But I've been loyal, I have not bought art from any other site since the day I signed up here. In fact, until last week, I hadn't even searched online for other sites to consider. Last week I went looking for the first time. I'm not happy about it. I'd like to stay with iStock, but I don't think it's iStock anymore, not in the way I felt about it a year or two ago.
-
great posts, Lisa.. here are a few 'tweets' just from today:
@schachin: OMGOSH. @istock have you LOST your MIND! $50 for a web use stock photo. you are not GETTY even if they own you. #FAIL @istock mixing in really $$$$ images does not help your brand. Makes you look overpriced & waists my time. If I want Getty I go to Getty.
@timmooredesign: Thank you. @istock for continually gouging your loyal customers. You frustrate me greatly with your ridiculous price hikes.
@INBEDINT: IN DA FACE istock! You're too darn expensive, I can get ur pix for free on Googleimages! lmao! #evilltellya!
@catapultdigital: So I know there's been big economic changes but still not happy istock wants us to pay £1.15 for images that used to cost us less than $1
@JULIAREICH: seeking quality royalty-free stock illo sites that are NOT istock.
lately I've been seeing a lot of posts like these on twitter.
-
For me every month is better than the previous, so people are still buying. "
That's what they used say about the real estate market (plus investments, cars, flights, jobs, etc, etc) not so long ago.
According to my data Istockphoto's continued dominance is by no means assured.
-
I see Lobo gratefully grabbed on the first excuse he could find to shut down the "Buyers' Gripes" thread;
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=266081&page=3 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=266081&page=3)
-
As much as we would like to think buyers would go elsewhere because IS doesn't pay contributors enough it's not going to happen.
Of course!
Contributors are not "social case", so we don't need intervention of morality from someone, in this case buyers...
This only have to be problem between agency and contributors...
Aggressive campaign for our portfolios with "better deal" is a part of solution... But that have to be "united offensive"... :o
-
I see Lobo gratefully grabbed on the first excuse he could find to shut down the "Buyers' Gripes" thread;
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=266081&page=3[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=266081&page=3[/url])
I'm sure there are more buyers seeing it locked and wondering why....They really haven't been under the fist of Lobo have they?
-
Things are not always what they seem Danielsan...
Jonathan
-
I see Lobo gratefully grabbed on the first excuse he could find to shut down the "Buyers' Gripes" thread;
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=266081&page=3[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=266081&page=3[/url])
I read the whole thread. So it seems that the only way buyers are going to get any attention to their support tickets is by posting a complaint on the forum. Once everyone jumped in, THEN admins took notice and resolved GraceVineyards' support issue. Then conveniently locked the thread. That's just messed up.
-
Things are not always what they seem Danielsan...
Jonathan
Can you elaborate, please?
-
2. their very own village idiot running auroud in their forums insulting and mocking the the ppl who actually work for his pay, STFU-ing them by bans and locked threads if they wanted to discuss anything more serious then what they would like to have for next lunch.
:D :D :D :D
That is so true. Perfect example was the buyer's gripe thread being locked.
-
This buyer (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=266181&page=1) chose to post in the suggestion forum - I felt like suggesting that they post somewhere more visible (as it seems the suggestion forum isn't) but thought better of it.
-
Hi CClapper,
Nope! Have to do that homework on your own for this one. This might make a couple people happy on this site but I don't share everything till I put it to use myself. I am very sure that things are not what they seem. Sorry to be so mysterious but the writing is all over the wall if you spend hours on the internet tracking info or hear it from a very reliable source. Isn't this career awesome ;D
Good Luck,
Jonathan
-
Hi CClapper,
Nope! Have to do that homework on your own for this one. This might make a couple people happy on this site but I don't share everything till I put it to use myself. I am very sure that things are not what they seem. Sorry to be so mysterious but the writing is all over the wall if you spend hours on the internet tracking info or hear it from a very reliable source. Isn't this career awesome ;D
Good Luck,
Jonathan
Nope, not planning to do any homework of my own here. Your post is so cryptic, I don't even know who or what you are referring to. I will go back and re-read because I obviously missed something. for instance, who is Danielsan? So when you say things are not what they seem, are you talking about things at IS are not what they seem? Things that Lobo says are not what they seem? things on the IS forums are not what they seem?
I don't spend hours on the internet tracking info and I don't have reliable sources, so I guess I will remain in the dark. ::)
-
I agree with Cclapper. Except for recognizing the Karate Kid reference, I don't have the slightest idea what you were referring to Jonathan.
-
I agree with Cclapper. Except for recognizing the Karate Kid reference, I don't have the slightest idea what you were referring to Jonathan.
Nope, nothing there made any sense. Although dropping the mysterious message did get him some attention.
Wax on, wax off!
-
...and now for multiple crane kick exercises on an old pontoon support post to bananaramas "cruel summer"...
-
Sweeeeep the Leggggggg!!!!
-
Hi CClapper,
Nope! Have to do that homework on your own for this one. This might make a couple people happy on this site but I don't share everything till I put it to use myself. I am very sure that things are not what they seem. Sorry to be so mysterious but the writing is all over the wall if you spend hours on the internet tracking info or hear it from a very reliable source. Isn't this career awesome ;D
Good Luck,
Jonathan
On a completely unrelated note, do you anticipate having any files in the Agency collection (via Getty) Jonathan?
-
snip
Wax on, wax off!
OK, THAT I understand. He should have said that in the first place! :)
-
Hi Crazy,
There are several companies I am affiliated with that have been asked to place images in the Agency collection and yes I have been asked for my company to produce content for the collection. They have added several agencies not just Getty. As to weather I am going that route I will have to let you know in a couple weeks after Photo East.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Hi CClapper,
Nope! Have to do that homework on your own for this one. This might make a couple people happy on this site but I don't share everything till I put it to use myself. I am very sure that things are not what they seem. Sorry to be so mysterious but the writing is all over the wall if you spend hours on the internet tracking info or hear it from a very reliable source. Isn't this career awesome ;D
Good Luck,
Jonathan
Nope, not planning to do any homework of my own here. Your post is so cryptic, I don't even know who or what you are referring to. I will go back and re-read because I obviously missed something. for instance, who is Danielsan? So when you say things are not what they seem, are you talking about things at IS are not what they seem? Things that Lobo says are not what they seem? things on the IS forums are not what they seem?
I don't spend hours on the internet tracking info and I don't have reliable sources, so I guess I will remain in the dark. ::)
Maybe after you put all that secret knowledge that you gained from surfing and speaking to reliable sources to your special use, you could come back and tell us what you mean. Or not would be my guess.
-
CC,
What Lisa said makes the most sense on this entire subject. Lisa is the closest of anyone here to seeing the big picture as to what what the powers are planning but Lisa has always been one of the people here that does here homework and can read between the lines. I respect the people that have been quoted about not buying from Istock anymore but have you checked out how many buyers they have. Think twice, this is a Getty owned company and they have been top dogs for the past 12 years or so for one simple reason, they know the market very well. I don't think that they will lose the lions share of sales because of this change. Just my opinion of coarse. I have been expecting this price change for sometime but so has everyone that knows this market just look to the past. We used to get a 50/50 split years ago. It was not till Macro RF came into the picture that the 20% share was introduced, Getty's sales took off during that period.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Yea jbarber873,
I am not someone to share much info am I ;D
Jonathan
-
CC,
What Lisa said makes the most sense on this entire subject. Lisa is the closest of anyone here to seeing the big picture as to what what the powers are planning but Lisa has always been one of the people here that does here homework and can read between the lines. I respect the people that have been quoted about not buying from Istock anymore but have you checked out how many buyers they have. Think twice, this is a Getty owned company and they have been top dogs for the past 12 years or so for one simple reason, they know the market very well. I don't think that they will lose the lions share of sales because of this change. Just my opinion of coarse. I have been expecting this price change for sometime but so has everyone that knows this market just look to the past. We used to get a 50/50 split years ago. It was not till Macro RF came into the picture that the 20% share was introduced, Getty's sales took off during that period.
Best,
Jonathan
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Jonathan. :) But I have to admit the reference was totally lost on me too...
I think I get your point though - it was inevitable that Getty would try and reduce Istock commissions to 20% across the board. At least a lot of the long timers in the business speculated about it, and it made a certain amount of sense. But you know, hope springs eternal. Many of us wanted to believe that Istock was still in control and would protect their exclusives. At least I certainly did.
And what has really come out of left field, AFAIK, is the reducing of non-exclusive commissions to as low as 15-19%. I didn't hear anyone predicting that. Could you or one of the other long time stock folks like Christian weigh in on whether there was a precedent for that one?
Probably those of us who are non-exclusive and want to fare better on IS would be smart to do as you are doing and look for other avenues into the Agency Collection via one of the stock collections featured there.
-
Yea jbarber873,
I am not someone to share much info am I ;D
Jonathan
The new and improved sarcastic Jonathon. I like it.
-
Hi Paulie,
Oh you know me to well ;D If you are good at reading between the lines I am still the same old guy just trying to keep the peace and spread some info. Play me in any sport, you will see the true me, I will play till one of us drops. Besides I have been way to friendly lately >:(
Best,
Jonathan
-
Hi Lisa,
No I can't say I have seen percentage drop below 20% before but there was a time when no one would believe 20% and we all got use to it and made a lot of money. I don't agree with the agencies choice but if I don't like it I have the choice to go somewhere else. We live in a Capitalist society not a Socialist one so we are stuck behind the 8 ball. I learned many years ago that we have very little power.
If I was trying to sell someone something I would start high and end up coming down once the buyer put up enough struggle. The buyer would have thought they were empowered and I would walk away with just what I was hoping for. Maybe businesses do the same thing, pad their drops and then give everyone a chance to bitch then they change it to make you feel empowered when in the long run they ended up with happy contributors and the price they already were after. If not enough noise is made they leave it and make even more money than they had hoped for. I can't say that agencies do this but it is an old trick that still works very well.
Once again excuse me on my number information this last week. My wife is recovering from surgery, I have been on the road and raising the family at the same time limping in a leg brace from a torn LCL this last weekend playing soccer, so the sleep has been missing and I am obviously off my game. Not trying to make excuses but until this week my numbers have not been off so I hope people can understand that my answers have been hindered by unexpected circumstance. Gostywk was kind enough to point out my latest error. That is two in one week, not good of me. I will pay closer attention as this is the last trip of the year.
I will say that it is important for people to point out my mistakes this week, I wish some could find a bit of grace in their presentation but that is what you get when you try to share information. However, any one that points out my mistakes is helping me in a big way.
Still one more trip to go to PhotoPlus next week so if anyone is there come over and say hi to the guy limping around in the brace :)
Best,
Jonathan
-
No I can't say I have seen percentage drop below 20% before but there was a time when no one would believe 20% and we all got use to it and made a lot of money. I don't agree with the agencies choice but if I don't like it I have the choice to go somewhere else.
Thanks for answering my question. I hadn't thought anyone went below 20%, but wasn't too sure since I don't know the macro market.
Hope you and your wife both heal up fast :)
-
Yea jbarber873,
I am not someone to share much info am I ;D
Jonathan
Well I agree with you that Lisa writes the most intelligent and cogent posts I have seen in my limited time here. I'm still not sure what you meant by your original post, but that's okay. I don't think more typing will make it clearer to me- I'm a little slow that way.
-
Here's another: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=267191&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=267191&page=1)
Thread locked of course. iStock really knows how to make a customer feel wanted. :/
-
Very interesting thread, Carolyn. Seems like the "guarantee" may have had unintended consequences. Here's the post from Chris3fer:
I work for a good size agency and its come up in a meeting today (for the second time in a year) that we shouldn't be using istock to make purchases. Quote from the meeting from pretty important purchasing people:
"They (istock) don't have proper licensing, and now they even have an additional legal guarantee you can purchase for another $100, because apparently their standard legal guarantee is meaningless. They also use a points system that doesn't make any sense. We should avoid them whenever possible."
It seems like charging extra for additional legal guarantees is making people think you have no real system for licenses and releases.
Like I said, this is the second time this has come up. a couple years ago everyone was using istock, now mangement is saying to stop. I just think this seems to be getting more common. Just sayin.
And his later post, which I think really speaks volumes about what Istock is losing: In response to the question "Are you in a position to explain these licenses?" He replies (emphasis added by me):
I am, but I didn't. I decided to cut back on my defending istock from 40% to 35% and I am currently over that percentage.. After all, money won't bring istock happiness.
-
Very interesting thread, Carolyn. Seems like the "guarantee" may have had unintended consequences. Here's the post from Chris3fer:
I work for a good size agency and its come up in a meeting today (for the second time in a year) that we shouldn't be using istock to make purchases. Quote from the meeting from pretty important purchasing people:
"They (istock) don't have proper licensing, and now they even have an additional legal guarantee you can purchase for another $100, because apparently their standard legal guarantee is meaningless. They also use a points system that doesn't make any sense. We should avoid them whenever possible."
It seems like charging extra for additional legal guarantees is making people think you have no real system for licenses and releases.
Like I said, this is the second time this has come up. a couple years ago everyone was using istock, now mangement is saying to stop. I just think this seems to be getting more common. Just sayin.
And his later post, which I think really speaks volumes about what Istock is losing: In response to the question "Are you in a position to explain these licenses?" He replies (emphasis added by me):
I am, but I didn't. I decided to cut back on my defending istock from 40% to 35% and I am currently over that percentage.. After all, money won't bring istock happiness.
Priceless!! ;D
-
And I also love how Lobo dismisses any contributor/buyer. As if being a contributor negates any buying that you do. But then I've heard that before, even from people on this forum.
-
Very interesting thread, Carolyn. Seems like the "guarantee" may have had unintended consequences. Here's the post from Chris3fer:
I work for a good size agency and its come up in a meeting today (for the second time in a year) that we shouldn't be using istock to make purchases. Quote from the meeting from pretty important purchasing people:
"They (istock) don't have proper licensing, and now they even have an additional legal guarantee you can purchase for another $100, because apparently their standard legal guarantee is meaningless. They also use a points system that doesn't make any sense. We should avoid them whenever possible."
It seems like charging extra for additional legal guarantees is making people think you have no real system for licenses and releases.
Like I said, this is the second time this has come up. a couple years ago everyone was using istock, now mangement is saying to stop. I just think this seems to be getting more common. Just sayin.
And his later post, which I think really speaks volumes about what Istock is losing: In response to the question "Are you in a position to explain these licenses?" He replies (emphasis added by me):
I am, but I didn't. I decided to cut back on my defending istock from 40% to 35% and I am currently over that percentage.. After all, money won't bring istock happiness.
So where are the buyers who aren't happy with IS's guarantee going to go? Certainly not to one of the smaller microstock agencies that don't have a guarantee at all.
I'd say Getty wouldn't be unhappy if these buyers continue to use rights managed licensing or their premium RF offerings.
-
So where are the buyers who aren't happy with IS's guarantee going to go? Certainly not to one of the smaller microstock agencies that don't have a guarantee at all.
That's a very good question. I wonder that myself. With the bargains to be had at Alamy these days, or with the variety of pricing on the Veer site, those would probably be good choices. Interesting that the Getty name/reputation backing up Istock doesn't inspire more confidence in these buyers...
What's unfortunate is that Istock cast it's own practices into doubt unnecessarily by starting up those "guarantees". Istock, and the other micros, have all been pretty diligent from the beginning (or at least the nearly 6 years I've been involved) about rejecting anything which might be copyrighted, and also ensuring that proper releases are uploaded.
The irony is that the trad agencies appear to have been much less diligent about keeping copyrighted material out. Looking at all the violations in the Agency collection is evidence of that, and until this year Alamy (and I assume many others) were willing to take contributors word that there was a model release.
-
What's unfortunate is that Istock cast it's own practices into doubt unnecessarily by starting up those "guarantees".
It's just an income generating scheme. As I've said before, the buyers don't really understand what they are about. Two stick out on extended guarantees I've had (and I've mentioned them before): one was a flower and one was a bare landscape. No possible 'issues', and by looking at the amount paid for the base file, both by small bundle buyers, presumably newbies. I bet they never came back (Probable scenario: lured in by the promised low prices, scared into buying an extended guarantee). But iStock got its quick bucks - for nothing.
-
And his later post, which I think really speaks volumes about what Istock is losing: In response to the question "Are you in a position to explain these licenses?" He replies (emphasis added by me):
I am, but I didn't. I decided to cut back on my defending istock from 40% to 35% and I am currently over that percentage.. After all, money won't bring istock happiness.
That was awesome. :D
-
What's unfortunate is that Istock cast it's own practices into doubt unnecessarily by starting up those "guarantees".
It's just an income generating scheme.
Totally agree Sue. Looks like it backfired bigtime.
-
This is quite interesting: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=267401&page=1#post5056901 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=267401&page=1#post5056901)
Client not needing files, finding files cheaper elsewhere, or not wanting to do business with a company with less than stellar business practices?
-
Sounds like Lobo is trigger happy these days....LOCK...LOCK...LOCK....just like the inspectors that go....REJECT....REJECT.....REJECT.... ;)
-
Sounds like Lobo is trigger happy these days....LOCK...LOCK...LOCK....just like the inspectors that go....REJECT....REJECT.....REJECT.... ;)
I think Lobo is playing Whack a Mole at istock these days. It's kind of sad to see the guy getting all these negative threads. He must really wish for the good old days, when only happy talk prevailed. I almost feel bad for him---- almost.
-
Hi All,
I think that there are a lot of buyers that worry about the security of Micro model and property releases in general. It can really hurt and has many times since Micro has been strong that there are legal problems. The agencies keep this pretty tight lipped for good reason but this isn't based on just opinion. There have been several cases of improper releases in Micro. I think it has to do with the wide open market that anyone can join and start shooting with little business knowledge. In some smaller non English speaking countries I am sure there are beginners that sign there own releases without witnesses, even here in the good old U.S. Just my understanding from speaking with several people on the topic but it seems Istock has the same concern and is going to cover there butt. Look into E and O insurance if in doubt, you need other insurance first but it is the last wall of coverage to keep you as a photographer safe from strange slip ups.
Best,
Jonathan
-
There really is no need for property releases, legally. I'm sure you know that from all the unreleased spaces in ... Spaces, right?
-
I think that there are a lot of buyers that worry about the security of Micro model ... releases in general. It can really hurt and has many times since Micro has been strong that there are legal problems. The agencies keep this pretty tight lipped for good reason but this isn't based on just opinion. There have been several cases of improper releases in Micro.
You are right there Jonathan - I know for an absolute fact that there are a fair number of contributors who "fake" model releases ... so this is a proper area of concern for some.
-
I think that there are a lot of buyers that worry about the security of Micro model ... releases in general. It can really hurt and has many times since Micro has been strong that there are legal problems. The agencies keep this pretty tight lipped for good reason but this isn't based on just opinion. There have been several cases of improper releases in Micro.
You are right there Jonathan - I know for an absolute fact that there are a fair number of contributors who "fake" model releases ... so this is a proper area of concern for some.
Oh, crikey. You mean they never phone a random sample of models at their given phone# (or write letters) and try to determine if they're fo' real, fo' sure? I would think that using one's gut instincts one could pick out the likeliest suspects for this ... for example someone who has a lot of candid-looking photos of different people as opposed to having a stable of familiar models.
Even if the agencies spent very little time and effort doing this, I think it would be pretty good business practice to do it some, especially for a photog who appears to be "just too smooth or too * lucky" convincing dozens of complete strangers to sign releases. And most important of all, let photogs know that your agency is going to be doing this and seriously scare them about the potential legal consequences of messing around. Remember that Turkish guy who found his face on a can of Greek sardines, or whatever it was.
If there are many problems like that, or even a perception that there are a lot of problems, then I can see things moving away from crowdsourcing back to agencies using a stable, trusted handful of image factories.
-
snip
If there are many problems like that, or even a perception that there are a lot of problems, then I can see things moving away from crowdsourcing back to agencies using a stable, trusted handful of image factories.
Which is exactly what IS/Getty is in the process of doing.
-
If there are many problems like that, or even a perception that there are a lot of problems, then I can see things moving away from crowdsourcing back to agencies using a stable, trusted handful of image factories.
I think the fact that a protection program, or whatever it's called, is now being offered at an extra cost is a good sign that there's a problem.
-
If there are many problems like that, or even a perception that there are a lot of problems, then I can see things moving away from crowdsourcing back to agencies using a stable, trusted handful of image factories.
I think the fact that a protection program, or whatever it's called, is now being offered at an extra cost is a good sign that there's a problem.
I remain unconvinced. It could just be an marketing exercise, a way to both get revenue and sow fear and doubt of other agencies that don't have such a program. Think Death Panels.
-
I think that there are a lot of buyers that worry about the security of Micro model and property releases in general. It can really hurt and has many times since Micro has been strong that there are legal problems. The agencies keep this pretty tight lipped for good reason but this isn't based on just opinion. There have been several cases of improper releases in Micro.
What makes you think that this is an issue confined to micro? All the well publicised cases I've heard of relate to images from 'macro' agencies. Remember this one earlier this year?
http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/5363-greek-gets-compensation-over-turkish-yoghurt- (http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/5363-greek-gets-compensation-over-turkish-yoghurt-)
Can you detail any of the cases you are referring to in micro? I haven't heard of any. In my experience micro have generally been tighter on releases than the majority of macro agencies and they are getting more so every year. There's a general mis-conception that micro are always playing catch-up to the macros but in fact it mostly works the other way around.
-
And that case wasn't caused by an improper model release anyway - there was no MR, the photographer had never claimed there was, the image was reportedly listed as RM Editorial, and it was the dairy in question that had used the image illegally, so not really relevant at all...
-
Hi SJ,
Yes but our work is released as No release as editorial or documentary leaving us and the agencies clear with their contracts. I am talking about false releases which have been a problem in Micro more than the other markets. Non released images of the right subject can still make great returns but if I have my choice when receiving files I would much rather have them released, larger market for the images means higher returns. It is the lifestyle stuff that will get you in the biggest trouble if not properly released. We take photos of our models holding up their signed releases and smiling, and we have a witness at every signing, photographer can't sign release.
Jonathan
-
The two problem areas I see in micro for buyers are people who falsify releases or don't follow proper practices, and the "image thief" type contributors.
In travel imagery, I'm starting to see a lot more model released indigenous shots - now its possible that the photographers get the document explained to people who can't read and that this is in their native language, track down the child's parents and do the same, as they're passing through - or its possible that they just get someone to sign a bit of paper for an extra dollar.
-
The two problem areas I see in micro for buyers are people who falsify releases or don't follow proper practices, and the "image thief" type contributors.
In travel imagery, I'm starting to see a lot more model released indigenous shots - now its possible that the photographers get the document explained to people who can't read and that this is in their native language, track down the child's parents and do the same, as they're passing through - or its possible that they just get someone to sign a bit of paper for an extra dollar.
When this has been discussed in the iStock forums (many's the time and oft) there are always togs who claim either that they just pay money and get signatures that way; or that they just ask people to 'OK the paperwork' - I've been told more than once (on and off forum) that I shouldn't tell potential subjects 'worse case scenario', just vaguely say, as they claim to, that the pics will be used 'for adverts and such'.
In developing countries, I realise that just offering small amounts of money would guarantee signatures: in some, I can't imagine trying to explain, even if I knew the language, all the uses they could be used for to people who have never seen magazines, TV, internet or hoardings. I can also imagine how difficult it would be, for example, to establish that the adult eager to sign for a few dollars was actually the parent of a particular child.
-
I am talking about false releases which have been a problem in Micro more than the other markets.
I asked before. Is there any chance whatsoever that you can substantiate your bizarre statements with any actual examples or factual statistics? Just two or three examples would do for now (out of the 600M+ microstock images sold per annum, probably about 2 billion since it started). Otherwise I can't help thinking that your statements are as much a fantasy of your own mind as most of your supposed sales figures turn out to be.
No? Thought not.
-
Hey Gostywick,
I don't know what makes you so aggressive towards my posts but I am not interested in going backwards in life, I have taken responsibility over every mistake I have posted, ahh 2 this week and anything else I have been incorrect about. I might just make a false post on your birthday as a little gift, my mistakes seem to make your day ;D Please if you doubt me there is nothing I can do about it. Do others find this a bit unnecessary or is it just me?
Best,
Jonathan
-
One more thing G,
If I am so full of crap why do all these companies and expos ask me to come speak on stock. Do you have a better grip on the business than the people running things out there. You have to be asked to speak at these functions you don't just show up. So it sounds like you are saying ASMP, PACA, PHOTO PLUS and several others are all ignorant and I have pulled the wool over all their eyes. Why do these people keep asking me to come and speak. Please if you can offer a logical explanation I am all ears. I await your reply.
Jonathan
-
I have also not heard of any big problems with faked releases on micro sites.
I assume you are asked, because like Yuri, you place an emphasis on marketing yourself to photographers. And because from past experience, you're likely to say yes.
-
Hi SJ,
The information I said about model release problems is a problem, it has been in RM and RF and has existed since the dawn of stock. However, there has been an exceeded growth of the problem since Micro has joined the business. This only makes sense in numbers alone. I was not trying to point a finger at Micro it has just opened the opportunity for more release issues purely on the numbers of images that Micro have added ( do the numbers, as well as adding less professional business people than who used to produce for stock, I am not making that up it's just a fact ).
I believe I just answered this but I am happy to repeat myself. I do not market myself to other photographers, I share on forums information that I think might help others. If I wanted to market to photographers I would build a Blog. I work at these gatherings and lectures to meet new people in the business and rub shoulders with the most influential people in the business, that is what helps myself and the companies I am owner in as well as to learn more and more about the industry itself. I am invited by these groups and seem to hold their respect for being factual and supportive to the photographic community.
Best
Jonathan
-
The two problem areas I see in micro for buyers are people who falsify releases or don't follow proper practices, and the "image thief" type contributors.
In travel imagery, I'm starting to see a lot more model released indigenous shots - now its possible that the photographers get the document explained to people who can't read and that this is in their native language, track down the child's parents and do the same, as they're passing through - or its possible that they just get someone to sign a bit of paper for an extra dollar.
This exacty - I travel a lot and to very far away and remote places, especially in Asia - yet I see model released images of people in places I have been where I know there are no addresses, no phones, etc (for example the mountains in Burma and in remotest Mongolia) - and the internet? They don't even really know what a computer is - and this is why people think they are safe model releases to fake because the people pictured have no access to modern technology of any sort and have virtually zero chance of ever knowing that their image is for sale somewhere. Even if by some miracle they did find out, so what? It's not like they could do anything about it anyway.
-
Hi SJ,
The information I said about model release problems is a problem, it has been in RM and RF and has existed since the dawn of stock. However, there has been an exceeded growth of the problem since Micro has joined the business. This only makes sense in numbers alone. I was not trying to point a finger at Micro it has just opened the opportunity for more release issues purely on the numbers of images that Micro have added ( do the numbers, as well as adding less professional business people than who used to produce for stock, I am not making that up it's just a fact ).
I believe I just answered this but I am happy to repeat myself. I do not market myself to other photographers, I share on forums information that I think might help others. If I wanted to market to photographers I would build a Blog. I work at these gatherings and lectures to meet new people in the business and rub shoulders with the most influential people in the business, that is what helps myself and the companies I am owner in as well as to learn more and more about the industry itself. I am invited by these groups and seem to hold their respect for being factual and supportive to the photographic community.
Best
Jonathan
Oh good, could you possibly get me the email address for one person with Getty or Corbis that handles the editorial section, so I can ask them my simple question, which I've been trying to get someone to answer for over a year? Since you are "rubbing elbows" maybe I can finally get through to a human.
I believe someone asked a simple enough question, which I'd ask anyone making a broad claim. Do you have any proof or statistics related to fraudulent model releases being more prevalent in Micro than Macro, or more than historically in the stock industry? Something beyond the hypothetical assumption, professionals vs crowd source. Personal opinion, no matter how connected or how much of an industry insider you are?
To answer one more point:
Bernard Lawrence "Bernie" Madoff
Charles Ponzi
Billie Sol Estes
Charles Dawson
Frank Abagnale, Jr.
Christopher Rocancourt
Kenneth Lay
:D :D :D
-
The two problem areas I see in micro for buyers are people who falsify releases or don't follow proper practices, and the "image thief" type contributors.
In travel imagery, I'm starting to see a lot more model released indigenous shots - now its possible that the photographers get the document explained to people who can't read and that this is in their native language, track down the child's parents and do the same, as they're passing through - or its possible that they just get someone to sign a bit of paper for an extra dollar.
This exacty - I travel a lot and to very far away and remote places, especially in Asia - yet I see model released images of people in places I have been where I know there are no addresses, no phones, etc (for example the mountains in Burma and in remotest Mongolia) - and the internet? They don't even really know what a computer is - and this is why people think they are safe model releases to fake because the people pictured have no access to modern technology of any sort and have virtually zero chance of ever knowing that their image is for sale somewhere. Even if by some miracle they did find out, so what? It's not like they could do anything about it anyway.
Its very true that the chances of there being consequences are very slim, it doesn't make it right though. I also see MR images from out of the way places I've been where I know it would be almost impossible to get legitimate model releases.
As a photographer by submitting a model release you're claiming the person has consented to have their image used commercially. If they haven't in fact done so, and particularly if you're faking releases its a black and white case of fraud - you're faking a legal document for personal financial gain - which is a crime in most countries.
It annoys me that I get rejections for an unrecognizable person in the background of an image that's something like 10 pixels high, while others are making it to the front of searches with dubious model releases.
-
All the high profile release scandals I can recall have been in macro.
I don't remember ever hearing any evidence of a greater problem in micro.
The big micro shooters who use pro models have as much to lose as the macro shooters if they get locked down, while the small timers mainly shoot their families and people they know, no problems getting releases signed there.
Travel shots are an exception, but no more so on micro then macro.
Jonathan, you need to be a little bit more careful, your percentage of slip ups is looking a little high, word gets round in micro a lot faster then in macro I think.
Maybe if you are just guessing based on there being more people in micro than macro you should say I guess, or I think, or I feel, like you are discussing the issue rather than handing out wisdom?
-
'However, there has been an exceeded growth of the problem since Micro has joined the business. This only makes sense in numbers alone. I was not trying to point a finger at Micro it has just opened the opportunity for more release issues purely on the numbers of images that Micro have added ( do the numbers, as well as adding less professional business people than who used to produce for stock, I am not making that up it's just a fact ). '
This is what's known as 'conjecture'. 'A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but appears correct and has not been disproven.'
Like I said, the conferences like to invite you because they know you put on a good show for photographers ( I assume you do), and that's what helps them up their attendance figures to make more cash. What is going to make more money for them - 'J Ross tells how to make big money in stock' or 'SJ recommends not training your competition' - lol!
-
... And so what, with "devolutions"? With more than 80,000 files licensed daily (one every second) is absolutely normal to have a little fraction of this figure returned, for a variety of reasons. Now and then I get the odd regular license returned; normally, to buy a different size, often bigger. I've sold a lot of ELs; not a single one returned. I've sold also a lot of Vettas: just one returned, "dind't fit customer's project". It's ok with me.
-
... And so what, with "devolutions"? With more than 80,000 files licensed daily (one every second) is absolutely normal to have a little fraction of this figure returned, for a variety of reasons. Now and then I get the odd regular license returned; normally, to buy a different size, often bigger. I've sold a lot of ELs; not a single one returned. I've sold also a lot of Vettas: just one returned, "dind't fit customer's project". It's ok with me.
I've had more refunds in the past month than I've had in the past year and this is trend is not okay with me. Mostly "didn't fit". You couldn't figure out it didn't fit before buying it?
I think for each refund the customer information should be provided. I wonder how many of these refunds end up with the image being used anyway, whether accidentally or intentionally. What percentage of buyers actually destroy the image? C'mon.
-
However, there has been an exceeded growth of the problem since Micro has joined the business. This only makes sense in numbers alone. I was not trying to point a finger at Micro it has just opened the opportunity for more release issues purely on the numbers of images that Micro have added ( do the numbers, as well as adding less professional business people than who used to produce for stock, I am not making that up it's just a fact ).
I'm not 'being aggressive' to you Jonathon, I'm quite justifiably asking you to verify the source data on which your broad sweeping statements are made. It is no surprise to me that of course you have no data. Nobody other than perhaps Getty, who have a substantial stake in both micro and macro, can possibly know the truth behind your conjecture and as that information would be commercially sensitive it's unlikely that they'd be sharing it. They wouldn't want to be frightening their customers would they?
You strike me as exactly the sort of person that regurgitates myths and fallacies endlessly so that eventually they become 'the truth'. I guess you need to have something to speak about at these 'conferences'.
I'm absolutely with SJL on the conference issue too. The difference between me being able to make a living at this and not doing so is primarily down to the specialist knowledge I have in my chosen niches. I share that knowledge with my brother and a few close friends within microstock but certainly not with 'the world'. I wouldn't accept invitations to speak or write a book for less than $100K because that's the sort of money I could lose over the next few years by doing so. To put that into context I recently met up for a chat with one of our learned members on this forum. They confided in me that one particular conceptual 'prop' on which they had based a series of images had already netted them over $50K. I can guarantee that they won't be 'sharing' that with the world any time soon either.
It was more than a little ironic that Yuri was on the platform a couple of years ago telling everyone who would listen how much money was to be made in microstock __ and the next year he was back complaining about all the competition and how difficult it was to get a worthwhile return on a shoot. Then there are his 'apprentices' too who, having been invited into his studio, are now churning out virtual replicas of his best-selling images as fast as they can.
-
Hi All,
If you can't figure out that release issues would climb when 6 million images are added from all corners of the world then that is your choice. I have heard many different explanations from people that own agencies I respect their opinion and i will take their positions in the ownership of agencies experiencing this over some of the people on this site. I am not going to share names of my sources out of respect to them. Why do I want to say something that hurts my business, think about it. We are all in this business together and bad press hurts all of us not just the few. I would like to see this issue covered tighter by all the agencies, what seems to be the trouble with that.
Gostywk you don't do anything but be aggressive with my posts, maybe you are not aware of that.
"Otherwise I can't help thinking that your statements are as much a fantasy of your own mind as most of your supposed sales figures turn out to be. I thought not!" I find this aggressive but maybe it's just me and this is common for your interaction with others. Since my knowledge is based on nothing but conjecture then it is time to sign off this post and move on.
Good Luck,
Jonathan
-
I would like to see this issue covered tighter by all the agencies, what seems to be the trouble with that.
Jonathan,
I'll put aside the opinions of others about your knowledge of whether people falsify releases or not, I won't even comment about your 'bat phone' direct line to the agency owners.
But in regards to this part of your statement that I've quoted above, in an ideal world I'm sure we'd all like to see this happen, but varying data protection laws around the world and a real life practicality issue means that it'll never be foolproof, even Gettys guarantee doesn't actually mean much because they can't guarantee the information, they're just insured against it.
-
Drat... now you've gone and reawoken my childhood longing for a bat phone.... and a butler...
-
Hi All,
If you can't figure out that release issues would climb when 6 million images are added from all corners of the world then that is your choice.
Good Luck,
Jonathan
Do you mean a greater percentage or just a greater number? Just telling us that the number of issues is climbing just because the number of images is climbing is simply stating the obvious and is meaningless.
-
That is so true.
But in regards to this part of your statement that I've quoted above, in an ideal world I'm sure we'd all like to see this happen, but varying data protection laws around the world and a real life practicality issue means that it'll never be foolproof, even Gettys guarantee doesn't actually mean much because they can't guarantee the information, they're just insured against it.
-
Like I said, the conferences like to invite you because they know you put on a good show for photographers ( I assume you do), and that's what helps them up their attendance figures to make more cash. What is going to make more money for them - 'J Ross tells how to make big money in stock' or 'SJ recommends not training your competition' - lol!
Classic. Thank you Sean.
-
I have no doubt about Johnathan's professional qualifications as a very accomplished photographer. It is also very nice of him to share his knowledge and insights about the industry.
However, Johnathan, I hope you are not bothered by some people's comments because we all have our own opinions, and you just cannot please everyone.
-
Hi Freedom,
No these people don't get to me anymore, why should they everyone is entitled to their opinion. I gave that up a while ago but thank you for the advice and the support. You cannot please all the people and when you are willing to share information there will always be people that disagree or worse. No worries.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Has it ever been confirmed that all the Hulton Archive pics on iStock are properly model released? If you look at the Winter Wonderland lightbox featured on the front page (images rotate, you might have to wait) there's a photo of several people walking in snow. Looks about 1950s-ish. Of course, this image may well have been set up with models, but I can't help but wonder. And even if the image is fully MRed, are the MRs really of the current MR standards that we'd have to submit? We've been assured that these images are inspected to the same standards as the rest of us have to reach, but sometimes, it's really questionable.
-
Well I think if you post on a microstock forum, full of microstock contributors, and make a sweeping claim that too many contributors fake their releases, you are indirectly pointing the finger at the contributors on this board. I don't see where it is being "overly aggressive" if we ask you to back up your claims with some data. If anyone is being aggressive, it is the poster who enters this forum and suggests we are faking our releases.
-
Well I think if you post on a microstock forum, full of microstock contributors, and make a sweeping claim that too many contributors fake their releases, you are indirectly pointing the finger at the contributors on this board. I don't see where it is being "overly aggressive" if we ask you to back up your claims with some data. If anyone is being aggressive, it is the poster who enters this forum and suggests we are faking our releases.
I haven't felt accused by anything Jonathan has written. In the context of a discussion on why buyers might be wary of microstock, and what the purpose of istock's legal guarantee is, to raise the issue of false model releases is entirely appropriate. This forum has only a tiny fraction of total microstock contributors, and I don't think he's pointing the finger at anyone here, just a general discussion.
-
Well, I tend to come down on the side of the folks that expect information presented as factual to be verified with data. Otherwise it's opinion, not fact.
Not that there's anything wrong with folks presenting their opinions and theories. We all do it. But if you aren't able to back up your opinions then you have to expect they will be challenged.
Jonathan, if you are hearing from heads of agencies that model releases being faked is a big problem, that's interesting info, and if that perception exists among buyers it threatens all of our livelihoods to a degree. Even if you can't reveal who told you that, it would be nice to know more details.
I think the reason you may be getting treated "aggressively" is that you tend to leave titillating posts hinting at some private insider knowledge, but then you don't follow through and reveal any inside information. If it is confidential and you aren't at liberty to reveal it, why reference it at all? It just comes off as kind of gossipy and that gets on people's nerves.
-
Hi Freedom,
No these people don't get to me anymore, why should they everyone is entitled to their opinion. I gave that up a while ago but thank you for the advice and the support. You cannot please all the people and when you are willing to share information there will always be people that disagree or worse. No worries.
Best,
Jonathan
That's not information, just speculation, maybe wishful thinking. Information has data and proof.
-
Lisa, Jonathan is not taking the oath under the Bible, isn't he? If you don't believe what he says, that is perfectly fine. He is under no obligation to testify and backup his assertions because he was merely sharing what he believes, even if it was just heresays or fallacies. He is not in court.
When I first entered the stock photo market a few years ago, I was actually advised by someone to fake model release. Who? It's none of your business but I can tell you with the utmost certainty that I will never ever fake any model releases. That person was trying to be helpful to me in a wrong way, but how I act is directed by my own character and conscience.
Well, I tend to come down on the side of the folks that expect information presented as factual to be verified with data. Otherwise it's opinion, not fact.
Not that there's anything wrong with folks presenting their opinions and theories. We all do it. But if you aren't able to back up your opinions then you have to expect they will be challenged.
Jonathan, if you are hearing from heads of agencies that model releases being faked is a big problem, that's interesting info, and if that perception exists among buyers it threatens all of our livelihoods to a degree. Even if you can't reveal who told you that, it would be nice to know more details.
I think the reason you may be getting treated "aggressively" is that you tend to leave titillating posts hinting at some private insider knowledge, but then you don't follow through and reveal any inside information. If it is confidential and you aren't at liberty to reveal it, why reference it at all? It just comes off as kind of gossipy and that gets on people's nerves.
-
Looks to me like you're out-voted Jonathan. Take yet another 'Bull-Sh!t Badge' for your nonsensical and misleading posts. In truth you don't know too much about this game as proven by your sales record in micro. Judging by that you're the wrong side of 'Average' and certainly no expert as you like to pretend. Somehow though you are actually very good at persuading newbies that you are a guru and long may you continue to mine that vein if it provides you with some income or fluffs up your ego.
Btw, taking an opposite point of view to you isn't 'aggressive' and it is actually allowed. It seems that you squeal "Unfair" every time that you lose an an argument. Heigh-ho.
-
Hi All,
I only try to offer advice and information and learn here as well, what good do I get out of writing here and trying to answer questions or share information? I am really only out to help others, if it doesn't help you maybe blow it off and move on as I am trying to do from this continuos circle of trying to prove myself. It is so the others out there that are looking for help can find some. If from now on I can't back up a statement that I know to be true without hurting other people and agencies by sharing names then I will no longer post such comments.
Please remember I am only trying to help photographers out whenever I can I hope I have been help to some as obviously I have not been to others. I also realize that some of my posts are of more interest than others and to different people. This seems to have been spun into a " Micro stockers don't know how to get releases " and that was never said and never meant to be implied, if you read it that way I am sorry for not making it clearer. If anyone ever has a question about anything I might be able to help with please feel welcome to send me a PM I am always willing to help in any way I can, I'm not going anywhere ;)
Best,
Jonathan
-
Lisa, Jonathan is not taking the oath under the Bible, isn't he? If you don't believe what he says, that is perfectly fine. He is under no obligation to testify and backup his assertions because he was merely sharing what he believes, even if it was just heresays or fallacies. He is not in court.
Freedom, you seem to have misread my post. I didn't say I don't believe Jonathan, nor that he didn't have a right to state his opinions. I merely asked that he differentiate his opinions (or beliefs since you prefer that word) from concrete facts. And I asked if he has concrete facts, that he elaborate them. In fact, you quoted me and I said we are all entitled to our opinions.
Not sure why you want to argue with me since what you and I are saying isn't very different... ???
-
No Lisa, I was not trying to argue with you. However, I was trying to point out to you, from a different perspective, that you don't have to believe Jonathan, but he is not under any obligation to offer names and further facts.
Lisa, Jonathan is not taking the oath under the Bible, isn't he? If you don't believe what he says, that is perfectly fine. He is under no obligation to testify and backup his assertions because he was merely sharing what he believes, even if it was just heresays or fallacies. He is not in court.
Freedom, you seem to have misread my post. I didn't say I don't believe Jonathan, nor that he didn't have a right to state his opinions. I merely asked that he differentiate his opinions (or beliefs since you prefer that word) from concrete facts. And I asked if he has concrete facts, that he elaborate them. In fact, you quoted me and I said we are all entitled to our opinions.
Not sure why you want to argue with me since what you and I are saying isn't very different... ???
-
Thanks Lisa and Freedom,
You have both been supportive and helpful over time. I totally understand what Lisa is saying so let's not have you two disagreeing. A big part of it is the written word and how it is interpreted. I prefer phone calls over e-mails any day.
God luck to you both,
Jonathan
-
Looks to me like you're out-voted Jonathan. Take yet another 'Bull-Sh!t Badge' for your nonsensical and misleading posts. In truth you don't know too much about this game as proven by your sales record in micro. Judging by that you're the wrong side of 'Average' and certainly no expert as you like to pretend. Somehow though you are actually very good at persuading newbies that you are a guru and long may you continue to mine that vein if it provides you with some income or fluffs up your ego.
He's starting to sound a bit like Rinder but without the sales pitch. Yet!!!
-
Looks to me like you're out-voted Jonathan. Take yet another 'Bull-Sh!t Badge' for your nonsensical and misleading posts. In truth you don't know too much about this game as proven by your sales record in micro. Judging by that you're the wrong side of 'Average' and certainly no expert as you like to pretend. Somehow though you are actually very good at persuading newbies that you are a guru and long may you continue to mine that vein if it provides you with some income or fluffs up your ego.
Btw, taking an opposite point of view to you isn't 'aggressive' and it is actually allowed. It seems that you squeal "Unfair" every time that you lose an an argument. Heigh-ho.
Did I miss something? Was it a competition and you're the winner?
I'm sure that Jonathan doesn't need my support but I think that someone here should learn some very basic good manners when expressing his own point of view..... at least to let us not going through a bunch of 'aggressive' posts every time that one shares his opinions!
Cheers,
Diego
-
Did I miss something? Was it a competition and you're the winner?
I'm sure that Jonathan doesn't need my support but I think that someone here should learn some very basic good manners when expressing his own point of view..... at least to let us not going through a bunch of 'aggressive' posts every time that one shares his opinions!
Cheers,
Diego
Well put.
-
I am a big boy- I can make my own decisions.Just state your opinions,observations and fact as you see them. Then I can make up my own mind.You don,t prove your point by running each other down.
Smiling Jack
-
First we got microstock and now it seems the dawn of the micro-mouth is upon us.
To say that Mr. Ross' portfolio is the 'wrong side of average' is rather offensive and very untrue. I think his sales record in microstock is a reflection of how late-in-the-day he entered the microstock market rather than an indication of his abilities.
Mr. Ross has speculated that due to the increasing number of images being sold and the increasing number of people making those images that it is likely that more model releases are suspect these days than they used to be, and that this is evident in a tightening of MR standards (and in some cases, the option to purchase an additional guarantee) by some agencies. That all seems perfectly reasonable to me. So, why on earth does it warrant these personal attacks on someone's character? It's beyond me.
Personally, I look forward to the views and opinions of all the contributors to these forums and look forward to reading more.
-
Hi All,
I only try to offer advice and information and learn here as well, what good do I get out of writing here and trying to answer questions or share information? I am really only out to help others, if it doesn't help you maybe blow it off and move on as I am trying to do from this continuos circle of trying to prove myself.
Oh come on. Are you serious? You made a blanket statement about microstock contributors faking their releases. You weren't helping anybody or offering helpful advice, and that is why you got called out. If it is just an opinion, state it as such. But you are insinuating you have inside information to back it up.
You pull this nonsense too often. You enter a thread, make a controversial statement, and then when asked to back it up you start playing the victim and claiming all you want to do is help us all. Sorry but that doesn't fly with a lot of us.
-
First we got microstock and now it seems the dawn of the micro-mouth is upon us.
To say that Mr. Ross' portfolio is the 'wrong side of average' is rather offensive and very untrue. I think his sales record in microstock is a reflection of how late-in-the-day he entered the microstock market rather than an indication of his abilities.
Mr. Ross has speculated that due to the increasing number of images being sold and the increasing number of people making those images that it is likely that more model releases are suspect these days than they used to be, and that this is evident in a tightening of MR standards (and in some cases, the option to purchase an additional guarantee) by some agencies. That all seems perfectly reasonable to me. So, why on earth does it warrant these personal attacks on someone's character? It's beyond me.
Personally, I look forward to the views and opinions of all the contributors to these forums and look forward to reading more.
Yeah, and with, more people in our forums is more probable that in some poster's city is raining rigth now. What a wate of time.
-
'Mr. Ross has speculated that due to the increasing number of images being sold and the increasing number of people making those images that it is likely that more model releases are suspect these days than they used to be'
Nope, sorry. It was a statement of fact, not 'One might think' or 'Maybe the reason could be...' etc.
-
You are indeed correct, Sean. He could have chosen his words more carefully and you were totally right to point this out to him at the time. However, the mud slinging that's occurred in subsequent posts is, in my opinion, totally uncalled for. I, for one, value the contributions Jonathan Ross makes to this forum in the same way that I'd miss your posts, if you were hounded off this site.
-
Release the hounds ;D That's a good one MarkFGD. I can handle a couple of nips at my feet I have big boots ;)
Best,
Jonathan
-
You know, with more and more people on these forums, it's highly probable that at least one of them is going to have dog crap on their feet!
-
You know, with more and more people on these forums, it's highly probable that at least one of them is going to have dog crap on their feet!
LOL! :D
-
Another getting ready to bail. Copying and pasting what they said, as I'm sure the thread will disappear:
I'd just like to say, I need to vent this, I'm looking for an image and find one I can work with, it costs the best part of £100. what! Istock this is a JOKE. and you try to hide the cost by converting £s to credits and disguise this JOKE of a price behind exchange and conversion rates.
To top it of I hear the photographers are receiving less money than ever for their images.
Rip off, Joke, Theives,
Bulk credits are purchased, then you hike up the prices, I'd love for you to come to my resturant. I would tempt you in with "all you can eat for .7 of a credit" on entry Id flog you 2,000 credits with no refund, tell you that the all you can eat was on bread only. then you get fed up and just order a meal because you have loads of credits. I'll watch you munch away and then approach you and say "Ho HO HO, I've just put the price of the food up, HO HO HO"
I will then walk out to the chefs and say "those meals your making have made me a fortune, by the way, I'm cutting your pay...
£100 for an image, that isn't exclusive, get real.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=268782&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=268782&page=1)
-
Another getting ready to bail. Copying and pasting what they said, as I'm sure the thread will disappear:
Good thinking^^. Only way to know how buyers truly feel is to preserve their comments.
Thanks for posting :)
MortonS (also a buyer) posted this:
You will find this thread closing pretty quickly. iStock/Getty have no interest in the opinions of buyers (which is a bit ironic). This place will eventually be a getty owned ghost town with all images costing 100 credits.
If you look at the winter lightbox of that photographer, the first five images which were taken a few minutes apart are in THREE different collections - it's effectively the same image.
It's TOO CONFUSING
-
If you look at the winter lightbox of that photographer, the first five images which were taken a few minutes apart are in THREE different collections - it's effectively the same image.
It's TOO CONFUSING
Not only is it too confusing, but it looks like a bait and switch scam when you have similar images like that in so many different collections at different price points.
-
... it looks like a bait and switch scam when you have similar images like that in so many different collections at different price points ...
Bait and switch ... or ...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7YSXCp8tpc[/youtube]
-
Well the proof is in the pudding. A reduction of ~30% in income for me this month (IS exclusive) is clearly showing a reduced interest by buyers. The only pics that are selling regularly are the ones that are niche images that can not be had anywhere else. Even great images with regular DLs before the masters of disaster messed with the system are not being touched anymore. FU Getty/IS/Whatever hedge fund owns this POS now. Disgusted. That whole "rest of the year will provide more DLs" is clearly NOT kicking in this year.
And back to your regular programming
-
Another comment:
It's comments like this and others that are making me glad i'm starting to look elsewhere.
You just don't get it do you - the reason that most of the regular buyers are here is price. My company have had the round of credit crunch redundancies and there is no place at the moment for suppliers that are raising prices.
You are living in a bubble.
-
Another getting ready to bail. Copying and pasting what they said, as I'm sure the thread will disappear:
I'd just like to say, I need to vent this, I'm looking for an image and find one I can work with, it costs the best part of £100. what! Istock this is a JOKE. and you try to hide the cost by converting £s to credits and disguise this JOKE of a price behind exchange and conversion rates.
To top it of I hear the photographers are receiving less money than ever for their images.
Rip off, Joke, Theives,
Bulk credits are purchased, then you hike up the prices, I'd love for you to come to my resturant. I would tempt you in with "all you can eat for .7 of a credit" on entry Id flog you 2,000 credits with no refund, tell you that the all you can eat was on bread only. then you get fed up and just order a meal because you have loads of credits. I'll watch you munch away and then approach you and say "Ho HO HO, I've just put the price of the food up, HO HO HO"
I will then walk out to the chefs and say "those meals your making have made me a fortune, by the way, I'm cutting your pay...
£100 for an image, that isn't exclusive, get real.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=268782&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=268782&page=1[/url])
This is one buyer that will not be putting up with all the drama, trouble, time and costs that a few submitters think I should put up with to buy their images in that thread. Good lord what planet are they from and what fumes have they been whiffing ?
-
This is one buyer that will not be putting up with all the drama, trouble, time and costs that a few submitters think I should put up with to buy their images in that thread. Good lord what planet are they from and what fumes have they been whiffing ?
I know! The responses from a few contributors are just insane. One guy tells the OP to go get all the equipment, pay the models ($350 each?!), charter a ski trip, etc. to get similar pictures. (Or - here's a thought - she could go to a different agency and look there! ).
First off, I seriously doubt that the artist who created the ski pics actually did all that just for that shoot. More likely they were on a ski vacation and either got friends to pose, or paid some locals to pose. However those images were created, they are good and useful, but were undoubtedly uploaded under the micro payment model, not the new fleece-'em-for-all-you-can-get model.
To suggest in this day and age that a buyer's only options are to pay trad stock prices for (originally) micro images or to shoot it themselves is just wildly unrealistic. There are a LOT of other options for buyers, and Istock and some of its more deluded contributors act as though they are the only game in town. ::)
-
Are buyers rushing to use up subscription credits at the end of the month or something? I had an absolute flurry of sales today, probably BDE which is getting close to making Oct the equal of Sept which was BME.
Or perhaps my non-exclusive, non-Agency, non-Vetta are just the kind of bargain that people are looking for.
-
I can't believe the mentality of contributors on that thread. They give away the lion's share of the income from their photographic endeavours and then queue up to do Getty/iStock's public relations for them.
I assume Getty introduced the 20% royalty when they started buying every photo library they could get their hands on in the 1990s. Back then they would have been receiving transparencies from photographers and would have had to drum scan, catalogue and keyword them, etc., to earn their massive 80% take. Now they want 85% and all they seem prepared to do for it is raise their head out of the sand occasionally to count the money. They can't even be bothered to enter into dialogues with their own confused and unhappy customers anymore. What's going on?
-
This is one buyer that will not be putting up with all the drama, trouble, time and costs that a few submitters think I should put up with to buy their images in that thread. Good lord what planet are they from and what fumes have they been whiffing ?
I know! The responses from a few contributors are just insane. One guy tells the OP to go get all the equipment, pay the models ($350 each?!), charter a ski trip, etc. to get similar pictures. (Or - here's a thought - she could go to a different agency and look there! ).
First off, I seriously doubt that the artist who created the ski pics actually did all that just for that shoot. More likely they were on a ski vacation and either got friends to pose, or paid some locals to pose. However those images were created, they are good and useful, but were undoubtedly uploaded under the micro payment model, not the new fleece-'em-for-all-you-can-get model.
To suggest in this day and age that a buyer's only options are to pay trad stock prices for (originally) micro images or to shoot it themselves is just wildly unrealistic. There are a LOT of other options for buyers, and Istock and some of its more deluded contributors act as though they are the only game in town. ::)
I agree Lisa and often do when you post. The thread is filled with insane points. I found the suggestion that a producer should be paid the same price for both low and high quality oysters when the sales agent raised the price of the high quality oysters without passing some of those increased profits on to the producer especially entertaining.
-
I found the suggestion that a producer should be paid the same price for both low and high quality oysters when the sales agent raised the price of the high quality oysters without passing some of those increased profits on to the producer especially entertaining.
Absolutely! LOL on the whole "oyster" discussion. Shows a complete lack of touch with reality. I tend to be more horror struck than entertained, but you are right, with the right perspective this whole debacle is pretty darned entertaining :D
-
Lisa- I read through the thread and I agree with your point that the typical non vetta image is as good as agency or vetta. I find the vetta/ agency images to be overdone and corny. I would have posted this in the thread but lobo locked me out some time ago. Too bad, i try to never miss a chance to dis vetta. "Peak creative prowess"- what a joke. ( Now, all you vetta people who are now getting out pitchforks, remember, I said this - not Lisa :D )
-
Better or worse, done or overdone, the fact is that Vetta sells. I'm selling more Vetta (on percentage per numbers of Vettas in my portfolio) than regulars. Discussion on artistisc merits is futile, because is subjective. Customer paying way more to buy these files is, at the very least, objective data.
-
Lisa- I read through the thread and I agree with your point that the typical non vetta image is as good as agency or vetta. I find the vetta/ agency images to be overdone and corny. I would have posted this in the thread but lobo locked me out some time ago. Too bad, i try to never miss a chance to dis vetta. "Peak creative prowess"- what a joke. ( Now, all you vetta people who are now getting out pitchforks, remember, I said this - not Lisa :D )
:D
While I think there are some very nice photos in Vetta, I think some are no where near worth the price they want for them. It's just silly to see one photo that is Vetta (or Agency for that matter) right next to another in the same series that is in the regular collection. So arbitrary and makes it look like a total rip off.
-
I think most micro contributors have a hard time realizing just how much some people are willing to pay for an image. In fact some buyers prefer to pay more. Especially if it's not their money.
-
Better or worse, done or overdone, the fact is that Vetta sells. I'm selling more Vetta (on percentage per numbers of Vettas in my portfolio) than regulars. Discussion on artistisc merits is futile, because is subjective. Customer paying way more to buy these files is, at the very least, objective data.
I don't doubt they sell, Loop. And I am glad you are making money. But the question really is - do the vetta/agency images sell because they are actually better, and worth 10X (or more) the money, or because the best match is so heavily slanted in their favor?
The only way to know for sure would be to have a broad mix of various collections in the first few pages of the search and then let the Vettas or Agency stuff stand on their own merits. But that is never going to happen. Because given a much cheaper, reasonably similar image, most buyers would choose that.
-
I think most micro contributors have a hard time realizing just how much some people are willing to pay for an image. In fact some buyers prefer to pay more. Especially if it's not their money.
Right. Which is why microstock, with it's low prices, never really took off.
-
I agree that some buyers do not mind paying more. I sell the occasional macro shot. I use a mcro agency for that. Would is the problem is Istock is now pushing these high price images at the front of searches. It is changing the site so that it is becoming unattractive to sell micro there as an independent. It is harder for buyers, harder for independents and most exclusives are p#ssed off. The strategic plan is???
-
I think most micro contributors have a hard time realizing just how much some people are willing to pay for an image. In fact some buyers prefer to pay more. Especially if it's not their money.
Right. Which is why microstock, with it's low prices, never really took off.
-------------------------
;D
-
Better or worse, done or overdone, the fact is that Vetta sells. I'm selling more Vetta (on percentage per numbers of Vettas in my portfolio) than regulars. Discussion on artistisc merits is futile, because is subjective. Customer paying way more to buy these files is, at the very least, objective data.
I don't doubt they sell, Loop. And I am glad you are making money. But the question really is - do the vetta/agency images sell because they are actually better, and worth 10X (or more) the money, or because the best match is so heavily slanted in their favor?
The only way to know for sure would be to have a broad mix of various collections in the first few pages of the search and then let the Vettas or Agency stuff stand on their own merits. But that is never going to happen. Because given a much cheaper, reasonably similar image, most buyers would choose that.
Yes, best match is better for Vettas, and so, they are easier to find, but, on the other hand, they cost until 15x (minimun size) what han exclusive regular costs, and that largely levels the said advantage... In theory it should be much more difficult to sell. When, for example, some Vetta is a best selling image of a series, having this Vetta the similar regular images from this series linked in a ligthbox in its own page, I can’t avoid thinking costumers judge that this Vetta is better than her “sisters”. And, most times, I agree.
-
Yes, best match is better for Vettas, and so, they are easier to find, but, on the other hand, they cost until 15x (minimun size) what han exclusive regular costs, and that largely levels the said advantage... In theory it should be much more difficult to sell. When, for example, some Vetta is a best selling image of a series, having this Vetta the similar regular images from this series linked in a ligthbox in its own page, I can’t avoid thinking costumers judge that this Vetta is better than her “siGoogle Translatesters”. And, most times, I agree.
What language is this in? I recognise most of the words but no sentences make any sense whatsoever.
-
Google Translatesters
I think there may be a hint here
-
It's just silly to see one photo that is Vetta (or Agency for that matter) right next to another in the same series that is in the regular collection. So arbitrary and makes it look like a total rip off.
Interesting point of view. Here's my spin on the same phenomenon. My Vettas were almost all chosen by 'someone else'; I think only about two of those I nominated were accepted into Vetta. However, most of those I have have 'similars' in my port. The Vettas which sell (some don't!) sell better than the non-Vettas.
So that formed my strategies for Exc+. Where I had a series and one or two outsold the others, I made them Exc+, since history had shown that buyers preferred them. Buyers on a budget still have a choice of non Exc+ images from the series. Still, the Exc+ images outsell the non-Esc+, presumably proving that these particular ones, for reasons not always apparent to me, are more useful to buyers. Win-win.
-
It's just silly to see one photo that is Vetta (or Agency for that matter) right next to another in the same series that is in the regular collection. So arbitrary and makes it look like a total rip off.
Interesting point of view. Here's my spin on the same phenomenon. My Vettas were almost all chosen by 'someone else'; I think only about two of those I nominated were accepted into Vetta. However, most of those I have have 'similars' in my port. The Vettas which sell (some don't!) sell better than the non-Vettas.
So that formed my strategies for Exc+. Where I had a series and one or two outsold the others, I made them Exc+, since history had shown that buyers preferred them. Buyers on a budget still have a choice of non Exc+ images from the series. Still, the Exc+ images outsell the non-Esc+, presumably proving that these particular ones, for reasons not always apparent to me, are more useful to buyers. Win-win.
Maybe the reason people are buying the Vettas and E+ files is that they appear higher up in the search, as we see best match is populated almost exclusively by Vetta and Agency these days? So people never see the cheaper priced images in the same series unless they really go looking for them. Dunno. As a really low budget buyer, though I look. Well, I used to look. I only have one credit left at iStock with no plans to buy more.
-
as we see best match is populated almost exclusively by Vetta and Agency these days?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this? I haven't got hours to test this but 2 random searches, set to best match and photos only, produce the first half of the first page with Vetta and Agency, then onwards ordinary files with a scattering of Vetta and Agancy stuff. To say that there's nothing but V and A files is just disingenuous.
-
Maybe the reason people are buying the Vettas and E+ files is that they appear higher up in the search, as we see best match is populated almost exclusively by Vetta and Agency these days? So people never see the cheaper priced images in the same series unless they really go looking for them. Dunno. As a really low budget buyer, though I look. Well, I used to look. I only have one credit left at iStock with no plans to buy more.
I've got a Vetta which has sold a few times, but is really low for its main keyword. I can't actually find it at the moment on that keyword, but at one point it was on the last page of a 2000+ image search. However, I did check out another of my Vettas and there are non-exclusive images with no sales ahead of it in a best match search. I found another Vetta with the same main keyword, which has sold >30 times, on the last page of that search.
Actually, I can't work out the current best match at all - except that new uploads drop like stones after about 24 hours (maybe even before that, but not much more after that first slump).
I don't believe all this stuff about buyers only looking at a page or two. On Alamy, I can see that buyers can easily search over 4000 files on the more popular search terms. I guess some Micro buyers might just buy the 'most popular', weird as that seems to me.
However, I do agree that the high prices being rammed to the front might scare off buyers, especially as so many of the brought-in Agency files in particular are 'very average'. (I'm glad I don't compete in the lifestyle sector.
-
Maybe the reason people are buying the Vettas and E+ files is that they appear higher up in the search, as we see best match is populated almost exclusively by Vetta and Agency these days? So people never see the cheaper priced images in the same series unless they really go looking for them. Dunno. As a really low budget buyer, though I look. Well, I used to look. I only have one credit left at iStock with no plans to buy more.
I've got a Vetta which has sold a few times, but is really low for its main keyword. I can't actually find it at the moment on that keyword, but at one point it was on the last page of a 2000+ image search. However, I did check out another of my Vettas and there are non-exclusive images with no sales ahead of it in a best match search. I found another Vetta with the same main keyword, which has sold >30 times, on the last page of that search.
Actually, I can't work out the current best match at all - except that new uploads drop like stones after about 24 hours (maybe even before that, but not much more after that first slump).
I don't believe all this stuff about buyers only looking at a page or two. On Alamy, I can see that buyers can easily search over 4000 files on the more popular search terms. I guess some Micro buyers might just buy the 'most popular', weird as that seems to me.
However, I do agree that the high prices being rammed to the front might scare off buyers, especially as so many of the brought-in Agency files in particular are 'very average'. (I'm glad I don't compete in the lifestyle sector.
---------------------------------------
One thing I've noticed with a few of my better selling files is that when they hit a milestone like 100 or 500 DL's they get bumped to the back of the best match, at least for a time. I guess this is to minimize the best match feedback loop? Maybe that is what was happening to your one Vetta image?
-
Don't know if the buyers have bailed en masse but they're not grabbing much of my stuff recently. The first 5 working days of November have been astonishingly low __ sales numbers are 35% lower than the equivalent days in 2009. Fortunately I had 3 EL's this week (very unusual) but without them this week's 'Payout Request' would be at Xmas/New Year levels.
-
I sell Vettas even having similars linked in a lightbox, in the Vetta's page. The "vetta" one often is the most sold of the whole series, no matter how similar are the other photos. I've seen also in legacy files that have become Vetta that from the moment the file was put in the vetta, the whole series sell much more. I suppose that is a side-efect of having the regulars ones linked in the Vettas's page. Te customer finds the Vetta in the first pages, and if it's too expensive for his budget, buys another one of the same series.
-
Don't know if the buyers have bailed en masse but they're not grabbing much of my stuff recently. The first 5 working days of November have been astonishingly low __ sales numbers are 35% lower than the equivalent days in 2009. Fortunately I had 3 EL's this week (very unusual) but without them this week's 'Payout Request' would be at Xmas/New Year levels.
Well, my sales in November so far seem to be holding up well, after a less than shining October.
However, here's an interesting little snippet, for what it's worth: I keep a (sometimes intermittent) log of total downloads as reported by the http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/ (http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/) site, and according to that, overall downloads for October are 35% down on October 2009.
Now there's a big caveat to that - the charts are incomplete and the fuzziness introduced by iStock makes them rather inaccurate, also, based on the same charts, October 2009 was actually a BME for the period I've been keeping track, so that figure of -35% has to be seen in context, other months do show an increase.
And, as it happens, my own downloads in October were also down 35% on October 2009, while my income was actually 35% UP over the same month, partly thanks to a rise in canister level but in addition presumably thanks to raised prices, E+ and Vetta - so if iStock's income is comparable, they're not doing so bad! But then, that seems to be their strategy - fewer downloads at a higher price point. And actually, there's nothing wrong with that in itself.
Except, if that's the case, how come they claim the current royalty structure is so "unsustainable"?
ETA: Just remembered I went up a canister level, which accounts for a good bit of my extra income at any rate.
-
But then, that seems to be their strategy - fewer downloads at a higher price point. And actually, there's nothing wrong with that in itself.
Absolutely not: the model worked for many years and is now called 'macrostock'.
-
But then, that seems to be their strategy - fewer downloads at a higher price point. And actually, there's nothing wrong with that in itself.
Absolutely not: the model worked for many years and is now called 'macrostock'.
Indeed, I agree - it often seems in the monthly stats threads that people are bemoaning and seeing disaster ahead because they have fewer downloads. It's the income that counts.
-
Don't know if the buyers have bailed en masse but they're not grabbing much of my stuff recently. The first 5 working days of November have been astonishingly low __ sales numbers are 35% lower than the equivalent days in 2009. Fortunately I had 3 EL's this week (very unusual) but without them this week's 'Payout Request' would be at Xmas/New Year levels.
My sales are back to summer levels again on Istock. I had kind of assumed it was the introduction of all the new Agency files and their being front-loaded in the best match.
Gannet77, thanks for posting those interesting statistics. Although they aren't firm, for all the reasons you mentioned, they are probably indicative of a general downward trend in DL's.
Unlike you and Sue, I would definitely see this decline in sales numbers at Istockphoto as a serious problem. Momentum is moving in the wrong direction, and this is not a the sign of a healthy business. Sure, it is compensated, for the moment, by higher prices, but those prices can only continue to go up for so long. Clearly Getty agrees or why would they have felt the need to boost profits by raiding royalty commissions?
Bottom line is that fewer sales means demand for (Istockphoto's) images is declining. According to the Law of Supply and Demand, as demand shrinks, prices will have to fall too. Either that or the business will not survive.
-
It would be a problem if istock was purely micro. However they seem to moving closer to the macro business model - fewer sales a higher prices, anticipating more money overall. Remains to be seen if its 'sustainable'.
-
It would be a problem if istock was purely micro. However they seem to moving closer to the macro business model - fewer sales a higher prices, anticipating more money overall. Remains to be seen if its 'sustainable'.
For Getty it wasn't particularly 'sustainable'. That's why they had to buy iStock and why iStock continues to be the cash cow. It remains to be seen if it continues to do so, however, with all the constant cash grabs.
-
Unlike you and Sue, I would definitely see this decline in sales numbers at Istockphoto as a serious problem.
I definitely see it as a problem. My October was dire compared to Oct 08 and 09, especially the last week. My files uploaded in the past 18 months are DOA (last week I noticed that two acceptances were well below best match position 100 on their main keyword about 24 hours after appearing in my port).
To be fair, this week has rallied a bit, but overall it is still worrying and unsustainable for many people.
-
I definitely see it as a problem. My October was dire compared to Oct 08 and 09, especially the last week. My files uploaded in the pasgt 18 months are DOA (last week I noticed that two acceptances were well below best match position 100 abut 24 hours after appearing in my port.
To be fair, this week has rallied a bit, but overall it is still worrying and unsustainable for many people.
Oh, sorry Sue. Looks like I totally misread your post. Glad your sales are rebounding a bit this week. Hoping mine will do the same soon...
-
[Double post]
-
But then, that seems to be their strategy - fewer downloads at a higher price point. And actually, there's nothing wrong with that in itself.
Absolutely not: the model worked for many years and is now called 'macrostock'.
Indeed, I agree - it often seems in the monthly stats threads that people are bemoaning and seeing disaster ahead because they have fewer downloads. It's the income that counts.
Seems logical that not IS Agency and Getty owned content will take an increasing share of these smaller numbers. Getty takes a bigger share on these sales.
-
But then, that seems to be their strategy - fewer downloads at a higher price point. And actually, there's nothing wrong with that in itself.
Absolutely not: the model worked for many years and is now called 'macrostock'.
Indeed, I agree - it often seems in the monthly stats threads that people are bemoaning and seeing disaster ahead because they have fewer downloads. It's the income that counts.
I was thinking more like that iStock is supposed to be a 'micro'stock, and it seems to be moving towards macro, though with a very confusing model. They should make their intentions clear to contributers. Some contributers are very commited to the micro model, and may be able to make informed decisions if they only had the actual information to do so.
-
But then, that seems to be their strategy - fewer downloads at a higher price point. And actually, there's nothing wrong with that in itself.
Absolutely not: the model worked for many years and is now called 'macrostock'.
Indeed, I agree - it often seems in the monthly stats threads that people are bemoaning and seeing disaster ahead because they have fewer downloads. It's the income that counts.
Seems logical that not IS Agency and Getty owned content will take an increasing share of these smaller numbers. Getty takes a bigger share on these sales.
I agree. All those collections pushing non-exclusive images further down the search are going to reduce earnings. They should raise commissions to keep it sustainable for non-exclusive contributors ::)
-
Seems logical that not IS Agency and Getty owned content will take an increasing share of these smaller numbers. Getty takes a bigger share on these sales.
I agree. All those collections pushing non-exclusive images further down the search are going to reduce earnings. They should raise commissions to keep it sustainable for non-exclusive contributors ::)
More likely to see total percentages paid out in exclusive royalties gradually reduced first - tweaking the model continually in order to produce a result which is equivalent to 20% averaged ?
Best outcome for them could be mid/macro prices, 20% average royalties on microstock model with combined Getty IS class and brand ? So people putting their own work online and inspection by non staffers on piece pay. Maybe the rest of Getty moves towards that ? The two models combined.
Somewhere down the road some version of image exclusivity via some sort of collection based distribution at 20% ? But they have enough going on for now. And something about keywording. Is it possible that keywording might become a service layer ?
-
I agree. All those collections pushing non-exclusive images further down the search are going to reduce earnings. They should raise commissions to keep it sustainable for non-exclusive contributors ::)
I strongly suspect that a future incarnation of the search engine will have the ability to search individual collections - including the non-exclusive collections. Buyers want to be able to look within the lowest priced imagery.
Yes, it was said in the forums, back when exclusive image prices went up, that there would never be a way to exclude exclusive images from any search. But at this point I would not bet money on Istock keeping any of their promises to contributors.
If buyers want to be able to search the lowest priced images, then Istock is likely to come up with a way for them to do that.
-
If buyers want to be able to search the lowest priced images, then Istock is likely to come up with a way for them to do that.
Yeah. They'll send them to ThinkStock. :D
-
...
If buyers want to be able to search the lowest priced images, then Istock is likely to come up with a way for them to do that.
Agreed. It's only normal e-commerce. Practically every other website does it - they have "price" as sorting option, or even "price (low to high)" and "price (high to low)". Anything else is just going to annoy their customers and drive them away.
Unless it is actually their devious plan to drive the company into the ground (and I can't see how it could be) then they're going to have to give in and do this. They cannot offer similar-looking, but (vastly) different-priced goods for sale without this feature. Amazon does it, expedia does it, and Istock had darn well better do it unless they want to look like a bunch of fools.
The existence of this feature and the way that customers use it might also force them to think hard about pricing. Is run-of-the-mill stock imagery really worth many times more than what professional but non-exclusive artists have produced, just because it was bought in bulk from god-knows-where and stamped with an "agency collection" seal of approval? Their customers will let them know pretty quickly, as soon as they have the means to differentiate.
-
Loving it. I've been shopping at Dreamstime now, where you can still get 1 credit for $1 for as little as $25. At iStock, I'd have to shell out a whopping $5000 to get that same conversion.
-
Loving it. I've been shopping at Dreamstime now, where you can still get 1 credit for $1 for as little as $25. At iStock, I'd have to shell out a whopping $5000 to get that same conversion.
Glad it's working out for you Carolyn!
I am honestly surprised Istock has been able to hang on it its buyers as long as it has. The myth that it has the best quality and selection is just that - a myth.
Yes, Istock still has most of its exclusives, but the exclusive images themselves are, with very few exceptions, about the same quality, variety, and subject matter as what's available from independents at the other sites.
-
I am honestly surprised Istock has been able to hang on it its buyers as long as it has. The myth that it has the best quality and selection is just that - a myth.
Yes, Istock still has most of its exclusives, but the exclusive images themselves are, with very few exceptions, about the same quality, variety, and subject matter as what's available from independents at the other sites.
I beg to differ. iStock excel especially with regards to quality, a lot thanks to exclusives - and iStock beeing strict about submissions I guess. Plus their search is way better. Even though at times CV search can be frustrating, it generally give more precise results.
As a sidenote and an example, of all things, I bought a pic of your hubbies’ ass crack yesterday. On Dreamstime, but I initially used Istock search. Seeing it as a non-exclusive image, I could then move on to Dreamstime to find i there.
-
I am honestly surprised Istock has been able to hang on it its buyers as long as it has. The myth that it has the best quality and selection is just that - a myth.
Yes, Istock still has most of its exclusives, but the exclusive images themselves are, with very few exceptions, about the same quality, variety, and subject matter as what's available from independents at the other sites.
I beg to differ. iStock excel especially with regards to quality, a lot thanks to exclusives - and iStock beeing strict about submissions I guess. Plus their search is way better. Even though at times CV search can be frustrating, it generally give more precise results.
As a sidenote and an example, of all things, I bought a pic of your hubbies’ ass crack yesterday. On Dreamstime, but I initially used Istock search. Seeing it as a non-exclusive image, I could then move on to Dreamstime to find i there.
I don't agree with istock being strict with submissions. I often stumble across a portfolio and think that person would struggle to pass the entry test with shutterstock. I don't think that's a bad thing though. As contributors, we can get obsessed with "quality" but I see images that I don't like being used all the time.
And I think what is missing on istock is just as good as their exclusive content.
-
I don't agree with istock being strict with submissions. I often stumble across a portfolio and think that person would struggle to pass the entry test with shutterstock. I don't think that's a bad thing though. As contributors, we can get obsessed with "quality" but I see images that I don't like being used all the time.
And I think what is missing on istock is just as good as their exclusive content.
[/quote]
I agree with this - and I am largely a buyer - I have never understood the exclusive thing either - would love someone to explain to me how an exclusive photo on istock is somehow more attractive to me as a buyer - the thing I am concerned about is how much an image may or may not have been used not where it came from. There is virtually no subject area (in photos that is - vectors are a different story) that cannot be found across all the sites. And I find istock's standards to be about the same as the other Big 4 - each with their idiosyncrasies to be sure but basically all equally as strict in the larger picture.
As for istock's search - it's better than it used to be but not that great either.
So I cannot figure out why people buy photos there given all the other crap that comes with IS.
-
I beg to differ. iStock excel especially with regards to quality, a lot thanks to exclusives - and iStock beeing strict about submissions I guess. Plus their search is way better. Even though at times CV search can be frustrating, it generally give more precise results.
As a sidenote and an example, of all things, I bought a pic of your hubbies’ ass crack yesterday. On Dreamstime, but I initially used Istock search. Seeing it as a non-exclusive image, I could then move on to Dreamstime to find i there.
Then I stand corrected! I will never argue with one of my buyers. I am grateful for the business! My hubby and I thank you. Look - he's even giving you a vertical smile ;D
In all seriousness, you do make a good point about the strictness of the standards at IS. As a buyer, you are probably in a better position than I am to judge the collection as a whole.
I just meant that it is rare I see an exclusive who has a style and/or subject matter that is so unique you can't find similar on other sites. Admittedly, this is partly due to some non-exclusives that make a career out of copying exclusive images...
-
I agree with this - and I am largely a buyer - I have never understood the exclusive thing either - would love someone to explain to me how an exclusive photo on istock is somehow more attractive to me as a buyer - the thing I am concerned about is how much an image may or may not have been used not where it came from.
That's a benefit, to a limited extent, of exclusivity for the buyer.
You can see the number of sales every image has, even though nowadays the actual sales are fuzzified a bit.
Some contributors, like me, have never submitted any images RF anywhere else. So the sales you see on iStock are the total sales for these files.
However, you might have to dig a bit to find out whether an exclusive contributor has always been exclusive, or when they became exclusive.
-
A real life example: I need images of a speeding moped to illustrate mopeds exceeding the 45 km/h speeding limit in Norway for mopeds for use in newspaper articles on the subject:
Search term "speeding moped".
Istock by downloads: http://is.gd/gUjyC (http://is.gd/gUjyC)
Istock by Best Match: http://is.gd/gUjGE (http://is.gd/gUjGE)
98 matches, 1-3 relevant for the newspaper articles, one really nice photograph (though not relevant).
Dreamstime: 1 image: http://is.gd/gUk4Z (http://is.gd/gUk4Z) switching "moped" with "scooter" (which is less relevant), 16 results (mostly of water scooters): http://is.gd/gUkcl (http://is.gd/gUkcl)
Fotolia: 1 image: http://is.gd/gUkne (http://is.gd/gUkne) and a couple more with water scooters when switching "moped" with "scooter".
Istock wins hands on.
-
A real life example: I need images of a speeding moped to illustrate mopeds exceeding the 45 km/h speeding limit in Norway for mopeds for use in newspaper articles on the subject:
Search term "speeding moped".
Istock by downloads: [url]http://is.gd/gUjyC[/url] ([url]http://is.gd/gUjyC[/url])
Istock by Best Match: [url]http://is.gd/gUjGE[/url] ([url]http://is.gd/gUjGE[/url])
98 matches, 1-3 relevant for the newspaper articles, one really nice photograph (though not relevant).
Dreamstime: 1 image: [url]http://is.gd/gUk4Z[/url] ([url]http://is.gd/gUk4Z[/url]) switching "moped" with "scooter" (which is less relevant), 16 results (mostly of water scooters): [url]http://is.gd/gUkcl[/url] ([url]http://is.gd/gUkcl[/url])
Fotolia: 1 image: [url]http://is.gd/gUkne[/url] ([url]http://is.gd/gUkne[/url]) and a couple more with water scooters when switching "moped" with "scooter".
Istock wins hands on.
Out of curiosity, how many of these pics from Alamy are relevant? (I ask because I generally think Alamy's search is dire, because it doesn't have a CV. To me, the results here look quite relevant, though most seem to be located in Asia, which you'd hav to filter out for your particular article.
http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=speeding+moped&ct=&submitsearch=Search&go=1&a=-1&archive=1&size=0xFF (http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=speeding+moped&ct=&submitsearch=Search&go=1&a=-1&archive=1&size=0xFF)
-
A real life example: I need images of a speeding moped to illustrate mopeds exceeding the 45 km/h speeding limit in Norway for mopeds for use in newspaper articles on the subject:
Search term "speeding moped".
Istock by downloads: [url]http://is.gd/gUjyC[/url] ([url]http://is.gd/gUjyC[/url])
Istock by Best Match: [url]http://is.gd/gUjGE[/url] ([url]http://is.gd/gUjGE[/url])
98 matches, 1-3 relevant for the newspaper articles, one really nice photograph (though not relevant).
Dreamstime: 1 image: [url]http://is.gd/gUk4Z[/url] ([url]http://is.gd/gUk4Z[/url]) switching "moped" with "scooter" (which is less relevant), 16 results (mostly of water scooters): [url]http://is.gd/gUkcl[/url] ([url]http://is.gd/gUkcl[/url])
Fotolia: 1 image: [url]http://is.gd/gUkne[/url] ([url]http://is.gd/gUkne[/url]) and a couple more with water scooters when switching "moped" with "scooter".
Istock wins hands on.
"Speeding" in the Istock C.V converts to speed. Try searching speed and moped on the other sites and the results are similar.
-
Out of curiosity, how many of these pics from Alamy are relevant? (I ask because I generally think Alamy's search is dire, because it doesn't have a CV. To me, the results here look quite relevant, though most seem to be located in Asia, which you'd hav to filter out for your particular article.
[url]http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=speeding+moped&ct=&submitsearch=Search&go=1&a=-1&archive=1&size=0xFF[/url] ([url]http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=speeding+moped&ct=&submitsearch=Search&go=1&a=-1&archive=1&size=0xFF[/url])
2-3 are motion blurred enough to be used. The rest is evidently not from anywere near Northern Norway. Unfortunately, Alamy pricing (£60) is way too much for a superlocal miniscule online newspaper churning out police report articles. At Istock a comparable image size (sans E+, Vetta or Agency) is less than $8.
-
"Speeding" in the Istock C.V converts to speed. Try searching speed and moped on the other sites and the results are similar.
Now I feel a bit embarrassed. But thank you! That was really helpful.
-
Out of curiosity, how many of these pics from Alamy are relevant? (I ask because I generally think Alamy's search is dire, because it doesn't have a CV. To me, the results here look quite relevant, though most seem to be located in Asia, which you'd hav to filter out for your particular article.
[url]http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=speeding+moped&ct=&submitsearch=Search&go=1&a=-1&archive=1&size=0xFF[/url] ([url]http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=speeding+moped&ct=&submitsearch=Search&go=1&a=-1&archive=1&size=0xFF[/url])
2-3 are motion blurred enough to be used. The rest is evidently not from anywere near Northern Norway. Unfortunately, Alamy pricing (£60) is way too much for a superlocal miniscule online newspaper churning out police report articles. At Istock a comparable image size (sans E+, Vetta or Agency) is less than $8.
I was really just wondering about the search. Thanks for looking!
It seems that no-one pays the stated price on Alamy. Deep discounts seem to be the norm: meeting micro going down as micro goes up.
-
I agree with this - and I am largely a buyer - I have never understood the exclusive thing either - would love someone to explain to me how an exclusive photo on istock is somehow more attractive to me as a buyer - the thing I am concerned about is how much an image may or may not have been used not where it came from.
That's a benefit, to a limited extent, of exclusivity for the buyer.
You can see the number of sales every image has, even though nowadays the actual sales are fuzzified a bit.
Some contributors, like me, have never submitted any images RF anywhere else. So the sales you see on iStock are the total sales for these files.
However, you might have to dig a bit to find out whether an exclusive contributor has always been exclusive, or when they became exclusive.
Are many buyers concerned about how many time an image has been purchased before? If they are, I wonder why some images are still selling so well when there are better newer versions with low sales? And wouldn't it be more useful to know to what extent the image has been used? There's a big difference between someone using it for their personal blog and a big company buying an EL and using it in a marketing campaign. The downloads don't give you that information. I also read that an istock exclusive sells the same images on alamy as RM, so the number of downloads on istock isn't necessarily always giving the buyer the full number of sales.
-
I agree with this - and I am largely a buyer - I have never understood the exclusive thing either - would love someone to explain to me how an exclusive photo on istock is somehow more attractive to me as a buyer - the thing I am concerned about is how much an image may or may not have been used not where it came from.
That's a benefit, to a limited extent, of exclusivity for the buyer.
You can see the number of sales every image has, even though nowadays the actual sales are fuzzified a bit.
Some contributors, like me, have never submitted any images RF anywhere else. So the sales you see on iStock are the total sales for these files.
However, you might have to dig a bit to find out whether an exclusive contributor has always been exclusive, or when they became exclusive.
Are many buyers concerned about how many time an image has been purchased before? If they are, I wonder why some images are still selling so well when there are better newer versions with low sales? And wouldn't it be more useful to know to what extent the image has been used? There's a big difference between someone using it for their personal blog and a big company buying an EL and using it in a marketing campaign. The downloads don't give you that information. I also read that an istock exclusive sells the same images on alamy as RM, so the number of downloads on istock isn't necessarily always giving the buyer the full number of sales.
I have heard of that, but it's against Alamy's rules.
However, of course what you say about image use is true.
-
Are many buyers concerned about how many time an image has been purchased before? If they are, I wonder why some images are still selling so well when there are better newer versions with low sales? And wouldn't it be more useful to know to what extent the image has been used? There's a big difference between someone using it for their personal blog and a big company buying an EL and using it in a marketing campaign. The downloads don't give you that information. I also read that an istock exclusive sells the same images on alamy as RM, so the number of downloads on istock isn't necessarily always giving the buyer the full number of sales.
Well the exclusive artist image download count only works if the artist really only sells through iStock and only ever sold through iStock. I've got images that have sold over a thousand times, and just a handful of times at iStock. If I go exclusive tomorrow, the download count still stays the same on iStock, and that could lead a buyer to mistakenly think that the image isn't widely in use.
That's always been a flaw in the exclusive system. The crown only means that a particular artist is exclusive right now. It says nothing of their past.
-
"Speeding" in the Istock C.V converts to speed. Try searching speed and moped on the other sites and the results are similar.
thank you! That was really helpful.
Actually, this would support the idea that Istock's CV and search are more effective than the others.
To be honest, I would have assumed that "speed" on any of the sites would have also brought up "speeding". It is counterproductive for us to have to keyword plurals and multiple conjugations of every single word we use! I don't do that, and I bet a lot of images are not turning up in searches at the other sites :(
-
To sell the same RF exclusive istock images in alamy as RM is not allowed at istock, and would mean being banned forever.
And the benefit of exclusive images applies if this image is the one wich suits your needs. Te benefit of being able to buy it and use it.
-
Another disappointed buyer -
from the forums http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=276322&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=276322&page=1)
-
Im not too sure I believe this any longer, buyers going by the thousands, etc. I mean lets face it, if buyers really were abandening ship by the thousands, wouldnt it stand to reason Getty would become mildly worried, theyre accoutable to higher chiefs. Im pretty sure that if it was any truth in this we would have heard of some compromize or something?
-
Im not too sure I believe this any longer, buyers going by the thousands, etc. I mean lets face it, if buyers really were abandening ship by the thousands, wouldnt it stand to reason Getty would become mildly worried, theyre accoutable to higher chiefs. Im pretty sure that if it was any truth in this we would have heard of some compromize or something?
Yep! only wishing thinking by some on this forum.
-
actually I think it will take a bit of time before the true effects are really known. I don't believe that buyers are all leaving in droves at the same time, but I do think that they are slowly but surely looking around at the competition. What happened with the big agencies (i.e Getty, Corbis) when istock (and other microstock agencies) started popping up was a steady loss of buyers as they began to migrate away to these low-price/high-quality outlets. Now we see Getty, who we all know has seen a significant drop in customers over the recent years, trying to take over iStock and move their high-price collections there. Buyers aren't stupid. they are starting to see the changes and paying attention. They are starting to look elsewhere for good images at better prices.
that's how I see it anyway.
-
Im not too sure I believe this any longer, buyers going by the thousands, etc. I mean lets face it, if buyers really were abandening ship by the thousands, wouldnt it stand to reason Getty would become mildly worried, theyre accoutable to higher chiefs. Im pretty sure that if it was any truth in this we would have heard of some compromize or something?
Mildly worried? Midldly amused maybe: "Yipee, one micro site gone, next one please" It keeps on making money? "Yipee, it makes money"
In short: now that they own it, they don't give a flying fak. They have their main business, they can just push their ideas on how its done, either outcome favors them.
-
actually I think it will take a bit of time before the true effects are really known. I don't believe that buyers are all leaving in droves at the same time, but I do think that they are slowly but surely looking around at the competition. What happened with the big agencies (i.e Getty, Corbis) when istock (and other microstock agencies) started popping up was a steady loss of buyers as they began to migrate away to these low-price/high-quality outlets. Now we see Getty, who we all know has seen a significant drop in customers over the recent years, trying to take over iStock and move their high-price collections there. Buyers aren't stupid. they are starting to see the changes and paying attention. They are starting to look elsewhere for good images at better prices.
that's how I see it anyway.
I agree. I don't think it is buyers leaving in droves. I think it is buyers like the one in the link who have discovered that the prices have doubled. And the suggestions from the contributors on the thread is to a) ask Customer Support for a one-time price break or to look for other similar images that may be able to be used. Either way, the buyers' buying habits will need to be changed or they are going to continue to be in a jam and losing money on their projects. Who is going to pay for the time it takes for the OP to go back and try to wade through many more images and try to find something that will work? I am a graphic designer. There is nothing more sucky than to have spent an hour looking for the perfect image, finding it, and then going back and finding that it's now way over budget and can't be used.
Once buyers have to do this a time or two, it will get old, and then I think they will start looking around.
How sad is it that contributors have to be on these threads apologizing for the massive screw-ups of IS/Getty?
-
+1 to Jami and Cathy's posts.
No, this is not a one time flood of buyers leaving. It is more of a trickle turning into a stream.
I know that some exclusives are seeing their royalties go up. With all the various collections and other price raising schemes, this is not surprising. But what's significant, IMO, is that pretty much everyone with a mature portfolio has seen their DL numbers plummet, and continue to drop month over month.
I can't for the life of me understand why more exclusives aren't bothered by this. I would be freaking out if all my eggs were in that basket.
Kudos to the exclusives in that thread who are trying to help the buyer find workarounds to get his project done. But buyers shouldn't have to go to the forums and get workarounds or pep talks from contributors (much less snotty retorts).
A business is really not SUSTAINABLE if customers can't use it easily and intuitively. If buyers need a training session on how to avoid getting hosed by higher prices, or confusing search engines, that isn't going to fly for long. As we are seeing...
-
I'm sure that there are people at istock who will get a big bonus if they hit their profit targets. They have worked out that the best way to do that is to increase prices and cut commissions. It will work in the short term, people will put up with almost anything for a while but I don't see this as a long term winner. These are still difficult economic times and I think buyers will want to spend less money in the next few years. Contributors will need more than 20% commission to make it sustainable, the amateurs are already being shut out with higher standards. I think their plan could be to sell istock before it suffers the same problems Getty has had. Then we will have to see what the long term plans of the new owners are. I feel much more comfortable as a non-exclusive but I wish less of my eggs were in microstock.
-
A lot of buyers are fed up, but many of them still have credits left they have to use up, so I wouldn't be surprised to see iStock's earnings begin to drop sharply after the first of the year. Plus, many contributors are planning on leaving the site at the end of 2010 - which will decrease the size of the selection and make the competing micros that much more appealing. iStock's biggest advantage has been their huge library of exclusive content, which gave them a much better selection than the competition. They will lose that advantage over time, now that so many contributors are dropping exclusivity, and many independents are planning to stop uploading, or have stopped already. Eventually, the only unique thing about the site will be the fact that the prices are higher there than they are on any other micro. And somehow I doubt that distinction will keep the buyers coming. Eventually it has to reach the point where Getty will be undone by their own arrogance, I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.
-
A lot of buyers are fed up, but many of them still have credits left they have to use up, so I wouldn't be surprised to see iStock's earnings begin to drop sharply after the first of the year. Plus, many contributors are planning on leaving the site at the end of 2010 - which will decrease the size of the selection and make the competing micros that much more appealing. iStock's biggest advantage has been their huge library of exclusive content, which gave them a much better selection than the competition. They will lose that advantage over time, now that so many contributors are dropping exclusivity, and many independents are planning to stop uploading, or have stopped already. Eventually, the only unique thing about the site will be the fact that the prices are higher there than they are on any other micro. And somehow I doubt that distinction will keep the buyers coming. Eventually it has to reach the point where Getty will be undone by their own arrogance, I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.
Wishfull thinking again.
quite common here I might add.
-
Kudos to the exclusives in that thread who are trying to help the buyer find workarounds to get his project done. But buyers shouldn't have to go to the forums and get workarounds or pep talks from contributors (much less snotty retorts).
Absolutely. But I think the second-last straw to my banning was stating that if someone had to be told how to use a site, the design was a usability failure, and suggesting that the web developers should all have to read Don't Make Me Think, the usability Bible. I actually thought that was helpful and constructive criticism, but it wasn't taken that way!
It scares me that Roger Mexico posted earlier today that there was going to be a new iteration of the site design and there would be screenshots to show how it all worked. That's what happened the last time. We shouldn't need it. F5 introduced a lot of problems without any preceptible benefit - at least I can't think of any, and I asked what the F5 improvements actually were (I think that was probably the third-last straw!).
-
Probably been said before . . . but if a website has to instruct, show, direct users to "How-to" screenshots, etc . . . that's an epic fail.
[ x ] all websites should be easy to use
-
A lot of buyers are fed up, but many of them still have credits left they have to use up, so I wouldn't be surprised to see iStock's earnings begin to drop sharply after the first of the year. Plus, many contributors are planning on leaving the site at the end of 2010 - which will decrease the size of the selection and make the competing micros that much more appealing. iStock's biggest advantage has been their huge library of exclusive content, which gave them a much better selection than the competition. They will lose that advantage over time, now that so many contributors are dropping exclusivity, and many independents are planning to stop uploading, or have stopped already. Eventually, the only unique thing about the site will be the fact that the prices are higher there than they are on any other micro. And somehow I doubt that distinction will keep the buyers coming. Eventually it has to reach the point where Getty will be undone by their own arrogance, I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.
Wishfull thinking again.
quite common here I might add.
wishful indeed and I'm doing everything within my power to see to it that it happens...also "quite common here" ;)
-
A lot of buyers are fed up, but many of them still have credits left they have to use up, so I wouldn't be surprised to see iStock's earnings begin to drop sharply after the first of the year. Plus, many contributors are planning on leaving the site at the end of 2010 - which will decrease the size of the selection and make the competing micros that much more appealing. iStock's biggest advantage has been their huge library of exclusive content, which gave them a much better selection than the competition. They will lose that advantage over time, now that so many contributors are dropping exclusivity, and many independents are planning to stop uploading, or have stopped already. Eventually, the only unique thing about the site will be the fact that the prices are higher there than they are on any other micro. And somehow I doubt that distinction will keep the buyers coming. Eventually it has to reach the point where Getty will be undone by their own arrogance, I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.
Wishfull thinking again.
quite common here I might add.
wishful indeed and I'm doing everything within my power to see to it that it happens...also "quite common here" ;)
Good luck...
-
A lot of buyers are fed up, but many of them still have credits left they have to use up, so I wouldn't be surprised to see iStock's earnings begin to drop sharply after the first of the year. Plus, many contributors are planning on leaving the site at the end of 2010 - which will decrease the size of the selection and make the competing micros that much more appealing. iStock's biggest advantage has been their huge library of exclusive content, which gave them a much better selection than the competition. They will lose that advantage over time, now that so many contributors are dropping exclusivity, and many independents are planning to stop uploading, or have stopped already. Eventually, the only unique thing about the site will be the fact that the prices are higher there than they are on any other micro. And somehow I doubt that distinction will keep the buyers coming. Eventually it has to reach the point where Getty will be undone by their own arrogance, I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.
Wishfull thinking again.
quite common here I might add.
wishful indeed and I'm doing everything within my power to see to it that it happens...also "quite common here" ;)
Good luck...
appreciated ;)
-
I can't for the life of me understand why more exclusives aren't bothered by this. I would be freaking out if all my eggs were in that basket.
As I told you in another thread, at least for me, the DLs are not dropping significantly and revenue is improving.
-
They probably are freakin out but theres little they can do, isnt it?
Speaking as an independant ofcourse, I must say I havent noticed any differance what so ever, not yet anyway, amount of DLs are pretty much the same, at least for the last week. Revenues are only a fraction down but ofcourse this could be the rush before X-mas?
Well, only time will tell, interesting to see what happens after new-year.
-
I'm doing everything within my power to see to it that it happens.
Ha!
-
Another one...
"I'm ready for you to delete this because I know you don't like criticism, but this site is a complete mess. The search doesn't work properly - every file seems to cost 200 credits.
The front page says credits as low as £0.7 which is gibberish, that isn't how we write 70p in England, it's offensive that you don't do some research and display it correctly.
Let me tell you straight. This site used to be the best bar none, for quality, price and performance. You only have quality left. I've wasted too much time and money hoping it will get better but I can't stand this clunky site any more.
I have 400 credits left. When they have gone, so have I."
-
Another one...
"I'm ready for you to delete this because I know you don't like criticism, but this site is a complete mess. The search doesn't work properly - every file seems to cost 200 credits.
The front page says credits as low as £0.7 which is gibberish, that isn't how we write 70p in England, it's offensive that you don't do some research and display it correctly.
Let me tell you straight. This site used to be the best bar none, for quality, price and performance. You only have quality left. I've wasted too much time and money hoping it will get better but I can't stand this clunky site any more.
I have 400 credits left. When they have gone, so have I."
Ha, when I read his post, I thought, "Ah, it was £0.68 the other day" - and when I went to check, it now says $0.95 - without me changing any preferences etc. Ten minutes ago, I went into my one of own lightboxes, and all my file details disappeared and 'files per page' reset at 50 - again. How often have people been asking about this bug in the forums and it's not sorted out yet.
I just can't believe they don't make programmers work on this 24/7 - they introduced the problems, after all. (On the other hand, they were required to make changes, so whose fault really?)
Or just go back preF5. There were 'fewer' problems then.
-
You are really on the watch to past an copy any customer complain at istock. This one have been already posted at least two times. Such and effort and dedication.
-
You are really on the watch to past an copy any customer complain at istock. This one have been already posted at least two times. Such and effort and dedication.
Maybe people want to let others in the community read the post, knowing that somebody at Istock will likely delete the original?
-
You are really on the watch to past an copy any customer complain at istock. This one have been already posted at least two times. Such and effort and dedication.
Pity IS doesn't have as much effort and dedication to their buyers.
-
You are really on the watch to past an copy any customer complain at istock. This one have been already posted at least two times. Such and effort and dedication.
Where? Other topic? Original post was created 2 hours ago at IS.
-
You are really on the watch to past an copy any customer complain at istock. This one have been already posted at least two times. Such and effort and dedication.
Where? Other topic? Original post was created 2 hours ago at IS.
Vlad the imp started a new topic here: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/another-happy-buyer-at-istock/msg172996/?topicseen#new (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/another-happy-buyer-at-istock/msg172996/?topicseen#new), maybe not knowing about this thread.
-
Since I don't read the IS forums that much anymore, I am glad they are getting posted here.
-
You are really on the watch to past an copy any customer complain at istock. This one have been already posted at least two times. Such an effort and dedication.
Where? Other topic? Original post was created 2 hours ago at IS.
Yes, and it was re-posted here twice within minutes (if not seconds).
-
You are really on the watch to past an copy any customer complain at istock. This one have been already posted at least two times. Such and effort and dedication.
Where? Other topic? Original post was created 2 hours ago at IS.
Vlad the imp started a new topic here: [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/another-happy-buyer-at-istock/msg172996/?topicseen#new[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/another-happy-buyer-at-istock/msg172996/?topicseen#new[/url]), maybe not knowing about this thread.
Hum, thanks. I use to read only istock section of Microstockgroup forums.
-
You are really on the watch to past an copy any customer complain at istock. This one have been already posted at least two times. Such an effort and dedication.
Where? Other topic? Original post was created 2 hours ago at IS.
Yes, and it was re-posted here twice within minutes (if not seconds).
Understandable, since the moderator deletes this kind of thing in nanoseconds.
-
Here's a contributor saying they are considering shopping elsewhere.
Of course the thread was locked immediately, with a link to the other thread (which also got locked). LOL
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=278702&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=278702&page=1)
-
I really appreciate people being willing to post comments here at MSG.
Istock's forums are deadly dull now that so many posts are deleted and so many people banned. Most of the enthusiastic posts that remain just ring hollow for me now.
Thanks for posting Chico :)
Here's another one that JoAnn mentioned. For the sake of clarity and keeping everything accessible in one thread, I'm quoting it here:
From Louddoor:
In September 2009, my biggest gripe about iStock was that there were too many awesome photos. Sensory overload! Life was good.
In November 2010, I am so frustrated with the lolly-gagging and excuse-making regarding the current site "improvements" and changes, that I am honestly considering signing up for an account at another microstock site for THE. FIRST. TIME. EVER.
Fix the search! No more excuses! No one cares about empty statements like "We are getting really close." If you couldn't make the new site work *at least as good* as the old site, then you didn't have any business launching a new site. Waste of time, resources, and your money (which iStock seems to be in dire need of right now.)
-
I can't for the life of me understand why more exclusives aren't bothered by this. I would be freaking out if all my eggs were in that basket.
As I told you in another thread, at least for me, the DLs are not dropping significantly and revenue is improving.
same for me, things are good in general...but I suspect that won't be cut and paste across the threads here
-
same for me, things are good in general...but I suspect that won't be cut and paste across the threads here
Well, to be fair, this thread is about buyer's experiences, so that's why they are getting cut and pasted here.
But I am genuinely glad when I hear folks like you, JoAnn, and others are doing well. I just wish the happiness over there was a bit more widespread. Like it used to be. I certainly don't wish ill on any exclusives. Some of my best friends are exclusives :)
-
Some of my best friends are exclusives :)
Just as some of my best friends are independents :)
Most of the really nasty stuff hasn't happened yet - January will bring the rest of that. I continue to think that those who are soothed by higher prices and Getty as an outlet for Agency/Vetta (at lower royalty percentages even than the reduced ones on IS) aren't thinking through the long term. They'll all end up on 20% - which might be good news for independents if everyone's on 20% by then.
I don't understand why the attitude towards buyers is so inattentive. They don't keep them informed up front and the closest thing to a helping hand is posting that they should Contact Support. I know when I'm not treated well by a business and I have a choice, I vote with my wallet and hope that in time they come to their senses. Doesn't work with banks and cell phone companies as they're all just about equally awful :) Even if a business screws up, if they are attentive, contrite and helpful in trying to put things right, I find that a huge positive (unless they keep on doing it). So if I were just an iStock customer, I might overlook how they're treating contributors, but not how they were treating me. I think there's a ton of room for improvement there.
-
^^^That's why I believe istock will be sold off next year. They aren't thinking of holding on to their customers for the long term. They know most people will put up with things for a few months, hoping they will improve. If they can sell the site by then, it becomes someone else's problem.
The only other explanation I can think of for treating their contributors and buyers so badly is that they have become arrogant, all the good people have left and they are now being run by people that don't understand the importance of good relationships with their suppliers and clients. If that's true, it's going to be interesting to see how many people move to their rivals. It does work for some businesses because they are all as bad as each other. I don't think it will work with misrostock because a lot of people do this to supplement their income or just for fun. They don't need to put up with it and there are still sites that pay a much higher commission and would be a good alternative for buyers.
-
Exactly!!! January will come and sweet NOTHING will happen and frankly I do hope that nothing will come for the reason that this topic/subject is now getting boring and worn and torn.
Everyone is angry and frustrated, I can understand that but theres no need to add fuel to fire, wishing for damnation, destruction, etc, etc. For the most of us, IS is still the major source of Micro income and well? just dont feel like putting crap on my own doorstep.
Besides this whole beef is with Getty not IS.
best. Christian
-
Exactly!!! January will come and sweet NOTHING will happen and frankly I do hope that nothing will come for the reason that this topic/subject is now getting boring and worn and torn.
Everyone is angry and frustrated, I can understand that but theres no need to add fuel to fire, wishing for damnation, destruction, etc, etc. For the most of us, IS is still the major source of Micro income and well? just dont feel like putting crap on my own doorstep.
Besides this whole beef is with Getty not IS.
best. Christian
my beef is with iStock, not Getty. things have already happened. Exclusives have left, buyers have left. there's a shift happening it's just difficult to see it right now while it's in progress. I think the first quarter of next year will see a lot of changes in the microstock industry.
-
how can you split Getty out from iStock? that's seems like a new one. iStock clearly state they're on board and more or less 100% behind Getty decisions. whether that is actually true, or whether iStock admin are held hostage by Getty mandates---same end result. good or bad depending on your perseptive. AFAIK it's somewhere in the middle. Getty have pushed iStock forward, in really positive ways. but there are definitely casualties.
-
OH! man! this is so ridiculous! IS, is owned by Getty and their investment bankers, they can do what . they want with IS and nobody can say a damned thing, they can close it down tomorrow, if they want.
Would you like to be out of a job??? well neither does the IS admin. Contrary its a blessing some of the old crew still persever, hopefully gunning for us.
-
Exactly!!! January will come and sweet NOTHING will happen and frankly I do hope that nothing will come for the reason that this topic/subject is now getting boring and worn and torn.
Everyone is angry and frustrated, I can understand that but theres no need to add fuel to fire, wishing for damnation, destruction, etc, etc. For the most of us, IS is still the major source of Micro income and well? just dont feel like putting crap on my own doorstep.
Besides this whole beef is with Getty not IS.
best. Christian
my beef is with iStock, not Getty. things have already happened. Exclusives have left, buyers have left. there's a shift happening it's just difficult to see it right now while it's in progress. I think the first quarter of next year will see a lot of changes in the microstock industry.
BS!!! if its so difficult to see, then how . do you see it?? second-sight or something? nothing has happend, just minor stuff such as we are a bit short-changed, thats all and that independants are taking a knocking. This is nothing, goes with the territory. This is the business we have chosen, nobody has twisted our arms. Dont like it? well then just get out of it, simple as that.
best.
-
I dropped my crown last month. My comments come from what I see and what I hear from other contributors at istock. I've been there for almost seven years and I've seen a lot of changes in those seven years. There have always been things going on that people complain about. In my opinion, this is the most dramatic change I've seen since I've been there. Friends of mine who are exclusive at diamond level - top contributors and one that (until recently) was an inspector have expressed their concern. They are being 'cautiously optimistic' at this point.
that's what I "see" .. I guess it's more of a feeling based on my tenure at iStock.
-
I dropped my crown last month. My comments come from what I see and what I hear from other contributors at istock. I've been there for almost seven years and I've seen a lot of changes in those seven years. There have always been things going on that people complain about. In my opinion, this is the most dramatic change I've seen since I've been there. Friends of mine who are exclusive at diamond level - top contributors and one that (until recently) was an inspector have expressed their concern. They are being 'cautiously optimistic' at this point.
that's what I "see" .. I guess it's more of a feeling based on my tenure at iStock.
Fair enough but Ive been with Getty-RM, since 1993, prior with Image-Bank and Stones-Worldwide, since 1986 and now lately Im an IS-Diamond, independant. So yes Ive seen an incredible amount nof changes but I hate to say nit but changes goes with the business.
I personally know several Diamonds, exclusives, etc, some are a bit dissapointed, some couldnt care and some are doing business as usual. Me? well, in spite of all this terror and horror that you proclaim is goiung to hit us, Im doing pretty well actually.
-
glad you're doing well and thanks for sharing your perspective.
And for the record, if you re-read my post, I didn't proclaim any terror and horror. I only said there are changes happening. :)
-
Jami, I agree with you, FWIW. The changes happening at Istock are going to reap long term consequences. Some of them are evident in the increased buyer complaints, and the vastly increased number of contributor gripes. But that growing unhappiness among the IS members (of both types) has the potential to slowly erode its #1 status among the micros.
It's not going to happen overnight, and thank goodness for that. Although Istock has dropped from 40% to 34% of my income over the course of the last couple of months (a drop unprecedented in 6 years), they are still my primary income source. I am not rooting for them to fail. Let me repeat that, because it doesn't seem to have been clear - I am not rooting for Istock to fail!
If they straighten out the site problems, and manage to retain their buyers; if sales pick back up and the site is succeeding; I will be pleased as punch. And financially well off too. So I'm rooting for them, but like any friend, I am going to tell them when there's spinach in their teeth.
-
Lisa - I believe you're not rooting for iStock to fail. but I think you're a minority. I think a lot of contributors would like to see iStock fail out of spite, as well as seeing iStock exclusives fail in order to say I Told You So, or to feed some other insecurity-motivated complex. The reality is, if we magnify it to the worst case scenario and iStock fails tomorrow. then what? the next agencies follow suit, because another Agency will then be the iStock-villain and become the new agency to hate. iStock's failure would actually be a very dangerous signal to the remainder of the industry.
I think lagereek says it best when he says that the doom and gloom terror-speak is largely not commented on by many higher-level contributors because they simply know it's the nature of the business and they're disinterested and too busy producing and managing their business to comment.
I think iStock is handling buyers's concerns. of course they are, but certainly not in public forums. to be honest, I think the last few outcry campaigns have really handicapped us as contributors. the same contributors cried wolf and now the voice of the community is somewhat muted. that's not cheerleading, that's common sense.
-
there will always be argumentless people who's last refuge is saying others have complexes : ) what happens if istock falls? nothin'. after a while, other places get somewhat more dl's. the content is so generic it makes no differene whatsoever.
-
Lisa, I am sure you are not rooting for ISTOCK to fall. However, is it possible that your decreased sales are due to your "Buyers Bailing on Istock"?
My memory could have failed me, did you asked all designers you know and your friends know to buy your images from other sites, and not from ISTOCK in this thread?
-
Lisa, I am sure you are not rooting for ISTOCK to fall. However, is it possible that your decreased sales are due to your "Buyers Bailing on Istock"?
My memory could have failed me, did you asked all designers you know and your friends know to buy your images from other sites, and not from ISTOCK in this thread?
And she also said she was stopping uploading, so maybe she's selling this bit less because of that.
-
Well, I doubt IS is going to fail, and certainly not right away, but I sure hope they fail to meet their unsustainable goals by shafting contributors and I think most non-exclusives would love to see the buyers go somewhere that they get a higher percentage. I'd much rather get $7.50 from a $15 sale than $3.50 from a $20 sale at IS. It would be even nicer if IS and Getty came up with a model where the photographers got more than 20% and they continued to push prices gradually upwards and all thrived. It just doesn't appear that they have any interest in that and unless something changes (like a sale of the company), I don't think they ever will.
-
Lisa, I am sure you are not rooting for ISTOCK to fall. However, is it possible that your decreased sales are due to your "Buyers Bailing on Istock"?
My memory could have failed me, did you asked all designers you know and your friends know to buy your images from other sites, and not from ISTOCK in this thread?
That is an excellent point. It is quite possible that may have had an effect, but I sort of doubt my influence is as far-reaching as I would like :)
However, reading the monthly threads on Istock the last couple of months, it seems quite a few have seen download numbers drop, not just me. The difference is that, for exclusives, the drops in downloads have been compensated by higher prices, Vetta, Agency, etc. For independents the lower download numbers are accompanied by equally lowered royalties.
Feel free to use me as an example if it's helpful, but from the anecdotal evidence in the monthly stats threads, my experience is by no means unique.
-
Jami, I agree with you, FWIW. The changes happening at Istock are going to reap long term consequences. Some of them are evident in the increased buyer complaints, and the vastly increased number of contributor gripes. But that growing unhappiness among the IS members (of both types) has the potential to slowly erode its #1 status among the micros.
It's not going to happen overnight, and thank goodness for that. Although Istock has dropped from 40% to 34% of my income over the course of the last couple of months (a drop unprecedented in 6 years), they are still my primary income source. I am not rooting for them to fail. Let me repeat that, because it doesn't seem to have been clear - I am not rooting for Istock to fail!
If they straighten out the site problems, and manage to retain their buyers; if sales pick back up and the site is succeeding; I will be pleased as punch. And financially well off too. So I'm rooting for them, but like any friend, I am going to tell them when there's spinach in their teeth.
I totally agree. I am also NOT rooting for iStock to fail at all. And no, I don't even think that for spite. I'm sad and disappointed for my personal perspective but it's not my nature to wish ill-will. I've made changes to my personal photography business based on my personal position at iStock with regard to the changes. I have not stopped uploading there nor do I plan to. I have an established portfolio there and very much want for it to continue to succeed. In the meantime I'm also branching out now to other avenues for my work. I want buyers to find my work where they feel most comfortable shopping.
I also believe that there is a lot of strong feelings on both sides here and emotions are still very high and will probably continue to be until the new policies take effect at iStock and contributors/buyers see how it will effect them personally.
-
Lisa - I believe you're not rooting for iStock to fail. but I think you're a minority. I think a lot of contributors would like to see iStock fail out of spite, as well as seeing iStock exclusives fail in order to say I Told You So, or to feed some other insecurity-motivated complex.
Definitely not out of spite for IS or exclusives. Like most of us, I just want to get the most for my hard work. With upload restrictions, harder reviews and lower royalties, I'm not sure the place to get the most out of my work is IS. I don't think it is DT, FT or SS either, so it isn't all picking on IS. IS is just the poster child now for poor industry practices. I'm not sure if others feel that way, but that's my perspective.
-
Lisa - I believe you're not rooting for iStock to fail. but I think you're a minority. I think a lot of contributors would like to see iStock fail out of spite, as well as seeing iStock exclusives fail in order to say I Told You So, or to feed some other insecurity-motivated complex.
Definitely not out of spite for IS or exclusives. Like most of us, I just want to get the most for my hard work. With upload restrictions, harder reviews and lower royalties, I'm not sure the place to get the most out of my work is IS. I don't think it is DT, FT or SS either, so it isn't all picking on IS. IS is just the poster child now for poor industry practices. I'm not sure if others feel that way, but that's my perspective.
What I would really like IS to do is to get their act together and get a decent website working so buyers can easily find images and buy. I would really like to see my commissions rising proportionately with the increase in cost of images. I would really like to see independents treated as respectfully as the exclusives are. After all, Getty/IS DOES make money off of independent's files too. But I don't see any of that happening...in fact, I see the opposite happening. For months now!
I don't really care one way or another whether Getty/IS succeeds or fails. It has been made clear to me that my files are no longer of value and that I deserve a cut in pay, in fact. When that happens, I look elsewhere to make up the loss and that's exactly what I and many others are doing.
P.S. Yes lisafx did start the thread. She isn't making the stuff up, she is just reporting it. So don't shoot the messenger. If you believe in Getty/IS and you want to back them, no matter what they throw at you, that's your decision. But you shouldn't fault others for taking a different stand. This is America, remember? We get to choose what we do with our own lives. Nobody gets to bully us into doing anything. And when I say you, I am not speaking to anyone in particular. If the shoe fits...
-
Lisa - I believe you're not rooting for iStock to fail. but I think you're a minority. I think a lot of contributors would like to see iStock fail out of spite, as well as seeing iStock exclusives fail in order to say I Told You So, or to feed some other insecurity-motivated complex. The reality is, if we magnify it to the worst case scenario and iStock fails tomorrow. then what? the next agencies follow suit, because another Agency will then be the iStock-villain and become the new agency to hate. iStock's failure would actually be a very dangerous signal to the remainder of the industry.
I think lagereek says it best when he says that the doom and gloom terror-speak is largely not commented on by many higher-level contributors because they simply know it's the nature of the business and they're disinterested and too busy producing and managing their business to comment.
I think iStock is handling buyers's concerns. of course they are, but certainly not in public forums. to be honest, I think the last few outcry campaigns have really handicapped us as contributors. the same contributors cried wolf and now the voice of the community is somewhat muted. that's not cheerleading, that's common sense.
Quite right! theres been takeovers, piracy, cheatings, god knows for the past 30 years in the stock-business and this is by far the least serious of them all. Like Lisa says, ofcourse theres gonna be repercussions and they will last for about six months and then all forgotten.
As long as an agency will exist: thats good news but when its killed off on purpose like SX, thats bad news, and for most of us.
-
Like Lisa says, ofcourse theres gonna be repercussions and they will last for about six months and then all forgotten.
As long as an agency will exist: thats good news but when its killed off on purpose like SX, thats bad news, and for most of us.
I guess? I have no plans to upload anymore there, so I have to assume that has at least some lasting effect. Someone can always replace me, but I'm not the only person not uploading. How many new contributors does it take to replace one productive veteran contributor? How many will need to be replaced? Will their files go elsewhere? How many files will get deleted? How many exclusives will leave? I highly doubt IS will close or be killed off by this, but it would be nice for them and every other agency to get a little bit of a wake up call. You know that theory that businesses are built by people and not just a bunch of numbers and percentage points.
-
Lisa - I believe you're not rooting for iStock to fail. but I think you're a minority. I think a lot of contributors would like to see iStock fail out of spite, as well as seeing iStock exclusives fail in order to say I Told You So, or to feed some other insecurity-motivated complex.
Definitely not out of spite for IS or exclusives. Like most of us, I just want to get the most for my hard work. With upload restrictions, harder reviews and lower royalties, I'm not sure the place to get the most out of my work is IS. I don't think it is DT, FT or SS either, so it isn't all picking on IS. IS is just the poster child now for poor industry practices. I'm not sure if others feel that way, but that's my perspective.
What I would really like IS to do is to get their act together and get a decent website working so buyers can easily find images and buy. I would really like to see my commissions rising proportionately with the increase in cost of images. I would really like to see independents treated as respectfully as the exclusives are. After all, Getty/IS DOES make money off of independent's files too. But I don't see any of that happening...in fact, I see the opposite happening. For months now!
I don't really care one way or another whether Getty/IS succeeds or fails. It has been made clear to me that my files are no longer of value and that I deserve a cut in pay, in fact. When that happens, I look elsewhere to make up the loss and that's exactly what I and many others are doing.
P.S. Yes lisafx did start the thread. She isn't making the stuff up, she is just reporting it. So don't shoot the messenger. If you believe in Getty/IS and you want to back them, no matter what they throw at you, that's your decision. But you shouldn't fault others for taking a different stand. This is America, remember? We get to choose what we do with our own lives. Nobody gets to bully us into doing anything. And when I say you, I am not speaking to anyone in particular. If the shoe fits...
Proving once again that Cathy has the best take on the whole thing. I totally agree. I don't care in the least who sends me the check, I just want to know how much it's for...
-
What I would really like IS to do is to get their act together and get a decent website working so buyers can easily find images and buy. I would really like to see my commissions rising proportionately with the increase in cost of images. I would really like to see independents treated as respectfully as the exclusives are.
^^ Well said, Cathy. This sums up my feelings too. I would even be willing to cut them some slack on the treating independents as well as exclusives thing. I'd be satisfied if they just treated independents as well as we are treated on the other Big 4 sites.
I am probably wildly naive, but I keep hoping that Getty - or perhaps some new owners in the near future - will return the site to what it was just a year ago, when everyone was doing pretty well there, and the only gripes most of us had were small ones. Probably that isn't realistic, but still would be nice.
-
I am rooting for iStock to fail. :D
Sorry, I just can't stand their arrogance.
-
What I would really like IS to do is to get their act together and get a decent website working so buyers can easily find images and buy. I would really like to see my commissions rising proportionately with the increase in cost of images. I would really like to see independents treated as respectfully as the exclusives are.
^^ Well said, Cathy. This sums up my feelings too. I would even be willing to cut them some slack on the treating independents as well as exclusives thing. I'd be satisfied if they just treated independents as well as we are treated on the other Big 4 sites.
If I felt exclusives were being treated respectfully at iStock I would still be exclusive there. We as independents have a right to feel mistreated by the commission structure. But I felt things were much worse when I was exclusive. First, they were going to lower my commission percentage by 18% after I had gone exclusive with them. Then they brought in outside competition from the Agency Collection and gave them preferential search position ahead of exclusives. On top of that, iStock messed up several key site features including search. And they announced that they had the right to "move the targets" on the commission percentages without warning.
So how would you like to have all of your eggs in that basket? Exclusives are taking far more risk than any of us. For the few who end up profiting from the changes - more power to you and congratulations.
I'm insulated as an independent. At the end of the day Shutterstock, Fotolia and Dreamstime keep bringing in the sales. So if iStock collapses or lowers commissions even more it won't affect me that much.
-
Back in early 90s and in the Getty-RM, we were all on a 50/50 basis, few years later we were on a 60/40 basis and a few years later on a 70/30 basis, in gettys favour ofcourse and blah, blah.
revenues from RM, in them days were a lot bigger then today, much, much more, so a cut down to 30%, hell that could mean thousands of dollars, which it did.
There was some serious holloring and shouting, this and that, pretty much same as now but with one big differance. It was business, not personal!
I do feel that some here are taking this very, very personal, as if this change is directed ONLY to them and its turning into a habbit to use a magnifying glass just to find the slightest, most microscopical fault and then enlarge it to a billboard poster.
Me? Im far from happy with this new deal and I agree, the site needs fixing in just about everything and Im pretty sure that will come, once this has blown over.
IS, can survive without their independants, thats for sure but thats it, just survive! IS, is still today barely the only company within the Getty-sphere that consistantly shows a profit and I dont think they want to venture that by throwing out lots of independants, considering there are hundereds of independants with the higher rankings supplying.
Im not taking anybodys side in this, not sticking up for anybody but I think we should steady-on untill we really know whats going to happen.
best.
-
^^^Was there a forum like this when Getty were making the commission cuts? It always looks worse on a forum, people don't feel the need to be polite.
And I'm not surprised the reaction to the Getty cuts would be more business like because I presume most of their contributors were professionals that relied a lot on Getty for their income. It isn't the same with istock, a lot of people can leave them and still pay their mortgage.
And after seeing how Getty acquired a lot of their rival sites and then cut commissions, I'm not surprised there's a big negative reaction when they try to do the same with microstock.
-
snip
f I felt exclusives were being treated respectfully at iStock I would still be exclusive there. We as independents have a right to feel mistreated by the commission structure. But I felt things were much worse when I was exclusive. First, they were going to lower my commission percentage by 18% after I had gone exclusive with them. Then they brought in outside competition from the Agency Collection and gave them preferential search position ahead of exclusives. On top of that, iStock messed up several key site features including search. And they announced that they had the right to "move the targets" on the commission percentages without warning.
Excellent point, Dan. A whole lot changed a couple of months ago.
-
Back in early 90s and in the Getty-RM, we were all on a 50/50 basis, few years later we were on a 60/40 basis and a few years later on a 70/30 basis, in gettys favour ofcourse and blah, blah.
revenues from RM, in them days were a lot bigger then today, much, much more, so a cut down to 30%, hell that could mean thousands of dollars, which it did.
There was some serious holloring and shouting, this and that, pretty much same as now but with one big differance. It was business, not personal!
I do feel that some here are taking this very, very personal, as if this change is directed ONLY to them and its turning into a habit to use a magnifying glass just to find the slightest, most microscopical fault and then enlarge it to a billboard poster.
Christian, I think most of us lack the decades of experience that you have in stock. For many of us, this is the first time we have experienced Getty's business practices firsthand. It's extremely upsetting.
Even having heard about Getty's pasts behavior, it came as a surprise that they would cut commissions at Istock. The amounts of money involved in individual microstock sales are so small, relative to the amounts in Getty's trad business, it seemed there was nowhere to cut! To cut 5-20% from someone who is already getting paid the lowest rates in the industry (pennies on the dollar) seems shockingly greedy, even for a company that already has a reputation for greed.
I completely agree with you that this is, bottom line, a business decision. But considering that Istock has always billed itself as a "community" first, and a majority of their contributor base are hobbyists who joined for the community and fun of it, the hurt feelings and anger are understandable. Only a tiny minority of microstock contributors are doing it FT as a business. For most this feels like, not only an insulting business decision, but also a personal betrayal.
Personally, I am somewhat in the middle. I appreciate your willingness to share your years of experience. In many ways you even predicted developments similar to these long ago, so perhaps you are able to take them in stride. I hope one day to match your objectivity, but for the moment, I am still pretty royally pi$$ed ;)
-
Hi Lisa! how goes?
I know exactly what you mean and it is upsetting. Their decision came as a shock for me as well ( not surprised though) I never thought they would go as far with IS, as they did.
What I mean is: now supposing there are in fact a lot of buyers leaving and all hell has broken loose, things which we dont know about, things that can make Getty come to a compromize or whatever?? perhaps we should relax a bit, wait and see what will REALLY happen after new-year. I mean there are so many here who are just guessing, they dont know, cant know but just guessing. Its a danger to listen too much to all this.
I dont believe this has got anything at all to do with IS, exclusives, independants or whatever. Getty needs more money, thats all, its as simple as that, more dosh and IS, being successfull, well, it was an easy prey.
all the best Lisa.
-
I dont believe this has got anything at all to do with IS, exclusives, independants or whatever. Getty needs more money, thats all, its as simple as that, more dosh and IS, being successfull, well, it was an easy prey.
I'm sure you are right - Getty needs money and Istock was ripe for harvesting. Will definitely be interesting to see how this plays out over the next 6 months....
-
Back in early 90s and in the Getty-RM, we were all on a 50/50 basis, few years later we were on a 60/40 basis and a few years later on a 70/30 basis, in gettys favour ofcourse and blah, blah.
revenues from RM, in them days were a lot bigger then today, much, much more, so a cut down to 30%, hell that could mean thousands of dollars, which it did.
There was some serious holloring and shouting, this and that, pretty much same as now but with one big differance. It was business, not personal!
I do feel that some here are taking this very, very personal, as if this change is directed ONLY to them and its turning into a habbit to use a magnifying glass just to find the slightest, most microscopical fault and then enlarge it to a billboard poster.
Me? Im far from happy with this new deal and I agree, the site needs fixing in just about everything and Im pretty sure that will come, once this has blown over.
IS, can survive without their independants, thats for sure but thats it, just survive! IS, is still today barely the only company within the Getty-sphere that consistantly shows a profit and I dont think they want to venture that by throwing out lots of independants, considering there are hundereds of independants with the higher rankings supplying.
Im not taking anybodys side in this, not sticking up for anybody but I think we should steady-on untill we really know whats going to happen.
best.
I agree with you that it's not personal. Part of the issue with microstock is that it came from without. As you know, it was hard to get into the big agencies back then and the costs of production were much higher. I used to make 4x5 dupes of my images to send out for approval via fedex, so i expected a big payday when a sale was made. The digital revolution turned that all over. Even though Getty was ,as I recall, the first to sell on a website, the abilty to send out CD's instead of film changed a lot of business models. Photodisc killed my market, and eventually a great deal of RM as well. When getty was publicly owned, they were constantly being second guessed by the analysts about the trend of low priced competition. They didn't have an answer, which is why they were taken private at such a low ( compared to previous sales numbers) price. I don't think getty has any idea how to change this, because I don't think there is an answer. It's like a Western Union telegram. There was a time when you had to pay a lot of money to send a message quickly to the other side of the world. Now it's free. Western Union tried for years to salvage a business model out the past, and still has the money transfer business, but even that is being killed by paypal. So what's going to happen? I don't know. All I know is that you look for the best oppourtunity and try to make the most of it. Which is why I'm here.
-
It seems somewhere I read that Hellman & Friedman, a private investment firm who bought Getty in 2008, usually sales their business within 3 years. I can't find the article now, maybe someone else knows.
Edit:...if you notice the timing is just right...2011
-
there are a few articles that say that about H&F. that's really their whole shtick I believe. from everything I read, their purpose is to add value to a company, build its profit margin/future potential and sell it off intact. I forget which other companies they VCed but I think there were some big ones. I want to say Google, but that doesn't seem right. maybe they sold something TO Google. who knows, can't remember. it wouldn't surprise me to see Getty sold. hopefully intact and iStock intact as well.
-
Getty needs wants more money, thats all, its as simple as that, more dosh and IS, being successfull, well, it was an easy prey.
That's my take on it.
-
Hi DonDing,
I read the article from Jonathan Klein saying the company would be looking build up the value to sell in 3-5 years once they were purchased by Hellman & Friedman, they were planning on "for lack of a better term" spinning it. Stock dropped from 90 to 24 in one year more or less and they bought it up to keep their information under wraps and not have to have to answer to stock holders. What is going on inside the machine is so hard to say these days and I think that is the way they want it to stay. I've been looking for the old article on Google but still haven't found it. I'll keep looking.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Hi DonDing,
I read the article from Jonathan Klein saying the company would be looking build up the value to sell in 3-5 years once they were purchased by Hellman & Friedman, they were planning on "for lack of a better term" spinning it. Stock dropped from 90 to 24 in one year more or less and they bought it up to keep their information under wraps and not have to have to answer to stock holders. What is going on inside the machine is so hard to say these days and I think that is the way they want it to stay. I've been looking for the old article on Google but still haven't found it. I'll keep looking.
Best,
Jonathan
I was trying to find it and couldn't, but what you said is what I remember. There is no way to tell what is going on since they are a private investment company, but personally the way things are going at iStock....I think they are getting ready for a big sale.
-
there are a few articles that say that about H&F. that's really their whole shtick I believe. from everything I read, their purpose is to add value to a company, build its profit margin/future potential and sell it off intact. I forget which other companies they VCed but I think there were some big ones. I want to say Google, but that doesn't seem right. maybe they sold something TO Google. who knows, can't remember. it wouldn't surprise me to see Getty sold. hopefully intact and iStock intact as well.
They sold the portfolio company DoubleClick to Google for $3.1 billion in, I believe it was 2007.
-
thank you - that was it.....I couldn't remember the details
-
Bottom paragraph of this article;
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6877227.ece (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6877227.ece)
-
Bottom paragraph of this article;
[url]http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6877227.ece[/url] ([url]http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6877227.ece[/url])
Thanks gostwyck...that was it.
-
Hi DonDing,
I read the article from Jonathan Klein saying the company would be looking build up the value to sell in 3-5 years once they were purchased by Hellman & Friedman, they were planning on "for lack of a better term" spinning it. Stock dropped from 90 to 24 in one year more or less and they bought it up to keep their information under wraps and not have to have to answer to stock holders. What is going on inside the machine is so hard to say these days and I think that is the way they want it to stay. I've been looking for the old article on Google but still haven't found it. I'll keep looking.
Best,
Jonathan
I was a shareholder with Getty until about 6 months before they got taken out. The stock was climbing like mad until the last year before the buyout, but they started getting a lot of questions in the conference calls about RF taking away the RM share. At that time, Getty was trying to up the price of RF and got no where with that strategy. They came in with a couple of bad quarters and the stock fell through the floor. All this time, they kept saying that RF wouldn't hurt RM. Microstock wasn't an issue at that time, it was just declining revenue from RM. They didn't have an answer, so they just stopped taking questions. Most private equity firms try to turn a company in 3-5 years, after putting in new management and improving operations. That's the spin they will put on it for the roadshow- how they are positioned for growth with a profitable microstock model in a dominant position in the market. It's been off the analyst radar for so long they will only be able to judge the growth from getty's numbers. Anyone with an insight into the microstock business can see that Getty is sacrificing the future for the present jump in earnings, but no one on the street is going to say that, because Getty will sue them. ( it's happened to more than one analyst recently). The bottom line is that the present owners will cash out, and the new owners will wonder what happened in a few years. H&F knows they have to dump this company because it's a declining asset. It's just a question of waiting for the IPO market to heat up.
-
Hi DonDing,
I read the article from Jonathan Klein saying the company would be looking build up the value to sell in 3-5 years once they were purchased by Hellman & Friedman, they were planning on "for lack of a better term" spinning it. Stock dropped from 90 to 24 in one year more or less and they bought it up to keep their information under wraps and not have to have to answer to stock holders. What is going on inside the machine is so hard to say these days and I think that is the way they want it to stay. I've been looking for the old article on Google but still haven't found it. I'll keep looking.
Best,
Jonathan
I was a shareholder with Getty until about 6 months before they got taken out. The stock was climbing like mad until the last year before the buyout, but they started getting a lot of questions in the conference calls about RF taking away the RM share. At that time, Getty was trying to up the price of RF and got no where with that strategy. They came in with a couple of bad quarters and the stock fell through the floor. All this time, they kept saying that RF wouldn't hurt RM. Microstock wasn't an issue at that time, it was just declining revenue from RM. They didn't have an answer, so they just stopped taking questions. Most private equity firms try to turn a company in 3-5 years, after putting in new management and improving operations. That's the spin they will put on it for the roadshow- how they are positioned for growth with a profitable microstock model in a dominant position in the market. It's been off the analyst radar for so long they will only be able to judge the growth from getty's numbers. Anyone with an insight into the microstock business can see that Getty is sacrificing the future for the present jump in earnings, but no one on the street is going to say that, because Getty will sue them. ( it's happened to more than one analyst recently). The bottom line is that the present owners will cash out, and the new owners will wonder what happened in a few years. H&F knows they have to dump this company because it's a declining asset. It's just a question of waiting for the IPO market to heat up.
IMO I think they are getting ready to sell and since all the uproar over the rising prices and contributor cuts I really wonder how that will effect it. If I was investing, I would really pay attention to what is being said around the net cause it sure sounds like they are fluffing the pillows so they look fuller and as a buyer I'd be very cautious.
-
I'd think more importance will be placed on the bottom line. I doubt they'll be primarily concerned with forum banter. as much as some people would like to believe this is all over the net, it's not. as for Getty being a declining asset, I don't know if I buy that. they certainly were a declining asset. the point was to turn that around with the acquisition by H&F and going private. but, I guess we'll see as soon as they're sold. I think it's just a matter of when, not if, they're sold. I hope it's an innocuous transition at the contributor level.
-
IMO I think they are getting ready to sell
I'd agree. Which is probably where the "unsustainable" stuff ties in.
What buyer would want a company whose business model shows a declining profit margin year over year? Probably none at a premium price. So they adjusted some things to make the company more attractive.
Oddly, I haven't heard about any major changes to Gettyimages.com.
-
When good old Mark-Getty ( belonging to one of the richest families in the world) was the owner of Getty in early 90s, OH! man, there was lots of complaints, etc but one thing is for sure, he was a damned sight much better for contributors/clients, etc, then the present crew.
Now if there is a sell-out on the horizon, lets hope it goes back to being a creative buyer rather then these Mamon worshipping bankers crap.
RT! not too sure about wanting, and I teel you why: I personally know some of the most prolific photographers within the main-core of their RM, Im talking about pretty big names here, guys that used to rake in really serious revenues and today, they are not doing well, down with 50%.
Further more, their handling of IS, indicates desperation, its a desperate act, indicating the need to quickly show a better balance-page.
-
Any thoughts on who would buy Getty/Istock? I presume Corbis wouldn't be allowed to for competition reasons? I think they would already own Getty if they thought they could buy them.
Perhaps with the poor economic situation, they could buy Getty and split it up, selling off some parts.
Who else is there?
-
Any thoughts on who would buy Getty/Istock? I presume Corbis wouldn't be allowed to for competition reasons? I think they would already own Getty if they thought they could buy them.
Perhaps with the poor economic situation, they could buy Getty and split it up, selling off some parts.
Who else is there?
Corbis certainly have the money. Probably not a smart move but they would have world dominance thats for sure. Another brillant buyer would be old Steve-Jobs, imagine, what a set up, Apple-mac and IS/Getty.
In any event, doesnt have to be a big buyer, a small business would certainly get banks behind them for this type of purchase. Im actually thinking about it myself.
-
I was a shareholder with Getty until about 6 months before they got taken out. The stock was climbing like mad until the last year before the buyout, but they started getting a lot of questions in the conference calls about RF taking away the RM share. At that time, Getty was trying to up the price of RF and got no where with that strategy. They came in with a couple of bad quarters and the stock fell through the floor. All this time, they kept saying that RF wouldn't hurt RM. Microstock wasn't an issue at that time, it was just declining revenue from RM. They didn't have an answer, so they just stopped taking questions. Most private equity firms try to turn a company in 3-5 years, after putting in new management and improving operations. That's the spin they will put on it for the roadshow- how they are positioned for growth with a profitable microstock model in a dominant position in the market. It's been off the analyst radar for so long they will only be able to judge the growth from getty's numbers. Anyone with an insight into the microstock business can see that Getty is sacrificing the future for the present jump in earnings, but no one on the street is going to say that, because Getty will sue them. ( it's happened to more than one analyst recently). The bottom line is that the present owners will cash out, and the new owners will wonder what happened in a few years. H&F knows they have to dump this company because it's a declining asset. It's just a question of waiting for the IPO market to heat up.
nice post. whether intentionally or not, it sums up and adresses number of things that I think are important.
"All this time, they kept saying that RF wouldn't hurt RM." <-> "Microstock wasn't an issue at that time" <-> "just declining revenue from RM"
sure, there's no connection whatsoever. That's logical.
"sacrificing the future for the present jump in earnings"
That sums up micorstock. The "present jump" is exceptionally deceptive (if someone isn't very bright I guess) there becouse for most ppl getting involved it's an amazing jump: a jump from 0... or a jump from 'not even dreaming' that they could make money with their images. it's a bit amusing how those guys after being involved in it for a few years are complaining about dilution of sales value when they see trends like collages sold as one image... which is just a sub-scale repetition of what they started doing originally.
-
Any thoughts on who would buy Getty/Istock? I presume Corbis wouldn't be allowed to for competition reasons? I think they would already own Getty if they thought they could buy them.
Perhaps with the poor economic situation, they could buy Getty and split it up, selling off some parts.
Who else is there?
I don't think there will be a private sale. The likely players don't have the cash or available financing to pull it off. I think they will do an IPO- that is, a stock sale to the public. They will get a big investment firm, i.e. Goldman Sachs, to sell it. The Investment firm will be able to show off the incredible growth of the microstock model and Istock in particular. The raw numbers will back it up. All the things we complain about- taking 80% of revenue, etc, will be viewed as a selling point by the investment bankers. Tech companies have been leading the rally lately, and anything looking like a "social media" or "cloud based" company will look like the future. Google just offered $6bn for Groupon and got turned down! There have been bidding wars for esoteric cloud based companies recently, which points to a building market for IPO's. When they sell this, they will be selling Istock for the most part, with it's revenue growth numbers, it's commanding share of the market and it's low cost of goods sold. And to be honest, it's a compelling story. It will work, because the latest moves will boost the bottom line, and the buyers will infer that it is due to the improving economy. They will not be able to put together the back story because, after all, that's just professional photographers whining about how the world has changed. Do you think investors care? When the time comes to market this company, that "unsustainable thread" will be long gone, and Lobo will be playing "whack a mole" with every negative thread, leaving only the muffin tossers to make everything look peachy. Buy it on the open, sell it before the first quarterly results!
-
I don't think there will be a private sale. The likely players don't have the cash or available financing to pull it off. I think they will do an IPO- that is, a stock sale to the public. They will get a big investment firm, i.e. Goldman Sachs, to sell it. The Investment firm will be able to show off the incredible growth of the microstock model and Istock in particular. The raw numbers will back it up. All the things we complain about- taking 80% of revenue, etc, will be viewed as a selling point by the investment bankers.
I doubt it very much. Getty & Istockphoto are now so intertwined that they cannot possibly be separated. They'd be in direct competition with each other so how could you place a value on their future earnings as individual entities? Impossible.
Istock on it's own might be worth about $1B today but H&F paid $2.4B for Getty as a whole. At the time they paid a 37% premium above the actual market value of Getty (i.e. the share price). I'm really not sure they could get their money back if they tried to sell today. An IPO would normally require them to retain a significant chunk (up to 49%) of the company anyway for the confidence of investors. Investors aren't going to flood in if it looks like H&F are tryng to run away from Getty.
I think H&F might already be regretting the day they bought Getty. It could prove difficult to shift especially in today's more cautious market. They biggest problem I see is ... who's going to buy it and why?
-
Plus the fact that all creative services, including all Ad-agencies, etc are right now lowest in demand for investors, on a global scale.
-
Plus the fact that all creative services, including all Ad-agencies, etc are right now lowest in demand for investors, on a global scale.
Exactly.
-
@ Gostwyk- When i said they would be selling Istock, I meant that's the "hook" to the story. The entire enterprise will be sold. The investment bankers will focus on the Istock part of the business as where the future growth will come from. the rest of the company will be looked upon as an extra cash generating part of the company ( not profits, but cash flow). They will calculate the numbers in such a way as to give the investor the impression that they are paying for Istock's growth prospects and the rest of the company is more or less free. This is how investment bankers sell a product. And I don't doubt that H&F regrets buying Getty. But right now, they have to get as much out of this as they can, and the only likely buyer is the public. They overpaid, but that was then and this is now.
@ lagereek- I don't think this will be an ad agency story as much as a "crowdsourcing, cloud based, social media" story. I'm not saying it makes sense in reality, but that doesn't stop an IPO when investors are looking for return.
I've done shots for prospectuses, annual reprts and IPO's all my life, and I've seen how these guys work. The broker just needs a one paragraph "story" to lay out to his client. The chance to get in on a growing "new media" company always brings in the cash. Where else will you put your money- in T-bills at 0.78 percent? Anyway, just my opinion, but I don't see any other way forward for these guys. They are kind of out of choices with an asset whose value will diminish over time. They didn't see microstock coming, but they see it now.
-
Yeah I know what you mean. Ofcourse, this is all speculation, they might not wanna sell the damned thing at all. I suppose Getty still is a name in its own right but I tell you, it will take some awful clever doing selling this thing.
-
Yeah I know what you mean. Ofcourse, this is all speculation, they might not wanna sell the damned thing at all. I suppose Getty still is a name in its own right but I tell you, it will take some awful clever doing selling this thing.
I totally agree.
-
Funny thing is when H&F paid $2.5B for Getty they'd have been hoping to flog it on around now for about a 50% profit. I don't thing anyone's going to hand over $3.6B for Getty any time soon.
-
Here's another happy customer from IstocKphoto. Not.
"$4215 bucks. That's the amount of money we have spent with iStock since July 2008. Here's a little look into the past:
In July 2008, my biggest gripe about iStock was that the search function did a horrible job of returning relevant results, mostly because of keywords spammers. iStock realized this and worked very hard to fix it. I can attest that by 2009 it was much better; much easier to get useful results.
In September 2009, my biggest gripe about iStock was that there were too many awesome photos. Sensory overload! Life was good.
In November 2010, I am so frustrated with the lolly-gagging and excuse-making regarding the current site "improvements" and changes, that I am honestly considering signing up for an account at another microstock site for THE. FIRST. TIME. EVER.
Fix the search! No more excuses! No one cares about empty statements like "We are getting really close." If you couldn't make the new site work *at least as good* as the old site, then you didn't have any business launching a new site. Waste of time, resources, and your money (which iStock seems to be in dire need of right now.)"
-
someone already started a thread about that customer FYI.
oh gawd, if apple buys us...will we then be iiStock?
there are a few people over here who are so knowledgeable about economic/business analysis. unfortunately those same people are so emotionally biased against Getty/iStock that the analysis is insubstantial. why is that bias necessary if the writing is so clearly on the wall?
-
someone already started a thread about that customer FYI.
oh gawd, if apple buys us...will we then be iiStock?
there are a few people over here who are so knowledgeable about economic/business analysis. unfortunately those same people are so emotionally biased against Getty/iStock that the analysis is insubstantial. why is that bias necessary if the writing is so clearly on the wall?
What bias? That the enterprise value of Getty has clearly declined? You may love istock emotionally, but this is about numbers. H&F overpaid and now has the task of getting out with the smallest haircut. Gostwyck is correct that you can't get high numbers unless you have the earnings. Istock can be profitable without the enterprise value of Getty coming back to the buyout price, because that price was based on the RM numbers, which have evaporated. You misunderstand my point. I agree that the model that Istock created will dominate for the next few years, but the money that it generates does not support the price at which Getty was taken out. It's just math, not emotion.
-
Apparently the truth has an anti-iStock bias. :D
-
someone already started a thread about that customer FYI.
oh gawd, if apple buys us...will we then be iiStock?
there are a few people over here who are so knowledgeable about economic/business analysis. unfortunately those same people are so emotionally biased against Getty/iStock that the analysis is insubstantial. why is that bias necessary if the writing is so clearly on the wall?
What bias? That the enterprise value of Getty has clearly declined? You may love istock emotionally, but this is about numbers. H&F overpaid and now has the task of getting out with the smallest haircut. Gostwyck is correct that you can't get high numbers unless you have the earnings. Istock can be profitable without the enterprise value of Getty coming back to the buyout price, because that price was based on the RM numbers, which have evaporated. You misunderstand my point. I agree that the model that Istock created will dominate for the next few years, but the money that it generates does not support the price at which Getty was taken out. It's just math, not emotion.
good post. and I agree this has nothing to do with emotion....love or otherwise. despite my *love* for many aspects of iStock, the bottom line is what's best for my (read contributors in general) career. I'm exclusive as long as it works for me. friendship etc., aside. that's a separate issue and has nothing to do with what's best for my career. I won't be standing on deck playing a violin going down with any ship out of principle.
I can't argue your expertise. I find yours and others' posts very informative. I just think that you have no more access to numbers than anyone else, especially since getty went private. there could be (ARE) factors unknown to you and all of us. I think I would buy into the arguments more if they weren't so devoid of the possibility of being incorrect.
a thorough analysis should offer a referential viewpoint and acknowledge what it doesn't include. that's the main issue I have with this sort of conjecture. you can't just extrapolate based on data that are at least a few years old.
-
^^Being closely held prevents any accurate analysis of the actual numbers, but the overall direction of pricing has been markedly down. The new markets that have opened are operating at far smaller absolute numbers, so even with the expansion of the market, I would be very surprised to see higher revenue, never mind profits, than in the past. Again, one can hope that Getty has in fact made a whole lot more money recently than in the past, but that flies in the face of all the other evidence that is apparent. Let's hope that your dreams come true, and Getty turns out to be fabulously profitable. Then I still go back to my original position- buy on the rumour, sell on the news. ;)
-
buy on the rumor, sell on the news.....lol....I love that saying. haven't seen it in awhile. well, it's all food for thought in any case...
-
Jbarber873, I find your analysis of the situation really interesting and completely plausible. I don't know what your day job is, but it seems obvious that you are quite familiar with the workings of private equity companies, finance, and the stock market.
Thanks for taking the time to distill the situation into layman's terms. I suspect we will be getting the next phase in this saga sooner rather than later. Probably by mid 2011. It will certainly be interesting to watch it play out.
And I bet you are going to be able to do the "I told you so" dance, Jbarber :)
-
Jbarber873, I find your analysis of the situation really interesting and completely plausible. I don't know what your day job is, but it seems obvious that you are quite familiar with the workings of private equity companies, finance, and the stock market.
Thanks for taking the time to distill the situation into layman's terms. I suspect we will be getting the next phase in this saga sooner rather than later. Probably by mid 2011. It will certainly be interesting to watch it play out.
And I bet you are going to be able to do the "I told you so" dance, Jbarber :)
Jbarber873, certainly is eloquent, mastering the English language to perfection, I bet he is either a Financial-analyst or Journalist. crap! I lived in London for 25 years and New-York for 7 years and my English isnt half as good as his.
-
Jbarber873, I find your analysis of the situation really interesting and completely plausible. I don't know what your day job is, but it seems obvious that you are quite familiar with the workings of private equity companies, finance, and the stock market.
Thanks for taking the time to distill the situation into layman's terms. I suspect we will be getting the next phase in this saga sooner rather than later. Probably by mid 2011. It will certainly be interesting to watch it play out.
And I bet you are going to be able to do the "I told you so" dance, Jbarber :)
Jbarber873, certainly is eloquent, mastering the English language to perfection, I bet he is either a Financial-analyst or Journalist. crap! I lived in London for 25 years and New-York for 7 years and my English isnt half as good as his.
No. I'm just a lowly photographer, but I've worked with these people all my life. A still life shoot can be very boring, so i ask a lot of questions from the client, and they are happy to talk. I've seen them do this over and over.
-
Jbarber873, I find your analysis of the situation really interesting and completely plausible. I don't know what your day job is, but it seems obvious that you are quite familiar with the workings of private equity companies, finance, and the stock market.
Thanks for taking the time to distill the situation into layman's terms. I suspect we will be getting the next phase in this saga sooner rather than later. Probably by mid 2011. It will certainly be interesting to watch it play out.
And I bet you are going to be able to do the "I told you so" dance, Jbarber :)
Jbarber873, certainly is eloquent, mastering the English language to perfection, I bet he is either a Financial-analyst or Journalist. crap! I lived in London for 25 years and New-York for 7 years and my English isnt half as good as his.
I think you manage to get your points across rather clearly Christian ;D
-
No. I'm just a lowly photographer, but I've worked with these people all my life. A still life shoot can be very boring, so i ask a lot of questions from the client, and they are happy to talk. I've seen them do this over and over.
Darn, I need to get a better class of clients! ;)
However you came by your understanding of finance, I am glad you are sharing it here.
-
No. I'm just a lowly photographer, but I've worked with these people all my life. A still life shoot can be very boring, so i ask a lot of questions from the client, and they are happy to talk. I've seen them do this over and over.
Darn, I need to get a better class of clients! ;)
However you came by your understanding of finance, I am glad you are sharing it here.
As I posted in another thread, one of the things I really like about microstock is that NO CLIENTS come to the shoot. ;D
-
:D
-
If this is not the tipping point, I suspect that will come in January. Kelly has promised the exclusives they will all be making more money. Since royalties are being cut, that additional money will most likely come from yet another price hike...
well they can always cut more royalties from non-exclusives and give it to the exclusives
-
Any thoughts on who would buy Getty/Istock? I presume Corbis wouldn't be allowed to for competition reasons? I think they would already own Getty if they thought they could buy them.
Perhaps with the poor economic situation, they could buy Getty and split it up, selling off some parts.
Who else is there?
It will be Google - mark my words!!
-
Google is one possibility but I think they would of purchased Getty when the price was cheap if they wanted to. Do they really need Getty when there is nothing to stop them setting up their own site? That's one reason why I don't see a lot of value in Getty/istock, there's nothing stopping one of the big internet businesses setting up something better and taking away all their customers. It isn't like some businesses that have invested millions in property and have huge running costs.
-
I'm sure if Google did set something up from scratch they might take a lot of the causal buyer business, but I'd imagine the majority of sales on Getty are from account buyers and people who go direct to the site because they want to buy from a reputable stock agency.
Add into the equation that somehow Google would have to weed the 'professional' stock shots out from the billions of images people post on social networking and community sites which would be a logistical nightmare if not impossible.
So if they did want to enter the stock imagery business the most sensible route would be to buy an existing site, in which case I'd imagine they'd look at a site like Getty/iStock who keep saying how unsustainable the business is becoming, why would Google want to enter a business that's unsustainable.
More likely if Google did do anything it would be to set up a dedicated feature to allow people to market their own images directly from which Google take advertising revenue, win win situation for them.
-
I'm sure if Google did set something up from scratch they might take a lot of the causal buyer business, but I'd imagine the majority of sales on Getty are from account buyers and people who go direct to the site because they want to buy from a reputable stock agency.
Add into the equation that somehow Google would have to weed the 'professional' stock shots out from the billions of images people post on social networking and community sites which would be a logistical nightmare if not impossible.
So if they did want to enter the stock imagery business the most sensible route would be to buy an existing site, in which case I'd imagine they'd look at a site like Getty/iStock who keep saying how unsustainable the business is becoming, why would Google want to enter a business that's unsustainable.
More likely if Google did do anything it would be to set up a dedicated feature to allow people to market their own images directly from which Google take advertising revenue, win win situation for them.
That makes a lot of sense. There is a big problem of how to make sure the people selling the images actually own the images. Better for Google to not get involved in that, and just be the broker. The big albatross around the neck of Getty is the legacy costs of their out of date RM business, and that's not going away. I think if any private company were to buy Getty, they would be best off shuttering the entire RM side of the business, just close it down, and concentrate of repairing the Istock side from the damage that the present managers have inflicted. But I don't think that will happen, because the present owners still have a chance to do an IPO. Google could just wait until that IPO stock tanks, and buy the remains at a huge discount. I'd rather be Google than Getty. One has a future, and one doesn't.
-
another frustrated buyer just posted on the iS forums:
As a freelancer web designer who uses iStockphoto a lot for comp art - but doesn't know too much about the processes here - I actually almost left today and went to Getty because all the photos I was getting were priced 55 credits for a Xsmall (and they had blue or orange camera icons - which I have no idea what these mean - but now from reading this thread I assume this means that they are from an agency and are about as expensive as Getty or Corbis).
After several frustrating minutes I figured out that the grey cameras meant more "normal" pricing (although xsmalls are now 5 credits? Geez...). I tried using the "exclude Vetta..." filter in search and still got almost all super expensive results with blue and orange camera icons.
I can tell you all that if you sell images on iStockphoto - we regular designer Joe's out here who are pressed for time and need to get in and out fast - just see these big prices and leave. If this is the way it's going to be and there's going to be regular pricing and deluxe platinum super pricing - then you need a working filter with a price limit so we don't waste our time!
I really hope iStock takes these complaints to heart and fix the search, for crying out loud! They can implement code to double RC and reduce Vetta prices but they can't fix the sticky search issue? argh!
-
I really hope iStock takes these complaints to heart and fix the search, for crying out loud!
Me too! It's crazy - the overwhelming majority of work on the site is still at reasonable, microstock prices, but because of the search engine problems buyers are only seeing the high-priced stuff.
-
The buyers being constantly led to the higher Vetta and Agency collections means more profit for iStock...plus the fact that the 10% bonus issue still hasn't been fixed on the EL's. So what does this all mean...it means more profit for iStock.
Think about it.....$400 - 40% = $240 profit for them...whereas a $4 shot - 40% =$2.40 profit. They gotta sale 100 of the lower priced to match the profit of one vetta and that is to say they are the having to pay at the high dollar 40% commission level. At the lower percentages the profit is higher.
Plus not paying the 10% on top of that for the EL sales = more profit. Why else would these problems not be fixed?
It makes sense if they lose a few buyers because of the higher priced Vetta, they are probably still making more money. It's all about the bottom line for them.
-
To play devil's advocate for a second, how hard is it to switch your search to downloads instead of best match? That eliminates a lot or all of the Agency and Vetta. The best match has rarely lived up to its name, and I've always assumed many buyers (at least mine) don't use it.
-
To play devil's advocate for a second, how hard is it to switch your search to downloads instead of best match? That eliminates a lot or all of the Agency and Vetta. The best match has rarely lived up to its name, and I've always assumed many buyers (at least mine) don't use it.
maybe some people don't really want an image that's all over the place a 1000 times already. I did spend an awful lot of time searching and dling from istock, and out of respect for my own work and the client, looking thru the most downloaded was the very-very last choice.
-
To play devil's advocate for a second, how hard is it to switch your search to downloads instead of best match? That eliminates a lot or all of the Agency and Vetta. The best match has rarely lived up to its name, and I've always assumed many buyers (at least mine) don't use it.
Also a lot of the most downloaded would be the old stuff because it's been on there since the beginning and like Molka said it's already been downloaded a thousand times. Those most downloaded, if they happen to be exclusive, would be more expensive also because of higher canister level.
-
To play devil's advocate for a second, how hard is it to switch your search to downloads instead of best match? That eliminates a lot or all of the Agency and Vetta. The best match has rarely lived up to its name, and I've always assumed many buyers (at least mine) don't use it.
Buyers should use some other search order. But sales trends indicate that the overwhelming majority DO use Best Match. So how best match gets rigged is a very big deal to all of our sales.
-
To play devil's advocate for a second, how hard is it to switch your search to downloads instead of best match? That eliminates a lot or all of the Agency and Vetta. The best match has rarely lived up to its name, and I've always assumed many buyers (at least mine) don't use it.
Buyers should use some other search order. But sales trends indicate that the overwhelming majority DO use Best Match. So how best match gets rigged is a very big deal to all of our sales.
That was basically my point that some buyers should try using the other forms of searches and be a little more savvy. Every search is going to contain things you don't want because it has too many downloads, too expensive or any number of other reasons. That isn't going to get any easier as the collection grows and it probably isn't going to be any easier elsewhere. I'm surprised some of these agencies don't have a page describing methods to get the best search results (or maybe they do).
-
To play devil's advocate for a second, how hard is it to switch your search to downloads instead of best match? That eliminates a lot or all of the Agency and Vetta. The best match has rarely lived up to its name, and I've always assumed many buyers (at least mine) don't use it.
I'm sure some don't use best match, but enough do that regardless of how easy it is to sort by downloads, best match changes are a very real assist/threat to us.
I'll give you an example of an old file - uploaded in November 2005 - that sold quite well elsewhere, but never much at IS. 14 sales in its first year, 10 in its second and 3 in its third.
In June 2009 something shifted (possibly best match 2.0, but I don't know) and the image started selling - 67 in 2009 and 121 so far this year.
I'm obviously happy when an oldie that was overlooked gets a new lease on life, but it underlines for me that it isn't just about the quality of my images.
-
I'm sure some don't use best match, but enough do that regardless of how easy it is to sort by downloads, best match changes are a very real assist/threat to us.
I agree, and I'm definitely not saying there aren't problems with the search. Throwing images buyers don't necessarily want and that piss them off at the front of searches doesn't help either. I thought IS learned their lesson with that by favoring exclusive files, but it's back again. On the other hand, excluding exclusive files or a more subtle price search would be a useful search function, but that probably would not go over well with exclusive contributors. I guess someone is always going to be unhappy.
Your example did make me think of something funny though. I had this war image that sold well when Bush was president. Now, it doesn't sell very often. Should I be campaigning for Jeb in 2012? ;D
-
excluding exclusive files or a more subtle price search would be a useful search function, but that probably would not go over well with exclusive contributors. I guess someone is always going to be unhappy.
Completely agree. The collection at Istock is so stratified now, the most logicial solution would be to allow searches of each collection individually. That way buyers can choose whether they want to search lowest priced only, exclusive only, high-end only, or all jumbled together. And it should be easy to find and use the different search orders - not buried in a menu somewhere.
You're right that exclusives would probably be upset, but I'm not sure Istock really cares what contributors think so much anymore.
-
excluding exclusive files or a more subtle price search would be a useful search function, but that probably would not go over well with exclusive contributors. I guess someone is always going to be unhappy.
Completely agree. The collection at Istock is so stratified now, the most logicial solution would be to allow searches of each collection individually. That way buyers can choose whether they want to search lowest priced only, exclusive only, high-end only, or all jumbled together. And it should be easy to find and use the different search orders - not buried in a menu somewhere.
You're right that exclusives would probably be upset, but I'm not sure Istock really cares what contributors think so much anymore.
That is a logical solution. And I know somebody would be upset, but that would service the buyers the best. It would make it so much easier for them to find what they want. A happy buyer is a spending buyer.
-
I think the Agency search bug should be a priority too. it's absolutely ridiculous that buyers have to go through that to search for files. I don't get the hold up on that bug. how frustrating.
I don't agree with splitting out collections though. I think they've already considered an option to omit Vetta/Agency files from searches but I don't know what the final decision is on that issue.
-
I think the Agency search bug should be a priority too. it's absolutely ridiculous that buyers have to go through that to search for files. I don't get the hold up on that bug. how frustrating.
I don't agree with splitting out collections though. I think they've already considered an option to omit Vetta/Agency files from searches but I don't no what the final decision is on that issue.
I can only imagine, and this is purely speculation, that they've settled on the sort of buyer they want, and it's a high roller.
Against that is the extremely deep discounts they're offering.
Who knows.
Maybe I should study Marketing 101 so that I might have a chance of understanding what's going on.
-
I think the Agency search bug should be a priority too. it's absolutely ridiculous that buyers have to go through that to search for files. I don't get the hold up on that bug. how frustrating.
Somehow I suspect that if the bug locked the buyer into view only the dollar bin files it would have been fixed the first day. :o
-
I think the Agency search bug should be a priority too. it's absolutely ridiculous that buyers have to go through that to search for files. I don't get the hold up on that bug. how frustrating.
Somehow I suspect that if the bug locked the buyer into view only the dollar bin files it would have been fixed the first day. :o
The only one that would have been fixed quicker is if it only showed non-exclusive content... can you imagine that lasting for a couple of months?
-
I think the Agency search bug should be a priority too. it's absolutely ridiculous that buyers have to go through that to search for files. I don't get the hold up on that bug. how frustrating.
Somehow I suspect that if the bug locked the buyer into view only the dollar bin files it would have been fixed the first day. :o
The only one that would have been fixed quicker is if it only showed non-exclusive content... can you imagine that lasting for a couple of months?
it's not a bug. ;)
(http://baldrics.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/bugfeature.jpg)
-
Any thoughts on who would buy Getty/Istock?
It will be Google - mark my words!!
I have always thought that ebay would begin buying microstock sites someday. Ebay has the knowhow for handling a lot of small transactions among zilliions of buyers and sellers. And ebay owns Paypal.
But Google is a good bet too, given that the heart of microstock is the search engines, and nobody knows search engines better, and Google has made what 6 acquisitions already this year?
A dark horse would be Amazon.
-
The buyers being constantly led to the higher Vetta and Agency collections means more profit for iStock...plus the fact that the 10% bonus issue still hasn't been fixed on the EL's. So what does this all mean...it means more profit for iStock.
Think about it.....$400 - 40% = $240 profit for them...whereas a $4 shot - 40% =$2.40 profit. They gotta sale 100 of the lower priced to match the profit of one vetta and that is to say they are the having to pay at the high dollar 40% commission level. At the lower percentages the profit is higher.
Oh boy and why do you think Getty bought IS? Why Getty used to have serious financial problems while IS is raking in gold? Shouldn't it be the other way round when 80% of $1000 sale at Getty is $800?
-
FYI, there's an f5 announcement that addresses the search specifically...also covers the Agency Trap bug.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=280752&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=280752&page=1)
-
FYI, there's an f5 announcement that addresses the search specifically...also covers the Agency Trap bug.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=280752&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=280752&page=1[/url])
An improvement that forces the buyer to include Agency and Vetta in their search results... but only temporarily. Classic. :D
ETA: I am glad to see that they have finally fixed the multi-word CV narrowing results bug. It was really tedious to deal with.
-
An improvement that forces the buyer to include Agency and Vetta in their search results... but only temporarily. Classic. :D
ETA: I am glad to see that they have finally fixed the multi-word CV narrowing results bug. It was really tedious to deal with.
I love how they got the big kahuna to make the big announcement. Like having a search engine that actually works is something that is big, exciting news! No, it should have been there all along! Now, every time IS fixes something on their new and improved site that they screwed up in the first place, it will become huge news and will require big fanfare. The koolaid wooyaying has already resumed! Too funny.
-
Exactly Cathy. I noticed a post in the forum earlier that said something like 'Are we now celebrating mediocrity?'
It seems some are...
-
You're right, it should have been there all along. That doesn't mean I'm not happy they finally fixed it. Anything that improves the site is good for business whether or not the feature should have been there in the first place. I wonder if anyone can ever say anything even remotely positive about iStock without someone over here mentioning "koolaid"?
-
Fair point Jen. It's always better to experience improvement than no improvement. Also, none of us are flies on the wall - so we don't know exactly what's been going on behind the scenes... (FWIW, I've never mentioned 'koolaid'. I don't even know what it is - but I'm assuming it's some kind of sugary or high-caffeine drink that we don't have in the UK?)
Having said that, it does seem extraordinary that action has been so slow on what would have to be the most fundamental aspect of the microstock business - the ability of a buyer to find the thing they want to buy. It's impossible for me not to ruminate on how much money has been lost, both to the agency and the contributors, over these delays.
-
Koolaid reference:
http://www.raptureready.com/rr-kool-aid.html (http://www.raptureready.com/rr-kool-aid.html)
-
OMG Sean - I had no idea that was the source of the term. I just thought it meant people were overloaded on some sort of 'happy-juice' that took them beyond reason. Contextually, that's how it always sounded to me.
Seems the reality is rather more grim :(
ETA: Thanks so much for the explanatory link (almost forgot my manners!). Much appreciated.
-
Who wants to put bets down on the thing being buggy and broken (somehow in iStock's favor of course)? :D
-
Having said that, it does seem extraordinary that action has been so slow on what would have to be the most fundamental aspect of the microstock business - the ability of a buyer to find the thing they want to buy. It's impossible for me not to ruminate on how much money has been lost, both to the agency and the contributors, over these delays.
I agree with that for sure. And the agency search bug has been going on for how long? It drives me up the wall how slow they are to fix things sometimes.
It just irks me that being happy about those fixes means people over here start rolling their eyes and making jabs about koolaid and pom poms.
-
You're right, it should have been there all along. That doesn't mean I'm not happy they finally fixed it. Anything that improves the site is good for business whether or not the feature should have been there in the first place. I wonder if anyone can ever say anything even remotely positive about iStock without someone over here mentioning "koolaid"?
Posted by: rubyroo
Fair point Jen. It's always better to experience improvement than no improvement. Also, none of us are flies on the wall - so we don't know exactly what's been going on behind the scenes... (FWIW, I've never mentioned 'koolaid'. I don't even know what it is - but I'm assuming it's some kind of sugary or high-caffeine drink that we don't have in the UK?)
Having said that, it does seem extraordinary that action has been so slow on what would have to be the most fundamental aspect of the microstock business - the ability of a buyer to find the thing they want to buy. It's impossible for me not to ruminate on how much money has been lost, both to the agency and the contributors, over these delays.
Let's be fair, Jen...I have seen posts over there at the IS forum referencing the koolaid by people who are not from over here.
Of course improvements are great, but we aren't talking about improvements. We are talking about fixes.
-
So what would be an acceptable non-koolaid response to iStock announcing an important fix?
-
So what would be an acceptable non-koolaid response to iStock announcing an important fix?
How about a professional email to all contributors and buyers letting them know that the search function is fixed and explain how it works? To me, that would be to the point and businesslike. These posts by the big chief, with the subsequent wooyay posts, feels to me a lot like drama and show business instead of just plain business.
-
So what would be an acceptable non-koolaid response to iStock announcing an important fix?
Jen, why are you so concerned with how other people characterize your responses? Respond however you want and stop worrying what other people think of you.
I see you are a new member here, so it might help you to understand that this forum is about the only place people can voice criticism of the agencies without being banned or having the posts deleted/locked. So perhaps there is a bit of a wet blanket atmosphere. Lots of woo-yaying and backslapping over at Istock forums, if that's your cup of tea.
-
Having said that, it does seem extraordinary that action has been so slow on what would have to be the most fundamental aspect of the microstock business - the ability of a buyer to find the thing they want to buy. It's impossible for me not to ruminate on how much money has been lost, both to the agency and the contributors, over these delays.
I agree with that for sure. And the agency search bug has been going on for how long? It drives me up the wall how slow they are to fix things sometimes.
It just irks me that being happy about those fixes means people over here start rolling their eyes and making jabs about koolaid and pom poms.
It's enough to say, "Thank goodness - and not before time!"
-
It just irks me that being happy about those fixes means people over here start rolling their eyes and making jabs about koolaid and pom poms.
That irks you? Quite frankly all the woo-yayers and corporate c**k suckers on that Istockphoto thread make me want to throw up. This is a business that cynically bullys and exploits it's contributors ... and yet apparently they still go hysterical with excitment when IS finally gets around to fixing something (that it itself accidently broke) after several months of customer complaints and requests. Wow-ee. This is of course from an agency that is by a huge margin the wealthiest, probably employs the most staff and yet suffers more outages, bugs and other general 'design conflicts' than all the other major agencies put together. They are the only agency that still can't even generate up-to-date statistics for example.
Cathy has summed it up perfectly in her last post.
-
So what would be an acceptable non-koolaid response to iStock announcing an important fix?
Jen, why are you so concerned with how other people characterize your responses? Respond however you want and stop worrying what other people think of you.
I see you are a new member here, so it might help you to understand that this forum is about the only place people can voice criticism of the agencies without being banned or having the posts deleted/locked. So perhaps there is a bit of a wet blanket atmosphere. Lots of woo-yaying and backslapping over at Istock forums, if that's your cup of tea.
I don't know why it still says "New Member" as I've been reading for almost a year. I guess I haven't posted enough.
I'm not worried about what other people think of me. I probably shouldn't have said anything at all, I was grumpy this morning and I saw that K word again and I was inspired to comment. Lurking is really my strong point, I should probably stick to that.
-
I probably shouldn't have said anything at all, I was grumpy this morning and I saw that K word again and I was inspired to comment. Lurking is really my strong point, I should probably stick to that.
Yeah, I am pretty grumpy and confrontational today too. Must the that joyous Christmas spirit ;)
IMHO, any of us should feel free to comment on anything we want. Just with the understanding that folks may disagree - disagreeably.
-
Yes, it can be jarring to travel between "you've developed something you should've already had and made us dig through the forums to find it, wooyay!" and "those koolaid-drinking pom-pom-waving corporate c**ksuckers!!!" I am easily confused and disoriented. ;D
-
^^ROFL! It is certainly NEVER boring ;D
-
Yes, it can be jarring to travel between "you've developed something you should've already had and made us dig through the forums to find it, wooyay!" and "those koolaid-drinking pom-pom-waving corporate c**ksuckers!!!" I am easily confused and disoriented. ;D
Jen, welcome. it's a tough crowd here. but you get a good dose of reality too if you can handle terms like c*ck sucker being thrown around, which I find unprofessional and borderline abusive. it's the way it is here. I can't always handle it. I migrate between lurking and posting depending on the issue, but I read a lot here. there are some really knowledgeable people here if you don't mind wading through negativity.
-
Yes, it can be jarring to travel between "you've developed something you should've already had and made us dig through the forums to find it, wooyay!" and "those koolaid-drinking pom-pom-waving corporate c**ksuckers!!!" I am easily confused and disoriented. ;D
Yeah, responses at both places can wear on you. Reality is probably somewhere in between.
-
Yeah, responses at both places can wear on you. Reality is probably somewhere in between.
Well said!
-
Yeah, responses at both places can wear on you. Reality is probably somewhere in between.
Well said!
+ 2
-
Gostwyck's always blunt, but if you bowdlerize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bowdler) the language, the content's generally solid.
I have a very hard time dealing with the multitude of "thank you's" when long overdue bugs get fixed. And at this point, any mention of news for contributors on Monday has me clenching every muscle in anticipation of another round of bad news. They thought the partner program was good news. Then they pitched September 7th as good news for most contributors. Their ideas about good news and mine don't line up.
I honestly feel that my exclusive status is in the intensive care unit on life support and I just read that the gang that put me there is coming for a friendly visit on Monday :)
And I like having a place it's OK to say that without being told I'm a ball buster and having my posts deleted (both of which happened on IS forums).
-
Gostwyck's always blunt, but if you bowdlerize ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bowdler[/url]) the language, the content's generally solid.
I have a very hard time dealing with the multitude of "thank you's" when long overdue bugs get fixed. And at this point, any mention of news for contributors on Monday has me clenching every muscle in anticipation of another round of bad news. They thought the partner program was good news. Then they pitched September 7th as good news for most contributors. Their ideas about good news and mine don't line up.
I honestly feel that my exclusive status is in the intensive care unit on life support and I just read that the gang that put me there is coming for a friendly visit on Monday :)
And I like having a place it's OK to say that without being told I'm a ball buster and having my posts deleted (both of which happened on IS forums).
I'm a bit behind on the iStock postings. Are they making another announcement on Monday or is this about an announcement in the past? If it's coming up this Monday...you'd better take the weekend off to enjoy your final days of freedom!!
-
I'm a bit behind on the iStock postings. Are they making another announcement on Monday or is this about an announcement in the past? If it's coming up this Monday...you'd better take the weekend off to enjoy your final days of freedom!!
The meat is unhelpfully buried in the middle of the thread, but here's (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=280752&messageid=5349462) a part that's talking about what's coming Monday Dec 13th. Earlier in the thread they said it was something for contributors.
-
I'm a bit behind on the iStock postings. Are they making another announcement on Monday or is this about an announcement in the past? If it's coming up this Monday...you'd better take the weekend off to enjoy your final days of freedom!!
The meat is unhelpfully buried in the middle of the thread, but here's ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=280752&messageid=5349462[/url]) a part that's talking about what's coming Monday Dec 13th. Earlier in the thread they said it was something for contributors.
It looks like it may have something with F5 because of the reference to it at the end of his post.
-
I'm a little gun shy of what they consider to be good for contributors these days.
I am guessing at some point they will revise the targets slightly downwards and everybody will be happy. except for those like me who don't have 1.4 million RCs and will be taking a cut next year. Even if they cut that a few orders of magnitude I'll still be taking a cut next year.
They could do something that would at least level the playing field like saying an RC is an RC and the targets are for totals, vector, video, audio, photo... nah, that would make sense.
I guess they will do what they will do. They should post it somewhere other than the middle of a thread though.
--=Tom
-
The meat is unhelpfully buried in the middle of the thread, but here's ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=280752&messageid=5349462[/url]) a part that's talking about what's coming Monday Dec 13th. Earlier in the thread they said it was something for contributors.
It would certainly be much easier to find relevant information if it was posted at the top of the thread. Way too many cryptic and winky comments about mondays, F5s, etc. from Istock staff. They just dilute the thread so any useful news is nearly impossible to find....
Oh, just saw Jami made the same observation in the IS thread. +1 Jami :D
I'm a little gun shy of what they consider to be good for contributors these days.
Me too. I flinch like an abused dog every time I hear there's some new announcement coming that will be "good for contributors". Shudder!
My guess - an across the board price rise to soften the blow of lowered royalties. Of course this will be bad news for buyers, but the past year they have probably gotten used to bad news ;)
-
Pretty much anything they announce anymore is bad news for buyers. :D
-
yeah, I can't help be worry. but considering they made the search update to be the big announcement, I'm not expecting much. Of course, the search should have been working when they launched the new site in the first place! I fear that all these little tweeks are going to be "too little, too late" for some buyers. A lot of them are frustrated and looking elsewhere already. Which is good news for independents, but sucks for exclusives.
it's clear to me that the direction of istock is to promote the high-priced stuff of Agency and Vetta. I'm guessing their large buyer base of small-time freelancers and organizations with low budgets will continue to move on to find cheaper stock products. iStock will be catering to the big guys that have deep pockets.
-
iStock will be catering to the big guys that have deep pockets.
Meaning bigger discounts and less money on our end.
-
I'm a bit behind on the iStock postings. Are they making another announcement on Monday or is this about an announcement in the past? If it's coming up this Monday...you'd better take the weekend off to enjoy your final days of freedom!!
The meat is unhelpfully buried in the middle of the thread, but here's ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=280752&messageid=5349462[/url]) a part that's talking about what's coming Monday Dec 13th. Earlier in the thread they said it was something for contributors.
I really, really don't understand why they do that childish F5 thing. They post F5, and everyone has to post F5, F5, and by the time there's a post it's in the middle, so you have to waste time finding it, and they say they've got some great news but they're not going to tell us until Monday. Why don't they just tell us as soon as they have something to tell us instead of making us worry over the weekend. That's generally held as 'bad management'.
-
I really, really don't understand why they do that childish F5 thing. They post F5, and everyone has to post F5, F5, and by the time there's a post it's in the middle, so you have to waste time finding it, and they say they've got some great news but they're not going to tell us until Monday. Why don't they just tell us as soon as they have something to tell us instead of making us worry over the weekend. That's generally held as 'bad management'.
I get a little maudlin thinking about the days when F5 meant something good, and the excited anticipation was actually warranted. *sigh* :-\
-
iStock will be catering to the big guys that have deep pockets.
who are those supposed to be? I worked for big names and they don't have deep pockets for stock. There are special projects with high budgets but that means launching a new product, celeb or smthng like that, and that means commissioned shoots.
-
I honestly feel that my exclusive status is in the intensive care unit on life support ...
I really wouldn't be worried about giving up that crown. My data suggests to me that times are a'changing in the world of microstock. SS in particular are going from strength to strength and so far this month my earnings there are 25% higher than they are at Istockphoto. It's a trend that has been developing for some months now. Nearly 55% of my December's earnings at SS are from PPD's and EL's. They are no longer 'just a subscription site' __ far from it. I sell more EL's at SS than from all the other agencies combined (5 in the last 4 days for example).
If I assume that my own portfolio is exactly 'average' in it's performance, relative to the size of the entire library, then working my sales figures backwards can give an estimation as to the overall sales at each agency. If so, based on my November sales, then last month SS had a turnover of $9.8M and IS were $10.8M. Obviously I've had to base those calculations on a couple of educated guesses regarding the percentage commission paid at SS (assumed to be 33%) and the size of the IS library (assumed to be about 7.5M images). SS of course have nearly twice as many images, many of them either similars or fairly useless because of the lack of upload limits, so I suspect that their figure is artificially boosted by that. I've run this exercise a few times in the past and a couple of years ago SS were barely half that of IS. Whatever the accuracy of the estimations, the indisputable fact that SS is now generating more money for me than Istock, from essentially the same portfolio, tells me that they can't be too far apart when it comes to the size of the agency.
It might take another year or two but I reckon SS will eventually emerge as the dominant microstock agency. Who do you trust the most to win out in the end __ Jon Oringer, serial entrepreneur and founder of SS, or Kelly Thompson, COO of an H&F subsidiary?
-
iStock will be catering to the big guys that have deep pockets.
Meaning bigger discounts and less money on our end.
But just think of how many redeemed credits you might get! Money is not what is going to make you happy!
-
I really, really don't understand why they do that childish F5 thing. They post F5, and everyone has to post F5, F5, and by the time there's a post it's in the middle, so you have to waste time finding it, and they say they've got some great news but they're not going to tell us until Monday. Why don't they just tell us as soon as they have something to tell us instead of making us worry over the weekend. That's generally held as 'bad management'.
I get a little maudlin thinking about the days when F5 meant something good, and the excited anticipation was actually warranted. *sigh* :-\
Yeah. Those were the days :)
If they truly understood the way they've destroyed contributor (and buyer) confidence, trust, spirit - they'd stop the F5 stuff and just make straight, professional announcements because they'd get that what was once excited anticipation is now waiting and worrying about another what sauce storm on the horizon. And if they knew that, why would they continue to do that to us. Particularly if they aim to rebuild trust and all that jazz.
Ugh.
I will be shocked - but overjoyed - if Monday's announcement is actually something to celebrate.
-
Yes, it can be jarring to travel between "you've developed something you should've already had and made us dig through the forums to find it, wooyay!" and "those koolaid-drinking pom-pom-waving corporate c**ksuckers!!!" I am easily confused and disoriented. ;D
Jen, I also have a tough time wading through the obsequious wooyays on the iStock forum, but as another lurker on this site for two years I caught a good laugh and smile from your post. Hang in there and say it like you feel it.
-
It occurs to me that it is usually about this time of the year that Istock announce the new prices and or any other changes to the pricing architecture to be imposed in January. Could this be what Monday's news is going to be about? Will they be intending to mitigate the reduced commissions with higher prices and, if so, will their customers accept it?
-
It might take another year or two but I reckon SS will eventually emerge as the dominant microstock agency. Who do you trust the most to win out in the end __ Jon Oringer, serial entrepreneur and founder of SS, or Kelly Thompson, COO of an H&F subsidiary?
Color me unexcited at the thought of a subscription model dominating the market.
-
I really wouldn't be worried about giving up that crown. My data suggests to me that times are a'changing in the world of microstock. SS in particular are going from strength to strength and so far this month my earnings there are 25% higher than they are at Istockphoto. It's a trend that has been developing for some months now. Nearly 55% of my December's earnings at SS are from PPD's and EL's. They are no longer 'just a subscription site' __ far from it. I sell more EL's at SS than from all the other agencies combined (5 in the last 4 days for example).
If I assume that my own portfolio is exactly 'average' in it's performance, relative to the size of the entire library, then working my sales figures backwards can give an estimation as to the overall sales at each agency. If so, based on my November sales, then last month SS had a turnover of $9.8M and IS were $10.8M. Obviously I've had to base those calculations on a couple of educated guesses regarding the percentage commission paid at SS (assumed to be 33%) and the size of the IS library (assumed to be about 7.5M images). SS of course have nearly twice as many images, many of them either similars or fairly useless because of the lack of upload limits, so I suspect that their figure is artificially boosted by that. I've run this exercise a few times in the past and a couple of years ago SS were barely half that of IS. Whatever the accuracy of the estimations, the indisputable fact that SS is now generating more money for me than Istock, from essentially the same portfolio, tells me that they can't be too far apart when it comes to the size of the agency.
It might take another year or two but I reckon SS will eventually emerge as the dominant microstock agency. Who do you trust the most to win out in the end __ Jon Oringer, serial entrepreneur and founder of SS, or Kelly Thompson, COO of an H&F subsidiary?
I can't say what it's like for the average independent, but this hasn't been my experience at all. If anything it has been the opposite. IS has gradually pulled away from SS with less images.
-
I really wouldn't be worried about giving up that crown. My data suggests to me that times are a'changing in the world of microstock. SS in particular are going from strength to strength and so far this month my earnings there are 25% higher than they are at Istockphoto. It's a trend that has been developing for some months now. Nearly 55% of my December's earnings at SS are from PPD's and EL's. They are no longer 'just a subscription site' __ far from it. I sell more EL's at SS than from all the other agencies combined (5 in the last 4 days for example).
If I assume that my own portfolio is exactly 'average' in it's performance, relative to the size of the entire library, then working my sales figures backwards can give an estimation as to the overall sales at each agency. If so, based on my November sales, then last month SS had a turnover of $9.8M and IS were $10.8M. Obviously I've had to base those calculations on a couple of educated guesses regarding the percentage commission paid at SS (assumed to be 33%) and the size of the IS library (assumed to be about 7.5M images). SS of course have nearly twice as many images, many of them either similars or fairly useless because of the lack of upload limits, so I suspect that their figure is artificially boosted by that. I've run this exercise a few times in the past and a couple of years ago SS were barely half that of IS. Whatever the accuracy of the estimations, the indisputable fact that SS is now generating more money for me than Istock, from essentially the same portfolio, tells me that they can't be too far apart when it comes to the size of the agency.
It might take another year or two but I reckon SS will eventually emerge as the dominant microstock agency. Who do you trust the most to win out in the end __ Jon Oringer, serial entrepreneur and founder of SS, or Kelly Thompson, COO of an H&F subsidiary?
I can't say what it's like for the average independent, but this hasn't been my experience at all. If anything it has been the opposite. IS has gradually pulled away from SS with less images.
I only started with microstock a few years ago, but i can say without a doubt that SS has always been my best earner. Lately, IS has been dropping for me. It seems as though anything new just falls by the wayside and gets lost in the mass. Even things that are unique and sell very well elsewhere go nowhere on IS. Plus, they take over a month to inspect, and mostly reject, videos. At SS, I can post today and be selling tomorrow. If a shot catches on, it will continue to sell every day. If SS had an exclusive program, I would give it some thought.
-
It occurs to me that it is usually about this time of the year that Istock announce the new prices and or any other changes to the pricing architecture to be imposed in January. Could this be what Monday's news is going to be about? Will they be intending to mitigate the reduced commissions with higher prices and, if so, will their customers accept it?
My thoughts exactly. ;)
My guess - an across the board price rise to soften the blow of lowered royalties. Of course this will be bad news for buyers, but the past year they have probably gotten used to bad news ;)
-
^^^ Whoops __ missed that bit!
-
It occurs to me that it is usually about this time of the year that Istock announce the new prices and or any other changes to the pricing architecture to be imposed in January. Could this be what Monday's news is going to be about? Will they be intending to mitigate the reduced commissions with higher prices and, if so, will their customers accept it?
My thoughts exactly. ;)
My guess - an across the board price rise to soften the blow of lowered royalties. Of course this will be bad news for buyers, but the past year they have probably gotten used to bad news ;)
I can't imagine ANY company nowadays not pinching pennies, for whatever reason, but there seems to be a big bunch of IS people who seem to think IS buyers don't care about prices or price increases, that h*ck or high water they are going to stick with IS because they are lazy/don't care/whatever. I guess we will be finding it all out in short order.
-
While I wouldn't be surprised to see the normal price rise at iStock in January, I would be very surprised if this was the 'great news for contributers'. But as I've said, I'm pretty useless at second-guessing iStock.
-
It might take another year or two but I reckon SS will eventually emerge as the dominant microstock agency. Who do you trust the most to win out in the end __ Jon Oringer, serial entrepreneur and founder of SS, or Kelly Thompson, COO of an H&F subsidiary?
Color me unexcited at the thought of a subscription model dominating the market.
I'm mostly an outside viewer in this circuit, but here's my opinion of istock's most worrisome trend: http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/# (http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/#)
Of course the price model is different and so on, but if that trend continues for a long time, almost none of the details will matter. In the end, I think these statistics will dominate any discussion about current details.
Anyway, carry on... :)
-
^^^ Whoops __ missed that bit!
Well, you know, great minds think alike, and all that ;D
-
I'm mostly an outside viewer in this circuit, but here's my opinion of istock's most worrisome trend: [url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/#[/url] ([url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/#[/url])
WOW! :o
-
It might take another year or two but I reckon SS will eventually emerge as the dominant microstock agency. Who do you trust the most to win out in the end __ Jon Oringer, serial entrepreneur and founder of SS, or Kelly Thompson, COO of an H&F subsidiary?
Color me unexcited at the thought of a subscription model dominating the market.
I'm mostly an outside viewer in this circuit, but here's my opinion of istock's most worrisome trend: [url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/#[/url] ([url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/#[/url])
Of course the price model is different and so on, but if that trend continues for a long time, almost none of the details will matter. In the end, I think these statistics will dominate any discussion about current details.
Anyway, carry on... :)
This is the SiteAnalytics graph referenced above:
(http://www.lizworld.com/iStock/SiteAnalytics.jpg)
Someone will need to come in and interpret the figures, but here are Alexa stats for iStock, FT, DT and SS for the past six months:
(http://www.lizworld.com/iStock/AlexaDec10.jpg)
-
It might take another year or two but I reckon SS will eventually emerge as the dominant microstock agency. Who do you trust the most to win out in the end __ Jon Oringer, serial entrepreneur and founder of SS, or Kelly Thompson, COO of an H&F subsidiary?
Color me unexcited at the thought of a subscription model dominating the market.
I'm mostly an outside viewer in this circuit, but here's my opinion of istock's most worrisome trend: [url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/#[/url] ([url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/#[/url])
Of course the price model is different and so on, but if that trend continues for a long time, almost none of the details will matter. In the end, I think these statistics will dominate any discussion about current details.
Anyway, carry on... :)
This is the SiteAnalytics graph referenced above:
([url]http://www.lizworld.com/iStock/SiteAnalytics.jpg[/url])
Someone will need to come in and interpret the figures, but here are Alexa stats for iStock, FT, DT and SS for the past six months:
([url]http://www.lizworld.com/iStock/AlexaDec10.jpg[/url])
Worryingly, there's no evidence on either graph of "half of the year's sales being made in the final four months", as intimated by KKT in that fateful announcemant.
-
It would be interesting to know how the traffic data is gathered at each site. I know Alexa's comes from people who have their toolbar installed. How does Compete gather its data?
-
I'm mostly an outside viewer in this circuit, but here's my opinion of istock's most worrisome trend: [url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/#[/url] ([url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/#[/url])
Of course the price model is different and so on, but if that trend continues for a long time, almost none of the details will matter. In the end, I think these statistics will dominate any discussion about current details.
Interesting __ thanks for that. I've just been checking my stat's for the first 10 days of December on both IS & SS and comparing them to the same period last year. Income at Istockphoto is 30% down compared to last December but at Shutterstock it is 30% up. The figures for each year are almost identical but simply reversed between agencies. Weird.
-
Wonder how many of the Internet users in the Alexa graph would be anxious contributors trying to keep an eye on what's happening, going back frequently to see if there have been any new updates in policy
-
Interesting __ thanks for that. I've just been checking my stat's for the first 10 days of December on both IS & SS and comparing them to the same period last year. Income at Istockphoto is 30% down compared to last December but at Shutterstock it is 30% up. The figures for each year are almost identical but simply reversed between agencies. Weird.
Your post made me curious so I checked the same stats. In my case, both agencies are down from the same 10 days last year. Down 17% for Istock and down 12% for Shutterstock. Now I'm depressed :(
-
Interesting __ thanks for that. I've just been checking my stat's for the first 10 days of December on both IS & SS and comparing them to the same period last year. Income at Istockphoto is 30% down compared to last December but at Shutterstock it is 30% up. The figures for each year are almost identical but simply reversed between agencies. Weird.
Your post made me curious so I checked the same stats. In my case, both agencies are down from the same 10 days last year. Down 17% for Istock and down 12% for Shutterstock. Now I'm depressed :(
Apologies for the original stats link eventually leading to some people being depressed. Look on the bright side, you're still making (loads of?) money! The reason i brought up compare is because they (and alexa, and so on) can give us a slightly better/different idea of what the buyers are doing (I'm assuming buyer traffic is much higher than contributor traffic. I could be wrong). Looking at your specific numbers is usually way too specific, as it depends on endless factors (e.g. even if you added only 10 pics this year, if they were the top selling santa pictures of 2010, that might change your income dramatically).
Anyway, it's an interesting (graph on alexa) other statistic - but I find it somewhat confusing as it shows the graphs as a reach percentage.
-
IS has a post about a new F5 coming out after the weekend. That could be what your seeing in the recent Alexa stats as people keep checking to see what has broken, I mean, new woo-yay site whatever F5 thingy is.
-
IS has a post about a new F5 coming out after the weekend. That could be what your seeing in the recent Alexa stats as people keep checking to see what has broken, I mean, new woo-yay site whatever F5 thingy is.
Not the chart I posted above: that went up to 8th Dec and the announcement was made on the 9th.
-
if anyone still cares about buyer's leaving istock (personally I wish they would stay, but after seeing of these types of post, glad I am starting to spread my eggs to other baskets)
From this thread on iStock (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=282232&page=1)
Istock is officially no longer a micro stock site. With price hikes it was debateable, but now there is no way to turn off the vetta and agency Istock is doing me a mass disservice.
I, like thousands of other buyers, will not be buying vetta and agency simply because they are the first images to display in a search. We must now WASTE valuble time skipping the said "collection" making it an unviable service.
I will be purchasing my next stock credits at another site so see if it saves production time.
Shame really as IS was good
-
Thanks Jami. This is really so sad. I was hoping that all these posts by buyers would alert TPTB at Istock that they are headed in the wrong direction. Instead, they seem determined to keep plowing ahead with their buyer-unfriendly attitude.
Shocking that so many buyers still seem unaware of other microstock options. The other sites should really step up their advertising right now to make buyers aware they have choices!
-
Thanks Jami. This is really so sad. I was hoping that all these posts by buyers would alert TPTB at Istock that they are headed in the wrong direction. Instead, they seem determined to keep plowing ahead with their buyer-unfriendly attitude.
Shocking that so many buyers still seem unaware of other microstock options. The other sites should really step up their advertising right now to make buyers aware they have choices!
I am wondering if, just as they are trying to get rid of non-exclusive and/or exclusive "slackers" (in Getty's eyes, not mine), perhaps they don't care that they are losing the small buyers? (I am of course making an assumption that the buyers that are leaving do not work for big agencies with deep pockets). Maybe we are all correct, Getty does NOT care about their buyers. The ones they DO care about are sewn up deeply in their pockets and that's all that matters. Just an observation on my part.
-
I am wondering if, just as they are trying to get rid of non-exclusive and/or exclusive "slackers" (in Getty's eyes, not mine), perhaps they don't care that they are losing the small buyers? (I am of course making an assumption that the buyers that are leaving do not work for big agencies with deep pockets). Maybe we are all correct, Getty does NOT care about their buyers. The ones they DO care about are sewn up deeply in their pockets and that's all that matters. Just an observation on my part.
What's considered a small buyer? The poster from Jamie's quote and some of the other peeved buyers said they had several hundred credits. That may not be a premium buyer, but seems like someone that buys fairly frequently. Definitely, a customer I'd like to have.
-
I am wondering if, just as they are trying to get rid of non-exclusive and/or exclusive "slackers" (in Getty's eyes, not mine), perhaps they don't care that they are losing the small buyers? (I am of course making an assumption that the buyers that are leaving do not work for big agencies with deep pockets). Maybe we are all correct, Getty does NOT care about their buyers. The ones they DO care about are sewn up deeply in their pockets and that's all that matters. Just an observation on my part.
What's considered a small buyer? The poster from Jamie's quote and some of the other peeved buyers said they had several hundred credits. That may not be a premium buyer, but seems like someone that buys fairly frequently. Definitely, a customer I'd like to have.
I am embarrassed about the slagging that OP has got from some contributers. Where's Lobo to delete the abusive posts?
Some contributers are lucky to have fast internet connections and don't know that you can't change sort order until a whole search page has loaded (15 seconds for 200 images here). If you try while the page is downloading, you've blown it.
This is also the case if you try to add an image to a lightbox while the image page is still downloading (i.e. no 'done' in the bottom left) - you just get taken to iStock's home page. Wonder who thought up that annoyance.
These have been on the site for years.
Although I apparently must have a slow connection, in that others don't seem to know about this strange behaviour, I don't know of a single site, small or large, commercial or personal, which won't let you use page functions before the whole page loaded.
"What would Amazon do?" needs to become the iStock mantra.
-
I am embarrassed about the slagging that OP has got from some contributers. Where's Lobo to delete the abusive posts?
Some contributers are lucky to have fast internet connections and don't know that you can't change sort order until a whole search page has loaded (15 seconds for 200 images here). If you try while the page is downloading, you've blown it.
This is also the case if you try to add an image to a lightbox while the image page is still downloading (i.e. no 'done' in the bottom left) - you just get taken to iStock's home page. Wonder who thought up that annoyance.
These have been on the site for years.
Although I apparently must have a slow connection, in that others don't seem to know about this strange behaviour, I don't know of a single site, small or large, commercial or personal, which won't let you use page functions before the whole page loaded.
"What would Amazon do?" needs to become the iStock mantra.
Very well said Sue. I am always thinking how awful the buyer's experience must be at Istockphoto compared to my own on Amazon. Amazon could never have grown to the size they are with the development and management team at IS.
To be honest Istockphoto should ask themselves the question "What would SHUTTERSTOCK do ... or Dreamstime ... or Fotolia ... or BigStockPhoto ... or CanStockPhoto ..."
-
I am wondering if, just as they are trying to get rid of non-exclusive and/or exclusive "slackers" (in Getty's eyes, not mine), perhaps they don't care that they are losing the small buyers? (I am of course making an assumption that the buyers that are leaving do not work for big agencies with deep pockets). Maybe we are all correct, Getty does NOT care about their buyers. The ones they DO care about are sewn up deeply in their pockets and that's all that matters. Just an observation on my part.
What's considered a small buyer? The poster from Jamie's quote and some of the other peeved buyers said they had several hundred credits. That may not be a premium buyer, but seems like someone that buys fairly frequently. Definitely, a customer I'd like to have.
But of course! Me too. A few small buyers very quickly add up to one big buyer. I am just trying to make sense of the bad behavior on IS's part towards these buyers. They aren't small in MY eyes, but maybe Getty's?
-
if anyone still cares about buyer's leaving istock (personally I wish they would stay...)
Why? I don't see much benefit for us to have buyers remain at istock. We'd do better if they migrated to sites like StockFresh, GL, etc.
-
snip
I am embarrassed about the slagging that OP has got from some contributers. Where's Lobo to delete the abusive posts?
Here are my three guesses:
1. he quit (not likely)
2. off enjoying his Christmas vacation already?
3. istockalypse somewhere?
-
Why? I don't see much benefit for us to have buyers remain at istock. We'd do better if they migrated to sites like StockFresh, GL, etc.
GL, definitely. SF, the jury is still out. My RPD is a lot higher at IS, than SF. So, technically I get paid more on each download, even if the percentage is much lower.
-
if anyone still cares about buyer's leaving istock (personally I wish they would stay...)
Why? I don't see much benefit for us to have buyers remain at istock. We'd do better if they migrated to sites like StockFresh, GL, etc.
I personally would like the buyers to stop posting in the IS forum, use up their credits, and look for some other site that fulfills their needs. There are some decent ones around. All posting in the IS forum does is allow verbal abuse from the ignorant contributors, and even the knowledgeable, helpful ones insist that the buyer should read this thread, read that thread, go here, go there, install this fix, wait until tomorrow for the fix for the fix, and so on. It is so freakin' ridiculous.
I totally agree with some of the posters in that thread AND the buyer...it's NOT the contributors OR buyers' responsibility to test the freakin site and come up with the tutorials on how to use it!
-
if anyone still cares about buyer's leaving istock (personally I wish they would stay...)
Why? I don't see much benefit for us to have buyers remain at istock. We'd do better if they migrated to sites like StockFresh, GL, etc.
well, for selfish reasons, because most of my port is still just at iStock. :) but another reason because eventhough I am a small fish and now Independent, I think iStock will continue to be a good earner for me.
-
I have a feeling by the end of the day I'll be thinking more along the lines of wishing all the buyers would just leave iStock. you guys are right, they can't seem to do anything right these days and buyers are really starting to get pissed.
-
Why? I don't see much benefit for us to have buyers remain at istock. We'd do better if they migrated to sites like StockFresh, GL, etc.
GL, definitely. SF, the jury is still out. My RPD is a lot higher at IS, than SF. So, technically I get paid more on each download, even if the percentage is much lower.
I think buyers usually buy more images if they are lower priced. I sold more with istock before they raised prices. If we get a much higher commission and extra sales, we will make more. It might not be as simple as how much we make per sold image. I make a lot more from each download with alamy but its not a big earner compared to some of the micros.
-
I think buyers usually buy more images if they are lower priced. I sold more with istock before they raised prices. If we get a much higher commission and extra sales, we will make more. It might not be as simple as how much we make per sold image. I make a lot more from each download with alamy but its not a big earner compared to some of the micros.
Definitely true. People do buy more when it is cheaper, but they buy more cheap images. There's a sweet spot between price and sales volume. As a vector contributor, IS has always been a unique model because they don't sell small jpeg versions for vectors. After selling at several different agencies for a while, I've come to think this is the best model for my work. Small size jpegs just seem to cannibalize the larger sales.
-
snip
I am embarrassed about the slagging that OP has got from some contributers. Where's Lobo to delete the abusive posts?
Here are my three guesses:
1. he quit (not likely)
2. off enjoying his Christmas vacation already?
3. istockalypse somewhere?
Well, he just showed up, and quickly joined in on the slam-fest, trying, again to discredit the OP by mentioning that they had a buyer and seller account. WTH does that have to do with ANYTHING? The arrogance at that place never ceases to amaze me.
Well you have to give them credit for keeping their Contributor account and their Buyer accounts separate this time. Previously they were apparently using them both:
Here (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=180261&messageid=3118701#post3118701)
I really hope they lose all their customers.
-
^^^ Followed by another swipe when Lobo locked the thread;
"So, we have another example of where the contributor base is duped into a discussion with a buyer who is also a contributor. Whereas it's appreciated that you are purchasing from the collection you are also EXCLUSIVE with I think it would be great if you could pick an account to communicate with and stick with it.
It just seems very disingenuous to attempt to use your buyer account as a leveraging tool when you participate as an exclusive contributor."
I don't understand why it is 'disingenuous' to complain as a buyer just because you are also a contributor (and an exclusive one at that). If the difficulties being experienced are in the search and purchase of images then what's wrong with speaking as the buyer in that regard? Istock makes money from Lizzielou in both of her capacities so surely she should be treated with double respect not just ignored because of it.
-
I just got back to my desk and saw that the thread had been locked. I was thinking "thank goodness Lobo stepped in and stopped the verbal abuse" but no, he just added to it by pulling the old buyer/contributor/worthlessness card out of his sleeve and locked the thread in his usual cowardly way.
Just freakin incredible. I wonder how many times I have said that in the last few weeks about IS.
-
^^^ Followed by another swipe when Lobo locked the thread;
"So, we have another example of where the contributor base is duped into a discussion with a buyer who is also a contributor. Whereas it's appreciated that you are purchasing from the collection you are also EXCLUSIVE with I think it would be great if you could pick an account to communicate with and stick with it.
It just seems very disingenuous to attempt to use your buyer account as a leveraging tool when you participate as an exclusive contributor."
I don't understand why it is 'disingenuous' to complain as a buyer just because you are also a contributor (and an exclusive one at that). If the difficulties being experienced are in the search and purchase of images then what's wrong with speaking as the buyer in that regard? Istock makes money from Lizzielou in both of her capacities so surely she should be treated with double respect not just ignored because of it.
That seems like the most loyal type of customer you could have. One that is an both an exclusive contributor and buyer.
-
^^^ Followed by another swipe when Lobo locked the thread;
"So, we have another example of where the contributor base is duped into a discussion with a buyer who is also a contributor. Whereas it's appreciated that you are purchasing from the collection you are also EXCLUSIVE with I think it would be great if you could pick an account to communicate with and stick with it.
It just seems very disingenuous to attempt to use your buyer account as a leveraging tool when you participate as an exclusive contributor."
I don't understand why it is 'disingenuous' to complain as a buyer just because you are also a contributor (and an exclusive one at that). If the difficulties being experienced are in the search and purchase of images then what's wrong with speaking as the buyer in that regard? Istock makes money from Lizzielou in both of her capacities so surely she should be treated with double respect not just ignored because of it.
That seems like the most loyal type of customer you could have. One that is an both an exclusive contributor and buyer.
Hopefully, not any more.
-
That seems like the most loyal type of customer you could have. One that is an both an exclusive contributor and buyer.
That's what I was thinking. I find the whole 'If you're a contributor too, you're opinion as a buyer is worthless' approach quite bizarre. There wouldn't even be any iStock if weren't for such dual-identities.
-
... he just added to it by pulling the old buyer/contributor/worthlessness card out of his sleeve ...
Methinks that you'd better listen to the buyer+contributor criticisms, when they are offered. Since he/she has more skin in the game, a buyer/contributor is more likely to care about the company and is more likely to offer constructive criticism or advice.
Someone who's ONLY a buyer is a lot less likely to care enough to spend time trying to correct the problems. I don't bother telling anyone at Walmart if I find that their little kitchen gadgets or pet supplies or whatever are not what I wanted, I just walk out and go to another store.
Imagine if at a Walmart employee meeting, one of the workers says that she thinks the displays of Christmas ornaments are messy and disorganized, and really confusing to the customers, for example she tried to buy a lighted reindeer and couldn't find one at a good price so she went down the road to get one at Home Depot. Would the manager roll his eyes and explain to the others, well, never mind, because you see she's disingenuous, she's not only a customer but she's an EMPLOYEE TOO.
-
Hopefully, not any more.
I can't imagine they would be loyal after being insulted like that. Gasoline puts out fires, right?
-
... he just added to it by pulling the old buyer/contributor/worthlessness card out of his sleeve ...
Methinks that you'd better listen to the buyer+contributor criticisms, when they are offered. Since he/she has more skin in the game, a buyer/contributor is more likely to care about the company and is more likely to offer constructive criticism or advice.
Someone who's ONLY a buyer is a lot less likely to care enough to spend time trying to correct the problems. I don't bother telling anyone at Walmart if I find that their little kitchen gadgets or pet supplies or whatever are not what I wanted, I just walk out and go to another store.
Imagine if at a Walmart employee meeting, one of the workers says that she thinks the displays of Christmas ornaments are messy and disorganized, and really confusing to the customers, for example she tried to buy a lighted reindeer and couldn't find one at a good price so she went down the road to get one at Home Depot. Would the manager roll his eyes and explain to the others, well, never mind, because you see she's disingenuous, she's not only a customer but she's an EMPLOYEE TOO.
great analogy!
-
Ditto.
-
great analogy!
Not really. It would be more apt if the employee came back in with a mustache and beard and started yelling at the customer service desk that the place sucks and she can't find anything, so she is leaving. Then she goes out and takes off the disguise and heads in to work.
It's more that everyone that is responding to the person doesn't know they are dealing with our good friend Bob the contributor, even though Bob thinks everyone might know.
Anyways, it sounds like the poster is part of a work group that uses the account, so it may be a ranting co-worker. I don't know how they track all that stuff.
-
Not really. It would be more apt if the employee came back in with a mustache and beard and started yelling at the customer service desk that the place sucks and she can't find anything, so she is leaving. Then she goes out and takes off the disguise and heads in to work.
It's more that everyone that is responding to the person doesn't know they are dealing with our good friend Bob the contributor, even though Bob thinks everyone might know.
Anyways, it sounds like the poster is part of a work group that uses the account, so it may be a ranting co-worker. I don't know how they track all that stuff.
That's funny! I never thought about showing up to work in a disguise, so I can yell at my boss.
-
^^^ Followed by another swipe when Lobo locked the thread;
"So, we have another example of where the contributor base is duped into a discussion with a buyer who is also a contributor. Whereas it's appreciated that you are purchasing from the collection you are also EXCLUSIVE with I think it would be great if you could pick an account to communicate with and stick with it.
It just seems very disingenuous to attempt to use your buyer account as a leveraging tool when you participate as an exclusive contributor."
I don't understand why it is 'disingenuous' to complain as a buyer just because you are also a contributor (and an exclusive one at that). If the difficulties being experienced are in the search and purchase of images then what's wrong with speaking as the buyer in that regard? Istock makes money from Lizzielou in both of her capacities so surely she should be treated with double respect not just ignored because of it.
Wow. Just wow. The disrespect is just unreal. Are they seriously trying to get rid of all their buyers AND their sellers. How stupid can they be?
-
That's funny! I never thought about showing up to work in a disguise, so I can yell at my boss.
(http://www.moonbattery.com/nose-moustache-glasses.jpg)
-
great analogy!
Not really. It would be more apt if the employee came back in with a mustache and beard and started yelling at the customer service desk that the place sucks and she can't find anything, so she is leaving. Then she goes out and takes off the disguise and heads in to work.
It's more that everyone that is responding to the person doesn't know they are dealing with our good friend Bob the contributor, even though Bob thinks everyone might know.
Anyways, it sounds like the poster is part of a work group that uses the account, so it may be a ranting co-worker. I don't know how they track all that stuff.
I suppose you could be right, but we are not talking about someone trying to do this covertly. Even when someone admits to being a contributor and buyer they should be allowed to raise concerns from the buyer point of view. I dont recall reading anything blatantly obnoxious from the poster anyhow. of course I didn't read all the threads, but then I think the point that is trying to be made here is that iStock should show more tact and respect with all of its customers - whether that customer is a buyer or a contributor.
-
great analogy!
Not really. It would be more apt if the employee came back in with a mustache and beard and started yelling at the customer service desk that the place sucks and she can't find anything, so she is leaving. Then she goes out and takes off the disguise and heads in to work.
It's more that everyone that is responding to the person doesn't know they are dealing with our good friend Bob the contributor, even though Bob thinks everyone might know.
Anyways, it sounds like the poster is part of a work group that uses the account, so it may be a ranting co-worker. I don't know how they track all that stuff.
Is lizzielou an exclusive contributor? Does lizzielou (or her workgroup) buy credits to purchase images at IS? If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then she deserves respect, instead of being told "don't let the door hit you on the way out." It doesn't matter if I know that she is an exclusive contributor...if she says she's a buyer and that is true, that's all that matters to me. One would think that would matter to IS.
Sean, I certainly hope that you are not saying you approve of the way Lobo cuts people down, "outs" them (he seems to think that is some sort of crime and is purposefully trying to make others believe it is criminal), and then locks the thread so that no one can even respond.
-
Have people seen this thread: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=282362&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=282362&page=1) ?
Two buyers out of nine responses:
Come on Istock - you are loosing money here. I search and get one page click next and get a blank page - please stop messing with something that is not broken. Im off elsewhere.
Truly, because now I have to go look at other sites. I have never shopped another site.
-
Have people seen this thread: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=282362&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=282362&page=1[/url]) ?
Two buyers out of nine responses:
Come on Istock - you are loosing money here. I search and get one page click next and get a blank page - please stop messing with something that is not broken. Im off elsewhere.
Truly, because now I have to go look at other sites. I have never shopped another site.
It doesn't seem to matter, Lobo's gonna find something wrong with them, shut them up, then lock the thread.
Look in this thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=281812&page=12 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=281812&page=12)
Just 15 minutes ago rogermexico posted again about how there will be a fix for some bug or another. Bugs are still being reported. They are playing whack-a-mole yet again. ::)
-
How truly embarrassing. They should head on over to Dreamstime. :D. I'm really liking it over there. AND we get comp images that are nice and big.
Edited: Ugh. Typos.
-
It doesn't seem to matter, Lobo's gonna find something wrong with them, shut them up, then lock the thread.
Those people are all clearly Communist and their anti-Capitalism agenda biases their opinions.
-
great analogy!
Not really. It would be more apt if the employee came back in with a mustache and beard and started yelling at the customer service desk that the place sucks and she can't find anything, so she is leaving. Then she goes out and takes off the disguise and heads in to work.
It's more that everyone that is responding to the person doesn't know they are dealing with our good friend Bob the contributor, even though Bob thinks everyone might know.
Anyways, it sounds like the poster is part of a work group that uses the account, so it may be a ranting co-worker. I don't know how they track all that stuff.
Are you an iStock employee, Sean? I thought it was just an agency representing you.
Lobo's response was unforgivably rude. Instead of addressing the issue he just chose to insult the customer on what appears to be a false premise. Even if he was right about the dual account, that is not relevant to the complaint.
-
...an agency representing you...
I'm thinking that might be pushing it. I'm going with they're just some people I do business with. You know like the guy you buy tickets from outside a concert.
-
Well, here are some more quotes from buyers. This is just crazy. And these are buyers that are still there after all the price increases, so they apparently aren't even the price sensitive ones!
Kudos to Sean for suggesting the Google workaround, BTW, but it should NOT be necessary. Too bad only buyers who have slogged through 12 pages of that thread on the Help Forum will run across his post.
Jessicaboyd:
Getting one page of results and then click on the next button to get an empty page. Are we really doing away with clickable page numbers? The new options in the left panel look nice, but I'm not getting any images at all in some cases of very common words. I agree with whomever said it was a bad idea to release this during a busy holiday time. Not the most well-conceived idea. IMHO. Going to have to go somewhere else. Sorry iStock.
Ronnieb:
Any idea when this bug is fixed? I'm alrady waiting for more than a day to download some material. I agree with a lot of people here that this is NOT the way to do business... When my credits are used I quit Istock..
Keylock71:
Got to say... istock has been my primary go to site for stock imagery at work, but this roll out is been very poorly handled from what I can tell. Not at all professional or considerate to the folks who have been buying stock images from here.
-
Not at all professional or considerate to the folks who have been buying stock images from here.
[/i]
That seems to be iStock's new mantra.
-
I wonder if all we are seeing is a small proportion of the istock buyers going elsewhere or if there's going to be something big happening here? If there's a herd mentality, this could lead to a big change. It seems that the vast majority of contributors are capable of putting up with anything istock do but are buyers the same?
-
There is a number of reasons why someone would have two accounts, one for buying and one for contributing.
If I were working at some company as a designer, I would have one buyer's account.
And If I was contributing images in my free time, I sure wouldn't be using the same account I am using at work.
-
I just got back to my desk and saw that the thread had been locked. I was thinking "thank goodness Lobo stepped in and stopped the verbal abuse" but no, he just added to it by pulling the old buyer/contributor/worthlessness card out of his sleeve and locked the thread in his usual cowardly way.
Just freakin incredible. I wonder how many times I have said that in the last few weeks about IS.
I am totally incandescent about this. Totally. I will refrain from saying more here. I have SMd Lobo directly.
-
I just got back to my desk and saw that the thread had been locked. I was thinking "thank goodness Lobo stepped in and stopped the verbal abuse" but no, he just added to it by pulling the old buyer/contributor/worthlessness card out of his sleeve and locked the thread in his usual cowardly way.
Just freakin incredible. I wonder how many times I have said that in the last few weeks about IS.
I am totally incandescent about this. Totally. I will refrain from saying more here. I have SMd Lobo directly.
How can you be blocked from posting and still have access to sitemail? I thought the two were intertwined.
-
I think iStock is kinda shooting their selves in the foot over all this. It's bad enough that they have twice (as far as we know) insulted a buyer like that and they turn around and insult them as an exclusive contributor as well. It shouldn't make a difference rather you are a buyer and seller. No where does it say it's illegal to do both on that site. That contributor may have a small port but could be a big buyer. The way they make it sound is like they are criminals and are being charged for treason. How stupid is that?? Personally if that was me I would be hitting the door on both ends...buyer as well as seller. It looks like they are trying to make all the negativity lye solely on the contributors, even if it is coming from a buyer. I really hope there are a lot of their buyers reading those posts and realize what is really going on there. It's so bizarre.
-
I just got back to my desk and saw that the thread had been locked. I was thinking "thank goodness Lobo stepped in and stopped the verbal abuse" but no, he just added to it by pulling the old buyer/contributor/worthlessness card out of his sleeve and locked the thread in his usual cowardly way.
Just freakin incredible. I wonder how many times I have said that in the last few weeks about IS.
I am totally incandescent about this. Totally. I will refrain from saying more here. I have SMd Lobo directly.
How can you be blocked from posting and still have access to sitemail? I thought the two were intertwined.
I've only been banned from the forums.
-
Are you an iStock employee, Sean? I thought it was just an agency representing you.
Lobo's response was unforgivably rude. Instead of addressing the issue he just chose to insult the customer on what appears to be a false premise. Even if he was right about the dual account, that is not relevant to the complaint.
I'm not commenting on the response. I just saying I understand the rationale behind being concerned about that.
-
Are you an iStock employee, Sean? I thought it was just an agency representing you.
Lobo's response was unforgivably rude. Instead of addressing the issue he just chose to insult the customer on what appears to be a false premise. Even if he was right about the dual account, that is not relevant to the complaint.
I'm not commenting on the response. I just saying I understand the rationale behind being concerned about that.
I don't. So can you please explain?
Added: sorry, I saw you did. I'll respectfully agree to differ with your take on this.
-
Are you an iStock employee, Sean? I thought it was just an agency representing you.
Lobo's response was unforgivably rude. Instead of addressing the issue he just chose to insult the customer on what appears to be a false premise. Even if he was right about the dual account, that is not relevant to the complaint.
I'm not commenting on the response. I just saying I understand the rationale behind being concerned about that.
I don't. So can you please explain?
+1
I don't see what difference it makes rather the buyer was also a contributor. If he's looking for a image and has a budget in mind...he's not going to be looking for his image but someone else s at the price within his budget. If he wanted to use his own it could be free. He's venting as a buyer, not a contributor.
-
I don't see what difference it makes rather the buyer was also a contributor. If he's looking for a image and has a budget in mind...he's not going to be looking for his image but someone else s at the price within his budget. If he wanted to use his own it could be free. He's venting as a buyer, not a contributor.
I believe the implication is that being a disgruntled contributor might color her impressions as a buyer. Personally, I don't think that invalidates the buyer's opinion at all. But I believe that is the thinking behind bringing it up.
Edited to change his/her to her. Guess it's safe to assume Lizzielou is a woman :)
-
How can you be blocked from posting and still have access to sitemail? I thought the two were intertwined.
I've only been banned from the forums.
Interesting. I guess they used to be intertwined but aren't anymore. How silly then. There was no reason to ban me from sitemail. I actually wasn't even using it that much. Oh well, hurts them more than me in the long run. :D
-
I don't see what difference it makes rather the buyer was also a contributor. If he's looking for a image and has a budget in mind...he's not going to be looking for his image but someone else s at the price within his budget. If he wanted to use his own it could be free. He's venting as a buyer, not a contributor.
I believe the implication is that being a disgruntled contributor might color her impressions as a buyer. Personally, I don't think that invalidates the buyer's opinion at all. But I believe that is the thinking behind bringing it up.
Edited to change his/her to her. Guess it's safe to assume Lizzielou is a woman :)
I see the point now. It's being found guilty before innocent. It's their way of justifying the actions of the buyer so it appears the real reason is because they are also a contributor. I guess I could see the reasoning behind that, but when their are many other buyer saying basically the same thing, it really doesn't justify the attitude.
-
How can you be blocked from posting and still have access to sitemail? I thought the two were intertwined.
I've only been banned from the forums.
Interesting. I guess they used to be intertwined but aren't anymore. How silly then. There was no reason to ban me from sitemail. I actually wasn't even using it that much. Oh well, hurts them more than me in the long run. :D
Gee, they banned me from both too. Do you think it was something I said?
-
I don't see what difference it makes rather the buyer was also a contributor. If he's looking for a image and has a budget in mind...he's not going to be looking for his image but someone else s at the price within his budget. If he wanted to use his own it could be free. He's venting as a buyer, not a contributor.
I believe the implication is that being a disgruntled contributor might color her impressions as a buyer. Personally, I don't think that invalidates the buyer's opinion at all. But I believe that is the thinking behind bringing it up.
Edited to change his/her to her. Guess it's safe to assume Lizzielou is a woman :)
So if you are already disgruntled you are not allowed an opinion if they mess you about some more? Or maybe everybody is lying when they say they have deadlines and the search is a mess? The search is actually perfect, the roll-out was flawless, there are no bugs anywhere on the site and the only problem at iStock is that it is full of people who are irrational, upset and trying to pretend that things are less than perfect. Got it. No wonder they are being rude to these subversives!
-
How can you be blocked from posting and still have access to sitemail? I thought the two were intertwined.
I've only been banned from the forums.
Interesting. I guess they used to be intertwined but aren't anymore. How silly then. There was no reason to ban me from sitemail. I actually wasn't even using it that much. Oh well, hurts them more than me in the long run. :D
Gee, they banned me from both too. Do you think it was something I said?
One can only hope, right? :D
-
I don't see what difference it makes rather the buyer was also a contributor. If he's looking for a image and has a budget in mind...he's not going to be looking for his image but someone else s at the price within his budget. If he wanted to use his own it could be free. He's venting as a buyer, not a contributor.
I believe the implication is that being a disgruntled contributor might color her impressions as a buyer. Personally, I don't think that invalidates the buyer's opinion at all. But I believe that is the thinking behind bringing it up.
Edited to change his/her to her. Guess it's safe to assume Lizzielou is a woman :)
So if you are already disgruntled you are not allowed an opinion if they mess you about some more? Or maybe everybody is lying when they say they have deadlines and the search is a mess? The search is actually perfect, the roll-out was flawless, there are no bugs anywhere on the site and the only problem at iStock is that it is full of people who are irrational, upset and trying to pretend that things are less than perfect. Got it. No wonder they are being rude to these subversives!
Exactly. As long as you preface your report of a bug or criticism with "you guys are the best ever" and end your post with a "wooyay, F5!" you are good. Don't get frustrated and/or mad and post, otherwise whatever you say is only coming from a deceitful, disgruntled nobody, who happens to be both a buyer and contributor.
I can't even imagine working for a company who has me on a tight deadline for a huge project, only a few days before Christmas vacation, only having an account at IS to buy images, and having to wade through all of those bug posts just to find out how to use the freakin search tool and find something to use for the project. Some of these people who work at IS apparently have no clue how the real working world works.
-
That whole fiasco could have been avoided if only her first question had been properly answered, rather than locked and referred to a totally irrelevant thread on another forum. We all make mistakes, but it could have been sorted if the admin who locked it had, when I SMd him on the loupe issue, had opened the thread again and cleared up that point. Now lizzielou and malamus are so angry they're digging themselves in really deep.
When I taught, we were always told to try to diffuse situations, to try to avoid a situation from escalating.
Looks like some admins deliberately fanned the fire from the very beginning on this one.
(Get down, conspiracy theorist - I was even beginning to wonder if there was a 'back story.)
-
they put up a new search engine without testing? Nice : >> I can't even remember when I last heard about that level of dilettantism even from semi-serious net corp. : >
-
I believe the implication is that being a disgruntled contributor might color her impressions as a buyer. Personally, I don't think that invalidates the buyer's opinion at all. But I believe that is the thinking behind bringing it up.
Edited to change his/her to her. Guess it's safe to assume Lizzielou is a woman :)
So if you are already disgruntled you are not allowed an opinion if they mess you about some more? Or maybe everybody is lying when they say they have deadlines and the search is a mess? The search is actually perfect, the roll-out was flawless, there are no bugs anywhere on the site and the only problem at iStock is that it is full of people who are irrational, upset and trying to pretend that things are less than perfect. Got it. No wonder they are being rude to these subversives!
Very well summed up Balderick!
Hopefully it was clear that I was not agreeing with Istock's stance?!
-
I believe the implication is that being a disgruntled contributor might color her impressions as a buyer. Personally, I don't think that invalidates the buyer's opinion at all. But I believe that is the thinking behind bringing it up.
Edited to change his/her to her. Guess it's safe to assume Lizzielou is a woman :)
So if you are already disgruntled you are not allowed an opinion if they mess you about some more? Or maybe everybody is lying when they say they have deadlines and the search is a mess? The search is actually perfect, the roll-out was flawless, there are no bugs anywhere on the site and the only problem at iStock is that it is full of people who are irrational, upset and trying to pretend that things are less than perfect. Got it. No wonder they are being rude to these subversives!
Very well summed up Balderick!
Hopefully it was clear that I was not agreeing with Istock's stance?!
It was clear to me. I thought you were just trying to state the rationale behind the admin's rudeness and locking of threads. And I agree, I disagree! :)
-
It was clear to me. I thought you were just trying to state the rationale behind the admin's rudeness and locking of threads. And I agree, I disagree! :)
Hee, hee. Good, we agree on what we disagree with ;D
-
I am utterly lost as to why a buyer complaint isn't equally valid whether the buyer only purchases, or contributes as well. I don't always agree with what's done by admins in the forums, but I usually at least get it. This one I don't get.
Typically, ad hominem attacks surface when you can't attack on the issues - i.e. they're almost always a sign of a weak case.
I can see why IS is defensive, given that they have effed up the search changes - both in how broken search is and in once again delivering new code at a truly terrible time. Not the absolute worst time - that would have been in early November - but early December (typically a very busy time in my years there) and on a weekday, not a weekend.
If they could put some of the energy into working on fixes (i.e. not just going home at 5pm and leaving the buggy search and no admins to respond) that they do into insulting buyers, we'd all be better off.
-
I am utterly lost as to why a buyer complaint isn't equally valid whether the buyer only purchases, or contributes as well. I don't always agree with what's done by admins in the forums, but I usually at least get it. This one I don't get.
Typically, ad hominem attacks surface when you can't attack on the issues - i.e. they're almost always a sign of a weak case.
I can see why IS is defensive, given that they have effed up the search changes - both in how broken search is and in once again delivering new code at a truly terrible time. Not the absolute worst time - that would have been in early November - but early December (typically a very busy time in my years there) and on a weekday, not a weekend.
If they could put some of the energy into working on fixes (i.e. not just going home at 5pm and leaving the buggy search and no admins to respond) that they do into insulting buyers, we'd all be better off.
I don't either.
-
If they could put some of the energy into working on fixes (i.e. not just going home at 5pm and leaving the buggy search and no admins to respond) that they do into insulting buyers, we'd all be better off.
Ay, there's the rub.
-
Hopefully it was clear that I was not agreeing with Istock's stance?!
Quite clear, I was just trying to work out what the admin's attitude meant.
-
One more happy punter (from the 404 thread):
"Your website is so bug ridden you should have ORKIN as a sponsor. I just bought $350 worth of credit and nearly every photo I've included in my album that the client signed off on gets me a 404 error when attempting to order? (Of course no 404 error when taking my money) WTH? Your customer service number cycles me through in seconds and than hangs up? Can you really call it customer support when someone phones you, tweets you, posts on Facebook, emails you, and now posts on your forum and you don't adequately responds?"
-
Wow. If I were that buyer, I'd cash in my chips at this point.
-
Wow. If I were that buyer, I'd cash in my chips at this point.
me too.
-
this person on twitter has been not happy about the 404 errors on lack of customer service from istock.. I think someone posted part of his tweets already, but here's the latest:
tweet by Vonster: @iStock You guys really need to email your user base once the problem is fixed. Telling us to keep trying is not good customer service.
and then iStock's reply:
Tweet reply by iStock: @Vonster Agree. Unfortunately emailing that many users isn't a practical option either. It's the holiday short staffing us that's the prob.
okay, seriously?! Every other retailer adds additional seasonal staff to help with these sorts of things. Okay, so maybe it's different for an online company, but I would guess that Amazon most certainly beefed up their staff for the holiday sales.
I kind of feel sorry for whoever is responding on the twitter account as they seem to be one of the few people working, and they really can't fix anything, just respond to complaints/tweets and notify someone on staff who may actually be working. 404 errors for customers trying to buy istock items is competely UNSATisfactory.
-
I wish someone would explain to me why istock can't email contributors and buyers. Surely it's possible...I get email blasts all the time from big companies.
-
I wish someone would explain to me why istock can't email contributors and buyers. Surely it's possible...I get email blasts all the time from big companies.
they do have a huge base, so maybe they don't want to widely advertise all the problems going on.
-
and then iStock's reply:
Tweet reply by iStock: @Vonster Agree. Unfortunately emailing that many users isn't a practical option either. It's the holiday short staffing us that's the prob.
I kind of feel sorry for whoever is responding on the twitter account as they seem to be one of the few people working, and they really can't fix anything, just respond to complaints/tweets and notify someone on staff who may actually be working.
I feel really sorry for that person too. They just made a fatal error in telling the truth - that "It's the holiday short staffing that's the prob". They are most likely going to get their a$$ handed to them for admitting that publicly.
-
Here's another:
idyzyn
idyzyn
Member has had a submission accepted to the Designer Spotlight
Posted 9 mins ago
Quote
I've basically left iStock although I used to LOVE IT HERE - returned today to buy a couple of images - and have found that the search isn't working at all for me. Only the Dollar Bin search.
No I'm not trying too specific a keyword. I can type in "boy" and get nothing. I can type in "boy scout" and get nothing. "camping" - etc - NOTHING. So that's what I'll be buying: NOTHING!!!!!
-
Here's another:
idyzyn
idyzyn
Member has had a submission accepted to the Designer Spotlight
Posted 9 mins ago
Quote
I've basically left iStock although I used to LOVE IT HERE - returned today to buy a couple of images - and have found that the search isn't working at all for me. Only the Dollar Bin search.
No I'm not trying too specific a keyword. I can type in "boy" and get nothing. I can type in "boy scout" and get nothing. "camping" - etc - NOTHING. So that's what I'll be buying: NOTHING!!!!!
I was just going to post that! :)
here's the link if anyone cares to see the thread. (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286942&page=1)
-
This was his last post. OUCH.
All better. I went to another site and typed it in and got just what I wanted. No more screwing around. I don't have time . . .
-
Here's another:
idyzyn
idyzyn
Member has had a submission accepted to the Designer Spotlight
Posted 9 mins ago
Quote
I've basically left iStock although I used to LOVE IT HERE - returned today to buy a couple of images - and have found that the search isn't working at all for me. Only the Dollar Bin search.
No I'm not trying too specific a keyword. I can type in "boy" and get nothing. I can type in "boy scout" and get nothing. "camping" - etc - NOTHING. So that's what I'll be buying: NOTHING!!!!!
I was just going to post that! :)
here's the link if anyone cares to see the thread. ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286942&page=1[/url])
We must have posted at the same time. :)
-
What are they thinking??? I'm beginning to think they are trying to show a loss to save on taxes rather than a profit.
-
Here's another:
idyzyn
idyzyn
Member has had a submission accepted to the Designer Spotlight
Posted 9 mins ago
Quote
I've basically left iStock although I used to LOVE IT HERE - returned today to buy a couple of images - and have found that the search isn't working at all for me. Only the Dollar Bin search.
No I'm not trying too specific a keyword. I can type in "boy" and get nothing. I can type in "boy scout" and get nothing. "camping" - etc - NOTHING. So that's what I'll be buying: NOTHING!!!!!
I was just going to post that! :)
here's the link if anyone cares to see the thread. ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286942&page=1[/url])
It was probably just that really stupid 'feature' that reports 0 results until they all come down (who thought of that one? Why hasn't it been fixed? Why am I even asking?)
-
This was his last post. OUCH.
All better. I went to another site and typed it in and got just what I wanted. No more screwing around. I don't have time . . .
That's too bad. But I totally understand. As a buyer, I wouldn't have lasted as long as some of these ones with a lot of patience have. When people are on a deadline, there's just no time to sit around and try and troubleshoot a poorly designed and implemented website.
-
On Twitter, I can see the responses of the Istock staff, but not the comments directed to Istock by other people.
-
I can't read this stuff anymore...it's too depressing. I've stopped uploading since nobody can see my stuff...or buy it even if they can. The sales I had on Christmas Day are very likely fraudulent and will be backed out. It's a ship of fools captained by Donald Duck. Unbelievable. And one of my New Year's resolutions was to cut down on the scotch. Fat chance.
-
On Twitter, I can see the responses of the Istock staff, but not the comments directed to Istock by other people.
I can only see posts by istock regarding Vetta. I'm not seeing any of the kind of posts I saw before, from istock or to istock. ???
-
On Twitter, I can see the responses of the Istock staff, but not the comments directed to Istock by other people.
I can only see posts by istock regarding Vetta. I'm not seeing any of the kind of posts I saw before, from istock or to istock. ???
Now that is down right weird. I was just looking at it, then closed it out and after you said something Lisa, opened it back up and the post's from the customer was gone. Can the monitor the post on twitter too????
-
On Twitter, I can see the responses of the Istock staff, but not the comments directed to Istock by other people.
I can only see posts by istock regarding Vetta. I'm not seeing any of the kind of posts I saw before, from istock or to istock. ???
Now that is down right weird. I was just looking at it, then closed it out and after you said something Lisa, opened it back up and the post's from the customer was gone. Can the monitor the post on twitter too????
Yeah, I am wondering if they haven't disconnected their link to twitter somehow, except for the sales plugs.
All of this social networking is accomplishing one good thing for consumers and that is if companies don't get their act together and treat their customers and suppliers right, people are going to know about it, and fast.
-
On Twitter, I can see the responses of the Istock staff, but not the comments directed to Istock by other people.
I can only see posts by istock regarding Vetta. I'm not seeing any of the kind of posts I saw before, from istock or to istock. ???
Now that is down right weird. I was just looking at it, then closed it out and after you said something Lisa, opened it back up and the post's from the customer was gone. Can the monitor the post on twitter too????
Yeah, I am wondering if they haven't disconnected their link to twitter somehow, except for the sales plugs.
All of this social networking is accomplishing one good thing for consumers and that is if companies don't get their act together and treat their customers and suppliers right, people are going to know about it, and fast.
Yeah its as if they are a cat trying to cover up their sh*t just to cover up the smell. Bottom line is....it still smells.
-
On Twitter, I can see the responses of the Istock staff, but not the comments directed to Istock by other people.
I can only see posts by istock regarding Vetta. I'm not seeing any of the kind of posts I saw before, from istock or to istock. ???
Now that is down right weird. I was just looking at it, then closed it out and after you said something Lisa, opened it back up and the post's from the customer was gone. Can the monitor the post on twitter too????
Yeah, I am wondering if they haven't disconnected their link to twitter somehow, except for the sales plugs.
All of this social networking is accomplishing one good thing for consumers and that is if companies don't get their act together and treat their customers and suppliers right, people are going to know about it, and fast.
don't put an "@" or "#" in front of istock, just do a search on "istock" and you'll get all the tweets that have istock in them somewhere. I still see the tweets.
-
don't put an "@" or "#" in front of istock, just do a search on "istock" and you'll get all the tweets that have istock in them somewhere. I still see the tweets.
Let me try again. I saw them earlier and haven't changed anything since, but when I searched and followed, i used @iStock.
-
don't put an "@" or "#" in front of istock, just do a search on "istock" and you'll get all the tweets that have istock in them somewhere. I still see the tweets.
Let me try again. I saw them earlier and haven't changed anything since, but when I searched and followed, i used @iStock.
The first time I did it I also did the @iStock and it pulled up the remarks by the customer. When I reopened it, it was already on the iStock page but the remarks were gone, so when I tried it with just iStock and it still pulled up just iStock's posts again and no customer posts.
-
Thanks for the replies. I just assumed I was doing something wrong, as I haven't used Twitter before.
Weird that the customer complaints are disappearing. Does Istock have some control over what is visible on twitter?
-
Thanks for the replies. I just assumed I was doing something wrong, as I haven't used Twitter before.
Weird that the customer complaints are disappearing. Does Istock have some control over what is visible on twitter?
That's what I was wondering too.
-
Thanks for the replies. I just assumed I was doing something wrong, as I haven't used Twitter before.
Weird that the customer complaints are disappearing. Does Istock have some control over what is visible on twitter?
That's what I was wondering too.
I believe so. For instance, I have a FB page for my cathyslife stuff. I have that linked to my Twitter account. Any time I post something on FB, it automatically tweets the same thing. So likely their FB page is linked? Not sure, i need to go investigate the FB page.
Also, when I go to Twitter and login, their posts don't show on the left in my Timeline tab. If I click on the istock logo to the right, under the people I am following, istocks timeline shows. I think all the posts show there. I never did get the hang of or like Twitter.
edit: so i don't think they were disappearing for me, I think I just don't know exactly how to use Twitter. ::)
-
edit: so i don't think they were disappearing for me, I think I just don't know exactly how to use Twitter. ::)
First time I've been on there so don't really know what I'm doing...lol
-
I took a look at the istockphoto FB page. Doesn't look like exactly the same things that are posted on FB by IS are appearing on Twitter, so I believe they might post the tweets manually. I'm really just guessing...as I said, don't know a whole lot about it, only a little.
There are a few posts on the FB page though by angry buyers and/or contributors etc.
-
no, you can't delete the twitter posts. I think only the original person who tweeted it might be able to, as I've deleted a few of mine in the past.
I do have my twitter and FB pages linked so that if I add #fb to the end of any tweet it automatically will also post on my Facebook page. I dont know if there is something that goes the other way, the app I used is a Facebook app called "selective tweets" (http://www.facebook.com/selectivetwitter)
-
no, you can't delete the twitter posts. I think only the original person who tweeted it might be able to, as I've deleted a few of mine in the past.
I do have my twitter and FB pages linked so that if I add #fb to the end of any tweet it automatically will also post on my Facebook page. I dont know if there is something that goes the other way, the app I used is a Facebook app called "selective tweets" ([url]http://www.facebook.com/selectivetwitter[/url])
There is an app that posts your FB posts to your Twitter account. I have mine linked to my business page. I think I got the app here: http://www.involver.com/applications/#__ (http://www.involver.com/applications/#__)
-
This evening I see a bunch of angry twitter posts from buyers (apparently they're buyers; I don't know the people) as iStock has implemented a time lock - one download every 5 minutes. One comment was that with a lightbox of 38 images that'll take over 3 hours to download.
I assume this is related to the credit card fraud, but if so, how stupid to limit the small numbers of downloads as well as the big batches. So if I need 5 pictures for a project, I download all 5 in 5 minutes and then I go away for hours or days while I work on things. Users of that sort shouldn't have to wait 25 minutes to download their images. It's the sustained numbers of downloads at speed that should be the flag.
I guess this was the best that the skeleton IT staff could come up with over the holidays???
-
This evening I see a bunch of angry twitter posts from buyers (apparently they're buyers; I don't know the people) as iStock has implemented a time lock - one download every 5 minutes. One comment was that with a lightbox of 38 images that'll take over 3 hours to download.
I assume this is related to the credit card fraud, but if so, how stupid to limit the small numbers of downloads as well as the big batches. So if I need 5 pictures for a project, I download all 5 in 5 minutes and then I go away for hours or days while I work on things. Users of that sort shouldn't have to wait 25 minutes to download their images. It's the sustained numbers of downloads at speed that should be the flag.
I guess this was the best that the skeleton IT staff could come up with over the holidays???
I see the 404 error on SMs is still there. While me getting that message (which apparently doesn't mean anything) when SMing someone hardly matters, I hope it's been fixed when people send support tickets. Even if it's working, the impression is given that it isn't, and buyers don't all hang around the forums (it was an hour or two after my 404 that it was reported in the Help forum, and a while after that before I and others realised that the SMs were getting through despite the 404).
-
This evening I see a bunch of angry twitter posts from buyers (apparently they're buyers; I don't know the people) as iStock has implemented a time lock - one download every 5 minutes. One comment was that with a lightbox of 38 images that'll take over 3 hours to download.
I assume this is related to the credit card fraud, but if so, how stupid to limit the small numbers of downloads as well as the big batches. So if I need 5 pictures for a project, I download all 5 in 5 minutes and then I go away for hours or days while I work on things. Users of that sort shouldn't have to wait 25 minutes to download their images. It's the sustained numbers of downloads at speed that should be the flag.
I guess this was the best that the skeleton IT staff could come up with over the holidays???
The real problem is that a long term IS's strategy is limited to 5 minutes as well. In last 5 months all moves they made were disastrous. CEO's "Wo-ho" and Lobo's "we are on it" give a good images of the actual Istock: a site out of control.
-
Once again, iStock is expecting their customers to jump through hoops because of their inadequacies and incompetance. I guess that holiday vacation is still more important than running a multi-million dollar business. Oh, the arrogance.
-
Once again, iStock is expecting their customers to jump through hoops because of their inadequacies and incompetance. I guess that holiday vacation is still more important than running a multi-million dollar business. Oh, the arrogance.
you got that right.
-
Here's one of the posts about the 5 minute wait between downloads. I originally posted in the f5 thread, because this guy (oddly enough) doesn't say he's bailing:
It's been a very frustrating 2 days for me. I finally figured out what the 404 error is for buying stock. They are allowing you to buy/download one photo every 5 minutes. I saved everything I needed to a lightbox and then sat at my computer for 3 hours to download the 40 pix I needed today. Download one, start timer, wait 5 minutes, download the next, start timer, wait 5 minutes. For 3 hours. If you try to download faster than one per 5 minutes, you get the 404 error. I stumbled upon the "workaround" by accident after pulling my hair out for 2 days.
What I really cannot fathom is why any buyer would go through this. Surely he could have saved hours of his time by going to FT, DT, or SS and buying there? Do these buyers not KNOW about other sites, or are they just determined not to buy more credits elsewhere when they already have credits paid for at IS ??
-
Here's one of the posts about the 5 minute wait between downloads. I originally posted in the f5 thread, because this guy (oddly enough) doesn't say he's bailing:
It's been a very frustrating 2 days for me. I finally figured out what the 404 error is for buying stock. They are allowing you to buy/download one photo every 5 minutes. I saved everything I needed to a lightbox and then sat at my computer for 3 hours to download the 40 pix I needed today. Download one, start timer, wait 5 minutes, download the next, start timer, wait 5 minutes. For 3 hours. If you try to download faster than one per 5 minutes, you get the 404 error. I stumbled upon the "workaround" by accident after pulling my hair out for 2 days.
What I really cannot fathom is why any buyer would go through this. Surely he could have saved hours of his time by going to FT, DT, or SS and buying there? Do these buyers not KNOW about other sites, or are they just determined not to buy more credits elsewhere when they already have credits paid for at IS ??
It baffles me too, but remember, sometimes the person buying isn't the person paying, so the buyer has to purchase wherever their employer tells them to.
-
Here's one of the posts about the 5 minute wait between downloads. I originally posted in the f5 thread, because this guy (oddly enough) doesn't say he's bailing:
It's been a very frustrating 2 days for me. I finally figured out what the 404 error is for buying stock. They are allowing you to buy/download one photo every 5 minutes. I saved everything I needed to a lightbox and then sat at my computer for 3 hours to download the 40 pix I needed today. Download one, start timer, wait 5 minutes, download the next, start timer, wait 5 minutes. For 3 hours. If you try to download faster than one per 5 minutes, you get the 404 error. I stumbled upon the "workaround" by accident after pulling my hair out for 2 days.
What I really cannot fathom is why any buyer would go through this. Surely he could have saved hours of his time by going to FT, DT, or SS and buying there? Do these buyers not KNOW about other sites, or are they just determined not to buy more credits elsewhere when they already have credits paid for at IS ??
I don't know but you can bet I've been letting them know about other sites to check out. I do that via twitter - and sometimes if Dreamstime is watching for tweets, they have also replied to the person and given them a discount code. smart marketing.
-
I don't know but you can bet I've been letting them know about other sites to check out. I do that via twitter - and sometimes if Dreamstime is watching for tweets, they have also replied to the person and given them a discount code. smart marketing.
Smart marketing indeed. And good for you, Jami, for getting the word out. Makes me kind of sorry I am so ignorant about social media...
-
Another buyer left...
I was talking to a designer last week who asked me what sites I uploaded to. When I mentioned iStock, she said "Oh, there always seems to be something wrong with that site. I don't go there any more." There must surely be others who feel the same.
-
This evening I see a bunch of angry twitter posts from buyers (apparently they're buyers; I don't know the people) as iStock has implemented a time lock - one download every 5 minutes. One comment was that with a lightbox of 38 images that'll take over 3 hours to download.
I assume this is related to the credit card fraud, but if so, how stupid to limit the small numbers of downloads as well as the big batches. So if I need 5 pictures for a project, I download all 5 in 5 minutes and then I go away for hours or days while I work on things. Users of that sort shouldn't have to wait 25 minutes to download their images. It's the sustained numbers of downloads at speed that should be the flag.
I guess this was the best that the skeleton IT staff could come up with over the holidays???
I have no technical background in terms of dealing with CC fraud...so this is with a grain of salt...but I can't believe what a cumbersome strategy this is to deal with the fraud taking place. alienating already alienated buyers. it's kind of embarrassing.
-
Never ends...
My God! This site sucks so bad now. Still after almost a month, you're search does not work in Safari. This just blows. Other links in my account go painfully slow. I'm ditching iStock for good. This company has problems beyond the scope of anything I ever anticipated or encountered. I'm purchasing the last of the hi-res images I need for clients and then I'm done with iStock. Buh-bye.
-
Bye-bye to another buyer. Customer Idyzyn writes in the "Search not working" thread;
"Just stopped back to check on the progress. Firefox (my preferred browser) SEARCH NOT WORKING STILL.
In Safari I was able to search fine.
In the meantime though I did a little bit of seaching online and found another source that works great, has great pricing, and sorry to say, has won over my business. Let's just say I found some 'place' that works just great. Over the years as a single buyer I think I was a pretty loyal customer and involved and proud "member" of the iStock community. After being beaten down in the forums a couple of years ago when I spoke up about the prices being raised while the site quality was going crazy - I felt my business didn't matter and my involvement not appreciated - so I found other ways to make old photos work, took photos myself, did more illustration and typography, and silently bought photos in protest.
I don't care what anyone thinks anymore about us li'l buyers - but I can tell ya that there are much easier options out there that are selling the same things for less. I don't want a bunch of different levels and options and ridiculously crazy searches and pricing. I just want to type in a word, look through the options, and buy an image. I can't do that here anymore."
These search issues are becoming "unsustainable".
-
Bye-bye to another buyer. Customer Idyzyn writes in the "Search not working" thread;
"Just stopped back to check on the progress. Firefox (my preferred browser) SEARCH NOT WORKING STILL.
In Safari I was able to search fine.
In the meantime though I did a little bit of seaching online and found another source that works great, has great pricing, and sorry to say, has won over my business. Let's just say I found some 'place' that works just great. Over the years as a single buyer I think I was a pretty loyal customer and involved and proud "member" of the iStock community. After being beaten down in the forums a couple of years ago when I spoke up about the prices being raised while the site quality was going crazy - I felt my business didn't matter and my involvement not appreciated - so I found other ways to make old photos work, took photos myself, did more illustration and typography, and silently bought photos in protest.
I don't care what anyone thinks anymore about us li'l buyers - but I can tell ya that there are much easier options out there that are selling the same things for less. I don't want a bunch of different levels and options and ridiculously crazy searches and pricing. I just want to type in a word, look through the options, and buy an image. I can't do that here anymore."
These search issues are becoming "unsustainable".
I am glad that some buyers are taking the time to make their dissatisfaction known. Somehow I don't think IS gives a hoot, but maybe the more people speak up, the more it will matter. I'm sure not banking on it though. Theirs has been an arrogant, elitist attitude from the beginning, don't see anything changing. Mostly, they just say "don't let the door hit you in the a*s on the way out."
-
Bye-bye to another buyer. Customer Idyzyn writes in the "Search not working" thread;
(snip)
I felt my business didn't matter and my involvement not appreciated - so I found other ways to make old photos work, took photos myself, did more illustration and typography, and silently bought photos in protest.
I don't care what anyone thinks anymore about us li'l buyers - but I can tell ya that there are much easier options out there that are selling the same things for less.
I'm very happy he finally looked around and discovered that there are other sites that are cheaper, simpler to use, and have comparable quality.
I must admit, though, that I am amazed he spent so much time on workarounds like using old photos and taking them himself over the years before finally looking elsewhere.
Until recently, it seems, the fallacy persisted among buyers, that Istock is the only (or best) game in town...
-
Bye-bye to another buyer. Customer Idyzyn writes in the "Search not working" thread;
(snip)
I felt my business didn't matter and my involvement not appreciated - so I found other ways to make old photos work, took photos myself, did more illustration and typography, and silently bought photos in protest.
I don't care what anyone thinks anymore about us li'l buyers - but I can tell ya that there are much easier options out there that are selling the same things for less.
I'm very happy he finally looked around and discovered that there are other sites that are cheaper, simpler to use, and have comparable quality.
I must admit, though, that I am amazed he spent so much time on workarounds like using old photos and taking them himself over the years before finally looking elsewhere.
Until recently, it seems, the fallacy persisted among buyers, that Istock is the only (or best) game in town...
I just finished reading that thread over at the IS forum. It just cracks me up how the contributors just keep saying "try another browser" and "I don't know why you are having so much trouble, I just did the same search and got x results". One person even asked if the buyer could post a screenshot of their results! I appreciate that they are trying to help, but the fact remains: a buyer shouldn't have to post in the forum to try to get answers as to how to do a search! For every one that takes the time to post, there MUST be dozens others who just leave.
-
For every one that takes the time to post, there MUST be dozens others who just leave.
Undoubtedly. It could well be hundreds of buyers leaving for every individual that bothers to post. Istockphoto's 'Faceted Search' must be the best Christmas present that their competitors have ever had. It's "the gift that keeps on giving".
-
Bye-bye to another buyer. Customer Idyzyn writes in the "Search not working" thread;
(snip)
I felt my business didn't matter and my involvement not appreciated - so I found other ways to make old photos work, took photos myself, did more illustration and typography, and silently bought photos in protest.
I don't care what anyone thinks anymore about us li'l buyers - but I can tell ya that there are much easier options out there that are selling the same things for less.
I'm very happy he finally looked around and discovered that there are other sites that are cheaper, simpler to use, and have comparable quality.
I must admit, though, that I am amazed he spent so much time on workarounds like using old photos and taking them himself over the years before finally looking elsewhere.
Until recently, it seems, the fallacy persisted among buyers, that Istock is the only (or best) game in town...
I just finished reading that thread over at the IS forum. It just cracks me up how the contributors just keep saying "try another browser" and "I don't know why you are having so much trouble, I just did the same search and got x results". One person even asked if the buyer could post a screenshot of their results! I appreciate that they are trying to help, but the fact remains: a buyer shouldn't have to post in the forum to try to get answers as to how to do a search! For every one that takes the time to post, there MUST be dozens others who just leave.
I'm wondering if Istock is doing any follow up with all these disgruntled buyers. Do they just let them go elsewhere? Do they care? Is it it such a small amount of the bottom line that they just do nothing and let it go? Are they calling, or sending private emails to these people to retain their business? A simple phone call, or email just might go a long way. Something like: "We appreciate your business, please bear with us while why get our s**t together". I know... not what most would like to see happen here, but curious anyway :).
-
I'm wondering if Istock is doing any follow up with all these disgruntled buyers. Do they just let them go elsewhere? Do they care? Is it it such a small amount of the bottom line that they just do nothing and let it go? Are they calling, or sending private emails to these people to retain their business? A simple phone call, or email just might go a long way. Something like: "We appreciate your business, please bear with us while why get our s**t together". I know... not what most would like to see happen here, but curious anyway :).
That would be a negative. I know personally the designer who posted the above and know she's never been contacted by iStock.
-
For every one that takes the time to post, there MUST be dozens others who just leave.
Undoubtedly. It could well be hundreds of buyers leaving for every individual that bothers to post. Istockphoto's 'Faceted Search' must be the best Christmas present that their competitors have ever had. It's "the gift that keeps on giving".
this is exactly what I was thinking about - for every one buyer that complains openly, how many just say "f-it, I'm outta here!"
I think gostwyck has it right it is "the gift that keeps on giving" for iStock competitors! LOL!
-
It's been facinating to watch the drama surrounding iStock. I am not there, and have no plans of going there. The recent buyer leaving did jog a memory though.
While I was still an active buyer a few years ago, I had an oil and gas client that I purchased stock for. $200-300 stock mind you. I was looking to cut costs and found istock. I thought wow! A stock pic for $5! I was ecstatic and shared with my client who was also thrilled as I was a hero. Back then, not many micros were around, so habits formed. I stuck with purchasing iStock for quite a while.
It was when I switched roads and started shooting 6 months ago, google became my best friend and I was surprised on how many other sites were out there. Before that, even as a designer, I didn't know how many other sites were out there.
So, my point? Habits are hard to break, but with all that is going on at iStock on the buyer side, I wouldn't be surprised if there are buyers exploring google and finding out that they aren't the only game in town. Then they use up their credits and hit the road. It would never have occurred to me to post in a forum as a buyer as I just figured it was for the artists.
So, that's my 2 cents.
-
Did anybody read the "Buyers Can't Sign Up?" thread?
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=290922&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=290922&page=1)
Should anything surprise me anymore?
-
Yeah, it's really unbelievable! Thanks for posting a link here. Seems appropriate to the topic.
-
Can they not leave buyers alone, except to flag any sale for immediate ( < 5 minute ) human attention which is (for example) for more than 5 XXL or XXXL images within 1 hour, where the buyer's first purchase ever at IS was within 1 week of the time of sale? Then they can lock out just that customer, ask them for a confirmation email (answering specific questions such as name, address and web page of their business, etc.) compare the credit card billing address to the IP address, contact the credit card company, etc. If the scammers are forced to spread out their purchases over a longer period (the scammers, not the established customers) then it would greatly limit the number of fraudulent purchases that go through before the credit card # is found to be fake.
I assume that there are not dozens and dozens of accounts and credit cards being used so it would be well within their ability to pay a little overtime to IT people to monitor transactions around the clock and follow up on the suspicious cases as soon as possible. I know that fraud artists are clever and creative but there are only so many ways to commit online fraud and it shouldn't take all that long to come up with simple blocks that would catch most of the bad guys before they can do any significant damage and yet leave the legitimate revenue stream at least 99% intact.
When I hear that they have forbidden all purchases occurring within 5 minutes for all customers, or shutting out all new customer registrations, it kinda sounds like they're just phoning it in and trying to do the absolute minimum to block the fraudulent transactions without sufficient regard for maintaining their normal revenue stream.
-
When I hear that they have forbidden all purchases occurring within 5 minutes for all customers, or shutting out all new customer registrations, it kinda sounds like they're just phoning it in and trying to do the absolute minimum to block the fraudulent transactions without sufficient regard for maintaining their normal revenue stream.
Perhaps that is because all the IT money was going into rolling out the new Photos.com? It appears Istock is being treated like the black sheep of the Getty Family.
-
Perhaps that is because all the IT money was going into rolling out the new Photos.com? It appears Istock is being treated like the black sheep of the Getty Family.
I just read about the relaunch of photos.com today and had the exact same thought as you, I too think that maybe iStockphoto is at the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to the importance of having the site run correctly, and in true tradition they relaunch a site selling all the photos for next to nothing at no doubt huge profits for them.
As you wrote earlier, I thank god I'm not exclusive at Istock.
-
Which would make Getty the stupidest corporation in the world, since iStock was their cash cow. It appears that not only has the cash cow been milked dry, but now it is a downer cow flailing on the slaughterhouse floor.
-
Which would make Getty the stupidest corporation in the world, since iStock was their cash cow. It appears that not only has the cash cow been milked dry, but now it is a downer cow on the slaughterhouse floor.
Actually I see this statement a lot and wonder where people get this information from? I always imagined that istock was a pretty small part of their overall revenue (and why it does not get much priority) - I seem to recall this from financial statments a few years ago ... anybody know these days what proportion of getty's revenue IS is responsible for?
-
Which would make Getty the stupidest corporation in the world, since iStock was their cash cow. It appears that not only has the cash cow been milked dry, but now it is a downer cow on the slaughterhouse floor.
Actually I see this statement a lot and wonder where people get this information from? I always imagined that istock was a pretty small part of their overall revenue (and why it does not get much priority) - I seem to recall this from financial statments a few years ago ... anybody know these days what proportion of getty's revenue IS is responsible for?
--------------------------
Getty is private at the moment, so nobody outside of getty/istock knows that answer. I think Istock is a big and very profitable part of getty. I think I recall Kelly saying a while back that they were paying out something like $1.8 million a week to contributors in royalties with the expectation that they would brake $2 million in the not too distant future. I can't find the link to the article/thread, so my memory is likely off on the numbers but the principal remains the same.
So to figure out Istock's gross I'll pick an average percentage that Istock pays out to contributors per sale. I'll guess say 30% (obviously its now far less with today's cuts, but not sure what that will look like going forward) So $1.8/.30 = $6 million for gross sales per week. $6 million x 52 weeks = $312 million a year in gross sales. Royalties are in the neighborhood of $94 million. Royalties aside their other costs low with salaries for say 250 employees, payments to 150 independent contractors for inspections, lots of marketing, lots and lots of bandwidth used, and lots and lots of storage. I can't imagine that Istock is spending $100 million a year on all that other stuff, so Istock is generating maybe $150 to $200 million a year in cash that Getty gets to use. You can alter the basic assumptions significantly and Istock is still throwing off a huge amount of cash every week for getty to use.
Now if you drop that average percentage payout from 30% to say 25% percent Istock picks up a whole lot of cash without selling a single additional image.
-
I agree with Sadstock. Without access to company records (since they are no longer privately traded) there is no way to know for certain. But it is important to differentiate between revenue and profitability. Getty's traditional businesses were generating far more revenue than iStock, but they were also bleeding cash. iStock was the portion of the business which was making money. Obviously unsustainable.
-
I agree with Sadstock. Without access to company records (since they are no longer privately traded) there is no way to know for certain. But it is important to differentiate between revenue and profitability. Getty's traditional businesses were generating far more revenue than iStock, but they were also bleeding cash. iStock was the portion of the business which was making money. Obviously unsustainable.
Maybe that's the key ... instead of cutting fat to make the other divisions profitable, they were hoping that IS would pay the bills. But they found that although IS was very profitable, it would not be capable of carrying the other money-losing businesses on its back unless they lowered commissions and raised prices ... maybe that's what they meant by "sustainable".
I couldn't find the original, infamous "unsustainable" quote just now when I looked for it ... does anyone else have it, or do they remember, was the wording used to justify the changes specifically that "istockphoto" was not sustainable, or did they use an undefined term like "it is not sustainable" which could either mean istockphoto or the parent company?
-
I couldn't find the original, infamous "unsustainable" quote just now when I looked for it ... does anyone else have it, or do they remember, was the wording used to justify the changes specifically that "istockphoto" was not sustainable, or did they use an undefined term like "it is not sustainable" which could either mean istockphoto or the parent company?
-------------------------
Here is the link and the quote. For what its worth, this particular post in its entirety from Kelly is probably the most damning, offensive, and disingenuous forum post any Istock admin has ever made. This post made clear to me that I had no future as an Istock exclusive.
"Since roughly 2005 we've been aware of a basic problem with how our business works. As the company grows, the overall percentage we pay out to contributing artists increases. In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success. As a business model, it’s simply unsustainable: businesses should get more profitable as they grow. This is a long-term problem that needs to be addressed."
and also
"According to our projections 76% of Exclusive contributors will either retain their current royalty rate or move up."
which might even be true if you count all the base level contributors most of whom have never earned enough to cash out. However if you narrowed that list to gold and diamond contributors, I think it would be more than 76% would drop a level or more.
Another that really pissed of a lot of people was the promise to "hopefully start a back-and-forth dialog to help everyone understand exactly what’s happening and why" which never happened.
It also contains the info from Kelly about how much they pay out a week
"we expect to see our total royalty payout increase by more than 30% next year, from $1.7-million per week to well over $2-million per week. Make no mistake, the total amount of money iStock contributors are making is going up."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322)
-
Which would make Getty the stupidest corporation in the world, since iStock was their cash cow. It appears that not only has the cash cow been milked dry, but now it is a downer cow flailing on the slaughterhouse floor.
And a nice visual analogy.
-
Which would make Getty the stupidest corporation in the world, since iStock was their cash cow. It appears that not only has the cash cow been milked dry, but now it is a downer cow on the slaughterhouse floor.
Actually I see this statement a lot and wonder where people get this information from? I always imagined that istock was a pretty small part of their overall revenue (and why it does not get much priority) - I seem to recall this from financial statments a few years ago ... anybody know these days what proportion of getty's revenue IS is responsible for?
--------------------------
Getty is private at the moment, so nobody outside of getty/istock knows that answer. I think Istock is a big and very profitable part of getty. I think I recall Kelly saying a while back that they were paying out something like $1.8 million a week to contributors in royalties with the expectation that they would brake $2 million in the not too distant future. I can't find the link to the article/thread, so my memory is likely off on the numbers but the principal remains the same.
So to figure out Istock's gross I'll pick an average percentage that Istock pays out to contributors per sale. I'll guess say 30% (obviously its now far less with today's cuts, but not sure what that will look like going forward) So $1.8/.30 = $6 million for gross sales per week. $6 million x 52 weeks = $312 million a year in gross sales. Royalties are in the neighborhood of $94 million. Royalties aside their other costs low with salaries for say 250 employees, payments to 150 independent contractors for inspections, lots of marketing, lots and lots of bandwidth used, and lots and lots of storage. I can't imagine that Istock is spending $100 million a year on all that other stuff, so Istock is generating maybe $150 to $200 million a year in cash that Getty gets to use. You can alter the basic assumptions significantly and Istock is still throwing off a huge amount of cash every week for getty to use.
Now if you drop that average percentage payout from 30% to say 25% percent Istock picks up a whole lot of cash without selling a single additional image.
If your numbers are even close to being right $50 million dollar purchase was a good deal.
-
Great detective work Sadstock. Thanks for posting that. Memory tends to fade. I had forgotten exactly how ridiculous KT's assertions were.
-
Great detective work Sadstock. Thanks for posting that. Memory tends to fade. I had forgotten exactly how ridiculous KT's assertions were.
yeah, thanks.. just when I was making progress on my therapy to forget that crap. better call my shrink now...
-
For what its worth, this particular post in its entirety from Kelly is probably the most damning, offensive, and disingenuous forum post any Istock admin has ever made. This post made clear to me that I had no future as an Istock exclusive.
And for I. I cancelled my exclusivity after reading the KT post. Prior to that I planned on being exclusive for many, many years.
-
Bruce was the smart guy ever. Took the money and jump off when realized that boat would sink.
Long live to Bruce Livingstone.
-
For what its worth, this particular post in its entirety from Kelly is probably the most damning, offensive, and disingenuous forum post any Istock admin has ever made. This post made clear to me that I had no future as an Istock exclusive.
And for I. I cancelled my exclusivity after reading the KT post. Prior to that I planned on being exclusive for many, many years.
His posts, especially the last one about exceeding expectations (while the site deteriorates, buyers leave, contributors are screwed over and all credibility goes up in flames), was downright offensive. That and his "what I think you meant to say" post chastising people who showed concern over the site failure. Is he that clueless? Does he really not look at anything except his own paycheck?
-
His posts, especially the last one about exceeding expectations (while the site deteriorates, buyers leave, contributors are screwed over and all credibility goes up in flames), was downright offensive. That and his "what I think you meant to say" post chastising people who showed concern over the site failure. Is he that clueless? Does he really not look at anything except his own paycheck?
Apparently so.
-
It all sounds a bit like the Margaret Thatcher model - where an assistant allegedly ensures you don't read any negative press about yourself.
-
i think its really sad whats going on at istock. with all these new collections, they have raised prices, and reduced commission percentages. Now theres talk about vectors having their own vetta like collections as well as editorial. All these new collections will just push further down the "main" collection that is there. This will surely annoy buyers on budgets since they will spend longer time searching and some will leave and never look back.
-
And here's another future Dreamstime customer (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291752&page=1) posting of his problems at IS...
I posted in the keywords forum that they should be sending out e-mails with apologies and some suggested workaround for known problems to buyers to help get them through this mess. The response (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=290952&messageid=5600102) was that the forum thread with faceted search bugs was already there!
Aargh! I am so frustrated at the lackadaisical attitude about everything! Where is the professionalism or sense of urgency - or even compassion for the frustrated buyers?
-
^
This just reinforces by suspicion that their programing has been outsourced to India.
Time zone considerations and other factors are making it impossible to react to these failures in a timely
fashion.
ETA: sorry about the formatting, that's what happens when I post from my iPhone.
-
wow. the other microstock sites must be woo-yaying with each iStock Epic Fail of the day (or is that "of the hour?")
-
deleted, duplicate, see post below
-
And here's another future Dreamstime customer ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291752&page=1[/url]) posting of his problems at IS...
I posted in the keywords forum that they should be sending out e-mails with apologies and some suggested workaround for known problems to buyers to help get them through this mess. The response ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=290952&messageid=5600102[/url]) was that the forum thread with faceted search bugs was already there!
Aargh! I am so frustrated at the lackadaisical attitude about everything! Where is the professionalism or sense of urgency - or even compassion for the frustrated buyers?
JoAnn, your "The response" link is taking me to an IS permalink page. ??
nosaya, even if IT has been outsourced...some of these issues are WEEKS old...I'm sure time zones don't account for that. Today, I'm kind of jumping on the bandwagon theory of a sale is in progress, Getty/IS will be exclusives only and indies will be shuffled off to photos.com. But I reserve the right to change my mind based on the latest developments. :)
-
^
This just reinforces by suspicion that their programing has been outsourced to India.
Time zone considerations and other factors are making it impossible to react to these failures in a timely
fashion.
Apart from the condescending insult to Indians what makes you think that anyway? The in-house developers have always cocked-up everything they've ever tried to do. At least they are consistent I suppose. It just looks like their mistakes are now being compounded by the number of changes they are trying to perform without sorting existing errors first. They're in over their heads.
-
Where is the professionalism or sense of urgency - or even compassion for the frustrated buyers?
When did they *ever* have compassion for the buyers? That is nothing new. It was always an "if you don't like it, leave. And don't let the door hit you in the ass" attitude there. More and more buyers seem to be taking them up on it now though.
-
Yup, I've never seen so many buyers posting with issues before. There were always complaints when prices went up, and sometimes browser issues, which were often easily solved (even if they shouldn't have needed sorting), but now the problems are more serious, more persistent and need courage with codes to get anywhere.
It's just ridiculous that the contributors are having to write code to work around the failings of the paid coders. Does no-one at HQ have a sense of embarrassment?
-
JoAnn, your "The response" link is taking me to an IS permalink page. ??
Sorry about that - I've fixed the link. I copied from the wrong place...
-
JoAnn, your "The response" link is taking me to an IS permalink page. ??
Sorry about that - I've fixed the link. I copied from the wrong place...
Thanks, I'll have a look.
-
And here's another future Dreamstime customer ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291752&page=1[/url]) posting of his problems at IS...
I posted in the keywords forum that they should be sending out e-mails with apologies and some suggested workaround for known problems to buyers to help get them through this mess. The response ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=290952&messageid=5600102[/url]) was that the forum thread with faceted search bugs was already there!
Aargh! I am so frustrated at the lackadaisical attitude about everything! Where is the professionalism or sense of urgency - or even compassion for the frustrated buyers?
Unreal. Here's the text from Mediaworks:
Sorry guys.... no time to wait for whatever fix you come up with to correct what wasn't broken to begin with.
I'm off to Dreamstime with my dollars....
Does it strike anyone else as odd that buyers are able to mention the other sites they are going to by name now? Those posts always used to be quickly expunged or edited by admins until recently. Kind of adds to the sense that nobody's minding the store.
-
And here's another future Dreamstime customer ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291752&page=1[/url]) posting of his problems at IS...
I posted in the keywords forum that they should be sending out e-mails with apologies and some suggested workaround for known problems to buyers to help get them through this mess. The response ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=290952&messageid=5600102[/url]) was that the forum thread with faceted search bugs was already there!
Aargh! I am so frustrated at the lackadaisical attitude about everything! Where is the professionalism or sense of urgency - or even compassion for the frustrated buyers?
Unreal. Here's the text from Mediaworks:
Sorry guys.... no time to wait for whatever fix you come up with to correct what wasn't broken to begin with.
I'm off to Dreamstime with my dollars....
Does it strike anyone else as odd that buyers are able to mention the other sites they are going to by name now? Those posts always used to be quickly expunged or edited by admins until recently. Kind of adds to the sense that nobody's minding the store.
Yeppers, I noticed that too.
-
And here's another future Dreamstime customer ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291752&page=1[/url]) posting of his problems at IS...
I posted in the keywords forum that they should be sending out e-mails with apologies and some suggested workaround for known problems to buyers to help get them through this mess. The response ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=290952&messageid=5600102[/url]) was that the forum thread with faceted search bugs was already there!
Aargh! I am so frustrated at the lackadaisical attitude about everything! Where is the professionalism or sense of urgency - or even compassion for the frustrated buyers?
Unreal. Here's the text from Mediaworks:
Sorry guys.... no time to wait for whatever fix you come up with to correct what wasn't broken to begin with.
I'm off to Dreamstime with my dollars....
Does it strike anyone else as odd that buyers are able to mention the other sites they are going to by name now? Those posts always used to be quickly expunged or edited by admins until recently. Kind of adds to the sense that nobody's minding the store.
Yeppers, I noticed that too.
I figured I was just reading it too quickly, but I see it is still there. weird.. maybe no moderator caught that?
-
maybe they fired Lobo ;D ( such are the dreams of the istock contributor)
-
^
This just reinforces by suspicion that their programing has been outsourced to India.
Time zone considerations and other factors are making it impossible to react to these failures in a timely
fashion.
ETA: sorry about the formatting, that's what happens when I post from my iPhone.
That was the first thing my husband said too. And it has nothing to do with insulting Indians, he is very clear on the issue that the average Indian programmer is more intelligent and better at their job than he is. It has everything to do with communication. The responisbility gets fragmented, nobody has any overview over what should be done, or what has been done by whom. Outsourcing, whether it is to India or the next door neighboor, requires very good managing.
-
maybe they fired Lobo ;D ( such are the dreams of the istock contributor)
Nope - he's still posting as of four hours ago:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291742&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291742&page=1)
-
maybe they fired Lobo ;D ( such are the dreams of the istock contributor)
Nope - he's still posting as of four hours ago:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291742&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291742&page=1[/url])
Yeah, but I didn't get his post, and he didn't lock the thread. Hmmm.
-
maybe they fired Lobo ;D ( such are the dreams of the istock contributor)
Nope - he's still posting as of four hours ago:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291742&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291742&page=1[/url])
Yeah, but I didn't get his post, and he didn't lock the thread. Hmmm.
It looks like he moved someone over from another forum to the better place for their issue.
Here's a thread he's (politely) locked in the past half hour:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=281732&page=46#post5604882 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=281732&page=46#post5604882)
-
It looks like he moved someone over from another forum to the better place for their issue.
Here's a thread he's (politely) locked in the past half hour:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=281732&page=46#post5604882[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=281732&page=46#post5604882[/url])
OK got it. Wow, that was polite.
-
Another disgruntled customer here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291522&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291522&page=1)
Though to be fair, this morning Firefox is showing up the site and the search just fine from here.
This morning (GMT) I uploaded a pic and after I'd done the keywording and categories and hit the final button, I got a big error, but the pic went up with all its information intact anyway.
-
Just think about the percentage we are paying these clowns to run the site and they can't even get search box to work for buyers. It would be funny if this wasn't how I made my living.
-
Just think about the percentage we are paying these clowns to run the site and they can't even get search box to work for buyers. It would be funny if this wasn't how I made my living.
It is still a bit funny though. They must be spending all their time devising ever more intricate methods to take money from the contributors and then writing the code to do so ... whilst forgetting that they're supposed to be selling our images. Here's the quote from (ex?) customer Artytype;
"Whole site is dead in OS10.5.8 and Firefox no formatting, CSS non existent. Bit of bind really when all I wanted to do was buy some images, Oh well I'm sure someone else will be just as greatful for the money."
-
A short, sharp statement as Janisjones2 exits stage-left;
"Thanks guys - I'll leave you to it and do something more productive. Good luck"
And Newkid501 is not best pleased either;
"please fix this awesome stock website...or i'll be forced to use another. i cannot search on firefox, chrome, safari, opera...
safari is no longer responding because of script on the webpage...blah blah blah
the following pages have become unresponsive. you can wait for them... blah blah blah
i really need to purchase some stock images, like yesterday. it's getting pretty annoying. thank you."
-
A short, sharp statement as Janisjones2 exits stage-left;
"Thanks guys - I'll leave you to it and do something more productive. Good luck"
And Newkid501 is not best pleased either;
"please fix this awesome stock website...or i'll be forced to use another. i cannot search on firefox, chrome, safari, opera...
safari is no longer responding because of script on the webpage...blah blah blah
the following pages have become unresponsive. you can wait for them... blah blah blah
i really need to purchase some stock images, like yesterday. it's getting pretty annoying. thank you."
But really, these constant pleas from buyers and contributors for the site to be fixed are a total waste of time and energy, I just wish everyone would leave and go buy/sell somewhere else.
-
They probably will now that IS has bumped all the E+ Medium and above prices from 5 to 15 credits and raised the credit package prices 3-5 cents/credit.
-
Oh dear lord. It never ends. Gostwyck and Dgilder, would you guys mind posting links to the forum posts you referenced? For any of us too lazy to hunt for them? Thanks a lot!
And just to add, about that one poor guy who can't get the search box to go live, and actually took the time to WRITE THE CODE HIMSELF to fix it - OMFG!!
-
Oh dear lord. It never ends. Gostwyck and Dgilder, would you guys mind posting links to the forum posts you referenced? For any of us too lazy to hunt for them? Thanks a lot!
Here;
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293812&page=3 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293812&page=3)
Here;
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293812&page=4 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293812&page=4)
And here;
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291522&page=1#post5652462 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291522&page=1#post5652462)
-
I'll put this here too, its from the other thread:
E+ price changes (based on KelvinJay's post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293832&messageid=5649962#post5649962[/url]) and link ([url]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1999508/1Mod%20shared/2010prices.jpg[/url])):
M 15 to 20 (33% increase)
L 20 to 30 (50%)
XL 25 to 35 (40%)
XXL 30 to 40 (33%)
XXXL 35 to 50 (43%)
Wow. Bet they finally give the E+ files the Best Match boost they had promised at the start of the program.
The minimum prices for images on Dreamstime:
ES 1
S 3
M 4
L 5
XL 6
XXL+ 7
The maximum prices for very popular images on Dreamstime:
ES 9
S 11
M 14
L 15
XL 16
XXL+ 17
So the largest size of the most popular image on Dreamstime is 3 *credits* cheaper than the Medium E+ file from iStock. The credits on Dreamstime are also significantly cheaper (10-15%?).
-
Also, I think its worth noting that the "from $0.95 per credit" now only applies to credit packages of 20,000. The 10,000 credit package price went up to $1/credit:
12 $1.54
26 $1.52
50 $1.50
120 $1.46
300 $1.40 to $1.43 (+2.1%)
600 $1.33
1000 $1.20 to $1.25 (+4.2%)
2000 $1.10 to $1.13 (+2.7%)
5000 $1.00 to $1.05 (+5%)
10000 $0.95 to $1.00 (+5.3%)
20000 NEW at $0.95 (buy twice as much to get the same discount)
-
Hmmm...I wonder if the iStock/Getty crew has chosen their funeral plots yet.
-
They must have discovered that there was a customer who was buying 10,000 credit packets. It's not sustainable to have customers on the cheapest rate ;D
Also, I think its worth noting that the "from $0.95 per credit" now only applies to credit packages of 20,000. The 10,000 credit package price went up to $1/credit:
12 $1.54
26 $1.52
50 $1.50
120 $1.46
300 $1.40 to $1.43 (+2.1%)
600 $1.33
1000 $1.20 to $1.25 (+4.2%)
2000 $1.10 to $1.13 (+2.7%)
5000 $1.00 to $1.05 (+5%)
10000 $0.95 to $1.00 (+5.3%)
20000 NEW at $0.95 (buy twice as much to get the same discount)
-
They must have discovered that there was a customer who was buying 10,000 credit packets. It's not sustainable to have customers on the cheapest rate ;D
Also, I think its worth noting that the "from $0.95 per credit" now only applies to credit packages of 20,000. The 10,000 credit package price went up to $1/credit:
12 $1.54
26 $1.52
50 $1.50
120 $1.46
300 $1.40 to $1.43 (+2.1%)
600 $1.33
1000 $1.20 to $1.25 (+4.2%)
2000 $1.10 to $1.13 (+2.7%)
5000 $1.00 to $1.05 (+5%)
10000 $0.95 to $1.00 (+5.3%)
20000 NEW at $0.95 (buy twice as much to get the same discount)
I had two ELs last week where the credits must have been around 60c.
-
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?!
-
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)
-
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?!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291522&page=1)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Another buyer has left:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297572&page=1 (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, it's a weird one. You can't always get what you want.
-
Another buyer has left:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297572&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297572&page=1[/url])
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.
-
Another buyer has left:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297572&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297572&page=1[/url])
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:
I still think it is the best place to get images that are exclusive to this site.
Really? ;D
-
Another buyer has left:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297572&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297572&page=1[/url])
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.
-
Ironically, the first best match photo on that page isn't even 'exclusive' price.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Ironically, the first best match photo on that page isn't even 'exclusive' price.
Maybe they weren't looking for a cruise ship though.
-
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!"
-
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 ???
-
Another buyer has left:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297572&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297572&page=1[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
Quite a long time ago, a couple of years anyway I think. So much so that one of my CN members who actually got a PR got it rejected at first because the inspector assumed she couldn't have, without actually checking (rejection overturned).
-
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.
I think istock calculated in that some of the buyers will leave. But just like they don't care about the smaller (non-vetta) shooters (and maybe even WANT them to leave) they probably dont care about the small buyers either. As long as the big budget vetta-, agency- and big corporate buyers stay they dont seem to give a ****.
-
I think istock calculated in that some of the buyers will leave. But just like they don't care about the smaller (non-vetta) shooters (and maybe even WANT them to leave) they probably dont care about the small buyers either. As long as the big budget vetta-, agency- and big corporate buyers stay they dont seem to give a ****.
[/quote]
And even give the big buyers deep discounts - and suggest they try out Thinkstock.
Is there any joined up thinking over there at all?
-
Another buyer regretfully leaving Istock.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=298102&messageid=5797942
(http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=298102&messageid=5797942)
Some highlights from the post:
So istock is changed. Probably many buyers like me will leave this site searching somewhere else the old istock, and probably many new entry will replace us searching very hi quality material at quite hi prices.
This is not a complain or an attack. I love istock and i wish them the best success. I'm just sad our two ways probably are reaching a crossroad.
-
^^^ I note that even though the poster clearly wishes to remain anonymous, having deliberately avoided the question once, Lobo continues to press for his (or hers) identification.
-
Yeah. Not sure why that matters. The guy clearly stated up front he's both a buyer and a seller, so it isn't like he's trying to hide anything... :-\
-
^^^ I note that even though the poster clearly wishes to remain anonymous, having deliberately avoided the question once, Lobo continues to press for his (or hers) identification.
yeah, first thing I noticed too. interesting lobo added that "you can chose to remain anonymous" .. okay, so why ask the person again?
-
I just don't even understand why it matters and why Lobo cares so much to harass people about their identity.
-
I just don't even understand why it matters and why Lobo cares so much to harass people about their identity.
I think he likes to rummage around in the account of posters who come to his attention to see if their numbers amount to anything or whether their opinion actually 'counts' in his view. It obviously irked him that he couldn't do that with the poster's contributor account on this occasion.
-
Another one on their way out the door:
* Search page numbers cannot be opened in a new tab by right click or Ctrl click in various browsers.
How about are just plain unusable? When I click on any page number or next, NOTHING HAPPENS!!! Couple that with 30 to 90% of the thumbnails being blank in every major browser for Mac and I don't see how I can use istockphoto at all anymore. These issues have been going on for almost a month. Are you aware that some clients actually give us deadlines? This is pathetic.
Most likely Lobo will now make some snide remark to the poor frustrated person.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=300722&page=4 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=300722&page=4)
-
I just don't even understand why it matters and why Lobo cares so much to harass people about their identity.
It doesn't read like harassment. Unless you choose read it like that. It reads like a perfectly reasonable question. So why assume the worst ? I don't think it's a big deal.
-
I just don't even understand why it matters and why Lobo cares so much to harass people about their identity.
It doesn't read like harassment. Unless you choose read it like that. It reads like a perfectly reasonable question. So why assume the worst ? I don't think it's a big deal.
That would be so if this was the first time this happened, but Lobo has a history of outing contributors who are also buyers, harassing them, and then discounting their opinions.
-
I just don't even understand why it matters and why Lobo cares so much to harass people about their identity.
It doesn't read like harassment. Unless you choose read it like that. It reads like a perfectly reasonable question. So why assume the worst ? I don't think it's a big deal.
That would be so if this was the first time this happened, but Lobo has a history of outing contributors who are also buyers, harassing them, and then discounting their opinions.
In this case it looks like he just paraphrasing Funwithfood, but read into what you want.
-
It doesn't read like harassment. Unless you choose read it like that. It reads like a perfectly reasonable question. So why assume the worst ? I don't think it's a big deal.
I'm just curious why it's relevant? Who cares who this person is as a contributor?
The reason it's an unreasonable question is because Lobo is a site admistrator, and instead of addressing the buyer's concerns, he is going off on a meaningless sidetrack. Whether they have 10 files online or 10k, it doesn't really have any relevance to their buying volume, or to their problems buying images.
It wasn't that long ago that the administrators on Istock used to try and HELP buyers and contributors, rather than berating them. :(
-
It wasn't that long ago that the administrators on Istock used to try and HELP buyers and contributors, rather than berating them. :(
That was Uncle Rob. The Good Cop, Bad Cop duo.
-
^ I don't know Lobo (Chris) in real life. I've never met him. I've talked to him a few times and I've sitemailed....to be frank, I prefer his up front, WYSIWYG attitude. I wouldn't want his job. it's ironic that the people complaining the most about Lobo are those who regularly bully and cr*p on people over here and at iStock. if I was him and had to deal with those kinds of people all day, I'd lose the sweet nothings too. I've had my run ins, and I don't always agree with his attitude and I've told him so. but in general he's a good guy and I don't think it's appropriate for any one person to be held responsible for the type of moderation iStock clearly mandates him to perform.
as for Lobo having a 'history' of shutting down client/contributors...give me a break. he's done it like twice and in both counts it was bang on. I believe it's absolutely relevant if a buyer has a contributor account and logs in under the buyer account to suggest that buyers in general are very unhappy. it's a conflict of interest. I'm surprised this concept is so difficult to grasp around here.
-
as for Lobo having a 'history' of shutting down client/contributors...give me a break. he's done it like twice and in both counts it was bang on. I believe it's absolutely relevant if a buyer has a contributor account and logs in under the buyer account to suggest that buyers in general are very unhappy. it's a conflict of interest. I'm surprised this concept is so difficult to grasp around here.
FWIW, I have always stayed out of the Lobo bashing. I wouldn't want his job either, and I can see why he gets mad and surly. But what I am having trouble understanding is why the effort to side track conversations about legitimate issues into irrelevancies?
The last time this happened, when the buyer did not disclose that they are also a contributor I believe Lobo was making the point that they were pretending to be just a buyer, but may have had a separate agenda as a contributor. As I recall I even offered that explanation around here when people didn't understand the point he was making.
But in this case, the buyer clearly disclosed they are a contributor, and they laid out their problems as both a contributor and a buyer. They weren't being disingenuous. That's why I don't see the relevance of asking for their contributor account.
Can someone please explain to me how that information would in any way negate anything they said? And while you're at it, can you explain why that tactic was used in lieu of some sort of helpful response to their concerns?
-
In this case it looks like he just paraphrasing Funwithfood.
So the point of paraphrasing FWF was ... ?
-
Lisa - I think there are lots of reasons why the exchange might have happened the way it did. first of all, by taking anything to the forum first, you're taking it public. that's true for all of us. if you are taking it public, you bet there will be flak from one side or another, almost always. as an unhappy buyer, I'd think the quickest path to getting help would be contacting client relations. if the response is unsatisfactory, then take it to a CR manager.
secondly, I think there is an obvious bias to being a contributor/buyer. on issues that impact buyers/contributors separately...you're going to have an inevitable bias one way or the other.
finally, iStock doesn't have to let anyone cr*p on their business in any form, anytime, publicly. I have little doubt many unhappy buyers are being spoken to privately. but just wearing a buyer hat doesn't entitle you to shoot your mouth off unfettered. iStock already allow a lot more in their forums than any other agency AFAIK, and I suspect they're really tightening up ship in the forums. I'm barely posting in the iStock forums anymore, just reading. to be frank, I got tired of listening to the same people (me included) in the forum. it was like crying wolf, it was boring, and on many levels it got absolutely ridiculous and unprofessional. we don't need to go into their forum to gripe. those of us who have bothered to connect more than superficially can chat as much as we wish via email, phone, or anything else. If iStock was my business, I wouldn't let anyone publicly dump on it either to the extent that it was happening by the same people over and over.
-
If iStock was my business, I wouldn't let anyone publicly dump on it either to the extent that it was happening by the same people over and over.
If it were my business, I'd hope they didn't have so many legitimate grievances.
-
Well, we can all argue endlessly on here about who said what in the forums, and why, and whether or not they should be allowed.
Doesn't change the problems with the istock site. Doesn't even change the point of this thread, which is that buyers are leaving istock.
-
... finally, iStock doesn't have to let anyone cr*p on their business in any form, anytime, publicly.
Of course they don't __ they can do that job perfectly well themselves (as they continue to prove pretty much every day).
-
If iStock was my business, I wouldn't let anyone publicly dump on it either to the extent that it was happening by the same people over and over.
If it were my business, I'd hope they didn't have so many legitimate grievances.
^ with respect, I think 'legitimate' is being used fairly subjectively. as is 'so many'. and if, for the sake of argument, there are 'so many' grievances from buyers, I think those grievances will be addressed positively. TPTB have the same interest in keeping the business going that we do. even if iStock is for sale; not much of an asset if there's a truckload of unhappy buyers.
and FWIW, if it were your business, as large as iStock...you would have unhappy buyers, employees and suppliers.....as is the nature of any business in any industry. and neither you, nor I, are privy to the actual numbers of 'unhappy' anything. as for buyers leaving the site, the most telling stat would be the number of buyers coming and going yearly in comparison to this year. and you can bet, no matter what anyone here thinks, that the bean counters are watching those numbers.
-
... as for buyers leaving the site, the most telling stat would be the number of buyers coming and going yearly in comparison to this year. and you can bet, no matter what anyone here thinks, that the bean counters are watching those numbers.
I'd think the 'most telling stat' would actually be the value of sales. Being as the RC targets were lowered from their original projections just 3 months after they were originally stated suggests to me that things are not going to plan __ and things have got rather worse since too. Judging by the reluctance of the bean counters to post the RC targets for 2011 suggests that they either don't know or that they may be too embarassed to reveal the truth. Those RC targets if applied 'fairly' and accurately provide a very unwelcome window onto Istockphoto's commercial pulse.
-
... as for buyers leaving the site, the most telling stat would be the number of buyers coming and going yearly in comparison to this year. and you can bet, no matter what anyone here thinks, that the bean counters are watching those numbers.
I'd think the 'most telling stat' would actually be the value of sales. Being as the RC targets were lowered from their original projections just 3 months after they were originally stated suggests to me that things are not going to plan __ and things have got rather worse since too. Judging by the reluctance of the bean counters to post the RC targets for 2011 suggests that they either don't know or that they may be too embarassed to reveal the truth. Those RC targets if applied 'fairly' and accurately provide a very unwelcome window onto Istockphoto's commercial pulse.
the adjusted targets might have only had to do with contributors meeting or not meeting targets, as Andrew stated they would revisit at year end. seems more plausible than your suggestion. but you don't know either, nor do I.
-
the adjusted targets might have only had to do with contributors meeting or not meeting targets, as Andrew stated they would revisit at year end. seems more plausible than your suggestion. but you don't know either, nor do I.
Do you have to have reality spoon-fed to you? Of course the contributors didn't meet their 'targets' __ precisely because the overall f**king sales were lower than projected. Otherwise they would have. They are directly connected. That's the whole point.
-
I think they also set targets a bit high because if they had to raise them that would have brought an even bigger s@#$storm and if too many people made them that would have been "unsustainable". Still, with all the site problems I think people aren't getting what they were expecting.
-
the adjusted targets might have only had to do with contributors meeting or not meeting targets, as Andrew stated they would revisit at year end. seems more plausible than your suggestion. but you don't know either, nor do I.
Do you have to have reality spoon-fed to you? Of course the contributors didn't meet their 'targets' __ precisely because the overall f**king sales were lower than projected. Otherwise they would have. They are directly connected. That's the whole point.
you're right. my mistake. they ARE obviously sabotaging their own sales/business/salaries/interests/friends and colleagues. I should have recognized it sooner. maybe I do need it spoon fed to me. you're drinking the koolaid too there dude. you're just drinking it on the other side of the fence.
-
I have little doubt many unhappy buyers are being spoken to privately.
Yeah, they are getting spoken to privately, alright. With a nice message telling them they are banned. LOL
-
I'm barely posting in the iStock forums anymore, just reading. to be frank, I got tired of listening to the same people (me included) in the forum. it was like crying wolf, it was boring, and on many levels it got absolutely ridiculous and unprofessional. we don't need to go into their forum to gripe. those of us who have bothered to connect more than superficially can chat as much as we wish via email, phone, or anything else. If iStock was my business, I wouldn't let anyone publicly dump on it either to the extent that it was happening by the same people over and over.
And yet, here you are, LOL, griping to and about the same people that you find so boring ridiculous and unprofessional. What is it about you that you just can't stay away. It's all that same condescending cr*p that everyone keeps reminding you is so irritating, yet, you keep doing it!
-
to be frank, I prefer his up front, WYSIWYG attitude. I wouldn't want his job. it's ironic that the people complaining the most about Lobo are those who regularly bully and cr*p on people over here and at iStock.
Do you not see the irony in that statement? Cause and effect. What does iStock expect when they continue to bully and cr*p on people in their forums? That everyone should just take it (like you do?). They reap what they sow as far as I'm concerned.
-
^ with respect, I think 'legitimate' is being used fairly subjectively. as is 'so many'. and if, for the sake of argument, there are 'so many' grievances from buyers, I think those grievances will be addressed positively.
ROFL. iStock hasn't cared about the buyers' grievances FOR YEARS. The only thing iStock cares about in regards to the buyers is how much money they can squeeze from them.
-
Yeah, they are getting spoken to privately, alright. With a nice message telling them they are banned. LOL
I doubt that many buyers have ever been banned from buying. Obviously presumably excluding fraudsters :)
AFAIK people are sometimes given a cooling off period if they seem to be getting over-heated at the forums. But that is surely just good housekeeping. That happens at most forums. Any forum ultimately needs to be a useful resource not a total free for all.
-
Yeah, they are getting spoken to privately, alright. With a nice message telling them they are banned. LOL
I doubt that many buyers have ever been banned from buying. Obviously presumably excluding fraudsters :)
AFAIK people are sometimes given a cooling off period if they seem to be getting over-heated at the forums. But that is surely just good housekeeping. That happens at most forums. Any forum ultimately needs to be a useful resource not a total free for all.
From what I've seen these "cooling off periods" include a ban from both sitemail and the forums and usually last several months, if they are ever reinstated at all.
-
Yeah, they are getting spoken to privately, alright. With a nice message telling them they are banned. LOL
I doubt that many buyers have ever been banned from buying.
I actually do know of one. They had their account deleted and everything. It was several years ago.
-
the adjusted targets might have only had to do with contributors meeting or not meeting targets, as Andrew stated they would revisit at year end. seems more plausible than your suggestion. but you don't know either, nor do I.
Do you have to have reality spoon-fed to you? Of course the contributors didn't meet their 'targets' __ precisely because the overall f**king sales were lower than projected. Otherwise they would have. They are directly connected. That's the whole point.
you're right. my mistake. they ARE obviously sabotaging their own sales/business/salaries/interests/friends and colleagues. I should have recognized it sooner. maybe I do need it spoon fed to me. you're drinking the koolaid too there dude. you're just drinking it on the other side of the fence.
for the record, my comment was somewhat tongue in cheek, that one absurdly stubborn position deserves another. given that they pushed a hobbled website live, a broken search live, adjusted prices (albeit slightly) and introduced two new collections all in the last six months, I'm pleasantly surprised sales are as good as they are. if I'm going to attribute any alleged drop in sales to something (and I have no way of knowing my own sales might have been a lot higher without these issues), I would attribute the drop to the search/website issues etc., which theoretically should be temporary. though istock seems to be proving me wrong on that with each day that passes. I sure hope they bolster their tech crew. at this point I imagine a bunch of overworked techs in the istock backroom being blamed for what should have been prevented with better planning and management.
-
I doubt Istock is happy with this situation... but yes, the need to hire whoever needs to be hired to get the site working 100%. Istock has, by far, the best search system/engine in town, but if it doesn't work as it should, having it is useless.
-
I doubt Istock is happy with this situation... but yes, the need to hire whoever needs to be hired to get the site working 100%. Istock has, by far, the best search system/engine in town, but if it doesn't work as it should, having it is useless.
agree
-
I'm actually one of the buyers mentioned in this thread. (Also a contributor) We have had Getty reps come to our company and tell us not to use istock. "They have no way of verifying if images have releases, and its just safer not to use them." Said the reps. That and a multitude of other issues have lead my company to seriously cut down on istock. Some teams keep it going, while others don't. They are going the right direction to make it impossible to convince people that they are still worth using. I get numerous emails from people wanting to buy my images directly from me simple because they don't want to buy an entire credit package for one image.
-
I have thousands of images at IS, tens of thousands dl's... never had a single mail from a customer wanting to buy directly, except if they want somenthing special (i.e. Image exclusivity, same model doing another thing in a custom made shot etc). Never for license concerns or not wanting to buy small credit packages. So, a very different experiencie from what you happen to say.
And yes, tehy have a way to verify MRs, model's phones are in the MR.
-
And yes, tehy have a way to verify MRs, model's phones are in the MR.
That's not something a customer should ever have access to.
-
I'm just saying what the Getty reps told everyone. :)
Also, I would say at least once every other month I get a "Can we buy from you outside of istock" email from buyers.
-
I don't know who loop is, but he/she generally steps in to say that iStock isn't as bad as everyone is making them out to be. What you wrote in your post was very clear that it was the Getty reps saying that, not you. I don't think loop an admin - Lobo is pieman here and rogermexico is himself. Kelly Thompson would be instantly recognizable for his ability to stick his foot firmly in his mouth with every post :)
-
I haven't said a word about what Getty reps are saying. I can't talk about that, because I don't know. Reading my post is easy to see that what I've said is that I don't get customer's mails asking for what, it seems, they are asking Superufus. That's all, and is true.
-
I don't know who loop is, but he/she generally steps in to say that iStock isn't as bad as everyone is making them out to be. What you wrote in your post was very clear that it was the Getty reps saying that, not you. I don't think loop an admin - Lobo is pieman here and rogermexico is himself. Kelly Thompson would be instantly recognizable for his ability to stick his foot firmly in his mouth with every post :)
HAHA :)
-
More customer feedback:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=301712&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=301712&page=1)
At least there's a pleasant reply from RM.
No doubt someone else is ferreting madly away to try to find out if the OP is also a contributor, as if it matters.
-
I have thousands of images at IS, tens of thousands dl's... never had a single mail from a customer wanting to buy directly, except if they want somenthing special (i.e. Image exclusivity, same model doing another thing in a custom made shot etc). Never for license concerns or not wanting to buy small credit packages. So, a very different experiencie from what you happen to say.
And yes, tehy have a way to verify MRs, model's phones are in the MR.
Exactly the same for me. No IS customer has ever contacted me in an attempt to buy direct. I once had a query from someone on DT asking how to obtain one of my images but I think they were either confused (i.e. a bit stupid) or fishing for a freebie. Saying it happens 'every month' seems so unlikely that I don't actually believe the Getty rep bit either. Any Getty rep's making such statements regularly would soon be reported to IS whilst the customer attempted to clarify the situation.
-
I'm actually one of the buyers mentioned in this thread. (Also a contributor) We have had Getty reps come to our company and tell us not to use istock. "They have no way of verifying if images have releases, and its just safer not to use them." Said the reps.
Just to clarify, these reps have said this recently? Since Getty owned Istock? If so, how utterly ridiculous!! Are they trying to pretend Istock isn't part of the Getty Family?! If Istock images didn't have the proper releases, surely this would reflect poorly on Getty - its owner?
This is not the first report that Getty sales people are trying to chase buyers away from Istock. I am wondering just how widespread it is. It's one thing for a rogue salesperson to be spreading such lies. Quite another issue if it is company policy. If Getty's policy WAS to drive traffic away from Istock (and I am not saying it is) they certainly couldn't be doing a more effective job of it.
-
I'm actually one of the buyers mentioned in this thread. (Also a contributor) We have had Getty reps come to our company and tell us not to use istock. "They have no way of verifying if images have releases, and its just safer not to use them." Said the reps.
Just to clarify, these reps have said this recently? Since Getty owned Istock? If so, how utterly ridiculous!! Are they trying to pretend Istock isn't part of the Getty Family?! If Istock images didn't have the proper releases, surely this would reflect poorly on Getty - its owner?
I've seen exactly that attributed to iStock reps twice in the iStock forums: once a couple of years back and once pretty recently.
I don't know if these and this mention today relate to the same incident or reps. I guess the reps are desperate to earn commission, and it wouldn't be the only industry in which commission-based reps lie to boost their own income.
-
I guess the reps are desperate to earn commission, and it wouldn't be the only industry in which commission-based reps lie to boost their own income.
I totally understand why a rep would lie to get a commission (not that I agree with it). That's salesmanship 101. What is surprising to me is that they would tell lies that trash part of their own company. ???
-
I have thousands of images at IS, tens of thousands dl's... never had a single mail from a customer wanting to buy directly, except if they want somenthing special (i.e. Image exclusivity, same model doing another thing in a custom made shot etc). Never for license concerns or not wanting to buy small credit packages. So, a very different experiencie from what you happen to say.
And yes, tehy have a way to verify MRs, model's phones are in the MR.
Exactly the same for me. No IS customer has ever contacted me in an attempt to buy direct. I once had a query from someone on DT asking how to obtain one of my images but I think they were either confused (i.e. a bit stupid) or fishing for a freebie. Saying it happens 'every month' seems so unlikely that I don't actually believe the Getty rep bit either. Any Getty rep's making such statements regularly would soon be reported to IS whilst the customer attempted to clarify the situation.
I believe I said every other month. I'm sorry you aren't receiving the emails. If you don't get them, they must not exist.. If they existed, SURELY you would get them too. That's how the world works you know. Everything is equal. Or wait... Is it?
As for the getty reps saying what they said. Believe me or not, it happened. I reported it to istock with the names of the reps and they were going to look into it. It was the last Getty Rep meeting we had 6ish months ago.
-
I guess the reps are desperate to earn commission, and it wouldn't be the only industry in which commission-based reps lie to boost their own income.
I totally understand why a rep would lie to get a commission (not that I agree with it). That's salesmanship 101. What is surprising to me is that they would tell lies that trash part of their own company. ???
Sadly I don't find this too surprising. if you've ever worked a commission job with pushy sales co-workers you'll find that some of these people will trash their own mother if they felt it would get them the sale and no one else.
-
The Getty badmouthing IS has been heard before, it's not new.
Also, I would say at least once every other month I get a "Can we buy from you outside of istock" email from buyers.
I have sold a lot of images and I have never had this, I'm amazed you get it every 2 months.
I went to see a small but very well know and influential design consultancy today and they said they were very happy with IS and only looked at other comapanies if they absolutely couldn't find what they wanted at IS. They weren't interested in any goings-on at IS, they were just happy with the images they found there.
-
Likewise, having worked in the past with commissioned sales reps, they get judged (by their bosses) on whether they make their quotas on the various products assigned to them.
It's not only about them making money on the things they get commissions for (and as I'm guessing they don't get commission, or as much commission, to sell iStock credit packs, they have every incentive to trash them if they represent competition for the things they do get commissions for). It's also about them keeping their jobs. If they do a great job overall for the company in ways that aren't measured by their bosses and miss their quotas, they get fired. I don't think it's a great model, but it's very prevalent in American companies (may be elsewhere too, but I just don't have experience of elsewhere).
Incentive systems can work well, but you have to be very careful to design them to get the results you want. When there is no penalty to a sales rep who sells something that doesn't really meet customer requirements and generates huge downstream costs in support calls, they'll keep selling that way. Some companies started tracking those back end costs to try and put a stop to that sort of "good for me, bad for the company" transactions.
So some of the behavior you could lay at the feet of an individual sales rep; some of it you need to look at the company for designing the incentive system badly. I know nothing about how Getty's system is designed though...
-
The Getty badmouthing IS has been heard before, it's not new.
Also, I would say at least once every other month I get a "Can we buy from you outside of istock" email from buyers.
I have sold a lot of images and I have never had this, I'm amazed you get it every 2 months.
I'm surprised. I would think more people would have this happen. I had one today, but it wasn't quite the same. It is "Can I buy this from you, since Istock doesn't allow me to resell t-shirts with this design?" OBVIOUSLY, not quite the same as I mentioned before, and I will just refer them back to istock customer relations to discuss licensing options.
Apprently people find me to be very emailable???
-
I guess the reps are desperate to earn commission, and it wouldn't be the only industry in which commission-based reps lie to boost their own income.
I totally understand why a rep would lie to get a commission (not that I agree with it). That's salesmanship 101. What is surprising to me is that they would tell lies that trash part of their own company. ???
Sadly I don't find this too surprising. if you've ever worked a commission job with pushy sales co-workers you'll find that some of these people will trash their own mother if they felt it would get them the sale and no one else.
And I was thinking that maybe the Getty reps have their panties in a knot because IS is undercutting them and taking away their livelihood. No matter that they are owned by the same people. Kind of like the trad agency photographers looking down on microstock photographers.
-
I guess the reps are desperate to earn commission, and it wouldn't be the only industry in which commission-based reps lie to boost their own income.
I totally understand why a rep would lie to get a commission (not that I agree with it). That's salesmanship 101. What is surprising to me is that they would tell lies that trash part of their own company. ???
Sadly I don't find this too surprising. if you've ever worked a commission job with pushy sales co-workers you'll find that some of these people will trash their own mother if they felt it would get them the sale and no one else.
Yeah you just have to follow the money. In my past corporate days working at company 'X', one of the product managers told me that when the founder and chairman of company 'X' would accompany them on the really, really important sales trips, into the boardrooms of Fortune 100 companies, he would basically forget that he was representing company 'X' and would spend the entire meeting pushing the products sold by company 'Y'. Company 'Y' was a subsidiary of 'X' but he had a much larger, personal investment stake in startup 'Y' than he had in parent company 'X'. This was a 50 year old allegedly eminent and respectable corporate CEO, not a junior sales rep. He was a former sales rep however so that might explain his behavior.
I believe that the word "synergy" as related to corporate acquisitions was invented by corporate types looking for an excuse for their insider self-dealing ;)
-
The Getty badmouthing IS has been heard before, it's not new.
Also, I would say at least once every other month I get a "Can we buy from you outside of istock" email from buyers.
I have sold a lot of images and I have never had this, I'm amazed you get it every 2 months.
I'm surprised. I would think more people would have this happen. I had one today, but it wasn't quite the same. It is "Can I buy this from you, since Istock doesn't allow me to resell t-shirts with this design?" OBVIOUSLY, not quite the same as I mentioned before, and I will just refer them back to istock customer relations to discuss licensing options.
Apprently people find me to be very emailable???
is it email or sitemail? perhaps a lot of photogs dont publish their emails on their istock portfolio page. It doesn't automatically get listed there anyhow, does it? at least mine is not there, but my website link is.
-
I have thousands of images at IS, tens of thousands dl's... never had a single mail from a customer wanting to buy directly, except if they want somenthing special (i.e. Image exclusivity, same model doing another thing in a custom made shot etc). Never for license concerns or not wanting to buy small credit packages. So, a very different experiencie from what you happen to say.
And yes, tehy have a way to verify MRs, model's phones are in the MR.
Exactly the same for me. No IS customer has ever contacted me in an attempt to buy direct. I once had a query from someone on DT asking how to obtain one of my images but I think they were either confused (i.e. a bit stupid) or fishing for a freebie. Saying it happens 'every month' seems so unlikely that I don't actually believe the Getty rep bit either. Any Getty rep's making such statements regularly would soon be reported to IS whilst the customer attempted to clarify the situation.
I've had two, but a long time ago. One was asking if s/he could use one of my pics in a book, but something about the writing seemed like it wasn't just a simple question. I said it could, linked to the EL page, just in case, and referred them to support if they weren't clear about the EL.
The other, very soon after I started, was suggesting they paid me for my image offsite so that I'd get more and they'd pay less. This was in early 2007, when images were mega cheap anyway. I ignored them.
-
is it email or sitemail? perhaps a lot of photogs dont publish their emails on their istock portfolio page. It doesn't automatically get listed there anyhow, does it? at least mine is not there, but my website link is.
I have a link to my web page. Most everyone that contacts me, does so through my personal site. Most of them seem genuine. I always tell them I can't since I'm exclusive, unless they want it to be something new and WAY more expensive. That usually deters them. I do vectors. I don't know if that makes a difference in these circumstances.
-
I have a link to my web page. Most everyone that contacts me, does so through my personal site. Most of them seem genuine. I always tell them I can't since I'm exclusive, unless they want it to be something new and WAY more expensive. That usually deters them. I do vectors. I don't know if that makes a difference in these circumstances.
Fair enough, sorry that I doubted you. I don't have any links on my profile page so that wouldn't apply to me. I do think that vector artists are more likely to get contacted as vectors tend to be more expensive and presumeably they can also be modified to fit a buyer's exact needs.
-
Another very well-articulated buyer's set of complaints:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=301712&messageid=5822512 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=301712&messageid=5822512)
First paragraph sums it up pretty well:
Though I'm a contributor, I function mainly as a buyer. iStock, as of late, has become nearly unusable to me. If it weren't for the higher quality images and my existing credits (including those that come from downloads of my files), I would go elsewhere. I know others who already have. I have had a contracted ad agency ask me to move to a different microstock for their projects because of iStock's US Postal Service style constant rate increases. This, when I have used iStock for nearly a decade and have only veered away if what I needed was not available.
Of course, being also a contributor, his/her opinion will no doubt be considered irrelevant by TPTB.
-
I'm actually one of the buyers mentioned in this thread. (Also a contributor) We have had Getty reps come to our company and tell us not to use istock. "They have no way of verifying if images have releases, and its just safer not to use them." Said the reps. That and a multitude of other issues have lead my company to seriously cut down on istock. Some teams keep it going, while others don't. They are going the right direction to make it impossible to convince people that they are still worth using. I get numerous emails from people wanting to buy my images directly from me simple because they don't want to buy an entire credit package for one image.
This really wouldn't be a big surprise to me. The Getty reps probably earn commissions, and are judged on job performance, by what they sell for Getty. If a prospective client approached them with a $100,000 budget and said "why shouldn't I just spend $100K with istock", the rep would lose the sale and would probably say almost anything to get that $100K for Getty. If they're not meeting Getty quota they could lose their job.
It's human nature. If the reps were compensated for both Getty and Istock sales there wouldn't be a bias. If the sales goes to Istock and they get nothing, of course they're going to deter the prospect from Istock.
One of the best sales-related quotes is from the movie Glengarry Glen Ross. This is the daily life of a salesperson. Anybody want third prize? "We're adding a little something to this month's sales contest. As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired. "
-
Off goes another one. Buyer cswalsh writes;
"I'm not a contributor, I'm just a client (since 2001), and I'm stunned today to find that your search function is still essentially broken. Anything more than a couple words returns no results at all. Of all the sites, you guys consistently have had the best video, images, etc. But that doesn't matter if I can't find it. So for my last two projects, I've bought from other sites, because I didn't have the time to sort through thousands of results to find what I needed.
The old search had issues, but it worked. It's probably too late, but I would revert, revert, revert."
-
Off goes another one. Buyer cswalsh writes;
"I'm not a contributor, I'm just a client (since 2001), and I'm stunned today to find that your search function is still essentially broken. Anything more than a couple words returns no results at all. Of all the sites, you guys consistently have had the best video, images, etc. But that doesn't matter if I can't find it. So for my last two projects, I've bought from other sites, because I didn't have the time to sort through thousands of results to find what I needed.
The old search had issues, but it worked. It's probably too late, but I would revert, revert, revert."
thing is, you can't just revert at this point and we wouldn't want them to. the new functionality is great if they would just get it working. iStock has done what all major technology companies inevitably do....releasing new technology prematurely to keep the leading edge in the industry....which soon becomes the bleeding edge as the technology breaks down. gostwyck, for once I'm going to use your words and say that Getty or whomever was pulling the strings got very very greedy with the launch of the new site, then the faceted search, and now new collections. it may be important to stay ahead of the competition...but what is the point of having a fantastic formula 1 race car if you can't drive it at all.....they've got to get this situation under control. I know, talk about stating the obvious.....but it is obvious so why they're not doing it is perplexing. is it that difficult to get people in Calgary?
-
Getty or whomever was pulling the strings got very very greedy with the launch of the new site, then the faceted search, and now new collections. it may be important to stay ahead of the competition...but what is the point of having a fantastic formula 1 race car if you can't drive it at all.....they've got to get this situation under control. I know, talk about stating the obvious.....but it is obvious so why they're not doing it is perplexing. is it that difficult to get people in Calgary?
I could not agree more. In my wildest, most cynical imaginings, I would never have predicted Istock would let things get so out of hand. Completely baffling that it has gone on this long.
-
the new functionality is great if they would just get it working. iStock has done what all major technology companies inevitably do....releasing new technology prematurely to keep the leading edge in the industry....which soon becomes the bleeding edge as the technology breaks down.
What 'new functionality'? What can you do with the 'facetted search' that you couldn't do before much easier and quicker? What does Istockphoto's supposed cutting-edge technology do, even if it actually worked, that you can't do much easier and quicker on every other microstock agency?
Are buyers supposed to be grateful that they can now only perform a two-word search and that any other words have to be added to a different search box and then a further sub-search undertaken? If anyone can explain what the 'new search' is supposed to actually achieve (if they can ever get it to work) then I'd be grateful. It just appears to be a significant step-backwards with months of disruption to boot.
-
I've yet to understand the usefulness of that box. I just want to enter the words and get results. Period. I don't want to figure out what some silly box is for.
-
If the crumb trail box worked as intended it has one useful feature that you didn't have before - the ability to drop one search term from a many word search string without redoing anything. Those little circles with x can be clicked wherever in the list they occur.
You could - if it worked - type 8 or 10 words into the top box and then add or drop terms from the box on the left. And you could from that panel on the left remove Vetta or add illustrations, or look at only vertical or...
I don't see any reason why the top box couldn't work just like Google and still have the panel on the left fill up with all sorts of useful refinements (like collections, size, media type, etc.) you could make if you wanted. Best of both worlds.
There but for competent software engineers we would be now...
-
Off goes another one. Buyer cswalsh writes;
"I'm not a contributor, I'm just a client (since 2001), and I'm stunned today to find that your search function is still essentially broken. Anything more than a couple words returns no results at all. Of all the sites, you guys consistently have had the best video, images, etc. But that doesn't matter if I can't find it. So for my last two projects, I've bought from other sites, because I didn't have the time to sort through thousands of results to find what I needed.
The old search had issues, but it worked. It's probably too late, but I would revert, revert, revert."
One of my colleges tried to buy an image yesterday and the search was completely non functional. He gave up and bought 100 images for the project at DT!
-
One of my colleges tried to buy an image yesterday and the search was completely non functional. He gave up and bought 100 images for the project at DT!
Try to persuade them to post to the forum and to email someone, though I don't know who the 'someone' would be that would GAD.
-
Off goes another one. Buyer cswalsh writes;
"I'm not a contributor, I'm just a client (since 2001), and I'm stunned today to find that your search function is still essentially broken. Anything more than a couple words returns no results at all. Of all the sites, you guys consistently have had the best video, images, etc. But that doesn't matter if I can't find it. So for my last two projects, I've bought from other sites, because I didn't have the time to sort through thousands of results to find what I needed.
The old search had issues, but it worked. It's probably too late, but I would revert, revert, revert."
One of my colleges tried to buy an image yesterday and the search was completely non functional. He gave up and bought 100 images for the project at DT!
Try to persuade them to post to the forum and to email someone, though I don't know who the 'someone' would be that would GAD.
Why??? As a business you reap what you sow!
-
Another unhappy buyer - http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=303462&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=303462&page=1)
"I've been using istock for 5 or 6 years now, spending about £100 a month. I like the superior images and the fact that I've always been able to find what I want.
But I've finally had it with the prices. I started using this site back in the days when I could charge my clients £1-£3 for a high res quality image. Now the same quality image is £10-£50. Not to mention having to wade through images costing much more than this to find ones which are just affordable. Enough, I'm gone.
istock, if you sort out the insane inflation and reduce prices to a level my clients (mostly charities) can afford then I'll be back. Until then I'm trying the competition.
Thanks for the help and inspiration you've given me over the years."
-
However the reality is that I'm a freelance designer working with small clients on small budgets.
I think the reality of istock is that this is no longer the sort of buyer they're aiming at. I saw a high-end design consultancy last week, they use a lot of microstock and said they never look anywhere other than IS, unless they really can't find what they want there, just because they feel the image quality is higher and the buying experience better.
-
Another unhappy buyer - [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=303462&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=303462&page=1[/url])
istock, if you sort out the insane inflation and reduce prices to a level my clients (mostly charities) can afford then I'll be back. Until then I'm trying the competition.
Thanks for the help and inspiration you've given me over the years."[/color]
The later post from the OP said they didn't mind the search issues, and wasn't even complaining about Vetta and Agency (possibly not flooding the searches he was doing?) - it was based only on price.
Would you rather the prices went down to the levels of, say, five or even two years ago? (this is a very serious question/issue/dilemma)
-
Would you rather the prices went down to the levels of, say, five or even two years ago? (this is a very serious question/issue/dilemma)
I agree, it's an interesting question. When I'm annoyed with the tech problems and see my January income down from the previous year I do often wonder what would happen if they dropped prices right back to , say, $5 for every image, no collections, no nothing, just cheap images. The answer is, I don't know, but I'm not unhappy to see image prices at a more realistic ( ie. higher) level. I'm a professional with many years experience, I prefer people to pay realistically for that experience and quality.
-
Would you rather the prices went down to the levels of, say, five or even two years ago? (this is a very serious question/issue/dilemma)
I agree, it's an interesting question. When I'm annoyed with the tech problems and see my January income down from the previous year I do often wonder what would happen if they dropped prices right back to , say, $5 for every image, no collections, no nothing, just cheap images. The answer is, I don't know, but I'm not unhappy to see image prices at a more realistic ( ie. higher) level. I'm a professional with many years experience, I prefer people to pay realistically for that experience and quality.
To update what I wrote earlier: the OP subsequently stated that he'd prefer the Vetta/agency files to be filterable out.
Like most people, I'm now shooting with much more expensive equipment than I was five years ago, just to keep up with rising expections of standards. If it wasn't for iStock, I'd still be shooting happily with my 350D.
Not speaking for the OP, but many buyers just don't need the super high technical quality demanded by iStock. Where they'll be able to go when all the micros rise to a realistic level: Flickr has many excellent CC images (I used them a lot when I was teaching) but of course no releases.
-
, just to keep up with rising expections of standards.
I think personally the decision of IS to attempt to raise standards and position themselves at a quality level above other micro competitors is a good one. They attract a high standard of work, in fact I'd like it to be even higher personally, and more selective. I'm less sure about things like Vetta, it should all be great with a big weeding out of the mediocre. I have a lightbox of mediocre images at IS, for my own amusement, those images should all be gone.
-
Like I always say, if I've got designer tastes on an M&S budget, it won't do me any good whining to the designer shop!
Maybe the Dollar Bin should be a bit more 'visible'.
-
Another unhappy buyer - [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=303462&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=303462&page=1[/url])
istock, if you sort out the insane inflation and reduce prices to a level my clients (mostly charities) can afford then I'll be back. Until then I'm trying the competition.
Thanks for the help and inspiration you've given me over the years."[/color]
The later post from the OP said they didn't mind the search issues, and wasn't even complaining about Vetta and Agency (possibly not flooding the searches he was doing?) - it was based only on price.
Would you rather the prices went down to the levels of, say, five or even two years ago? (this is a very serious question/issue/dilemma)
edited because I'd not yet read the rest of the thread :-)
-
Another unhappy buyer - [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=303462&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=303462&page=1[/url])
"I've been using istock for 5 or 6 years now, spending about £100 a month. I like the superior images and the fact that I've always been able to find what I want.
But I've finally had it with the prices. I started using this site back in the days when I could charge my clients £1-£3 for a high res quality image. Now the same quality image is £10-£50. Not to mention having to wade through images costing much more than this to find ones which are just affordable. Enough, I'm gone.
istock, if you sort out the insane inflation and reduce prices to a level my clients (mostly charities) can afford then I'll be back. Until then I'm trying the competition.
Thanks for the help and inspiration you've given me over the years."
Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a more diplomatic reply from Lobo. Is a sea change coming?
-
Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a more diplomatic reply from Lobo. Is a sea change coming?
I noticed it was signed "A Lobo" :D
-
Maybe someone finally talked to Lobo about his etiquette.
Although, I'm still waiting for a "YOU ARE A CONTRIBUTOR TOO, AREN'T YOU!? WHAT IS YOUR REAL NAME?"
-
Would you rather the prices went down to the levels of, say, five or even two years ago? (this is a very serious question/issue/dilemma)
For most of us the prices are lower than two years ago and the commissions are a LOT lower than two years ago. So yes, restore the status quo ante.
-
Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a more diplomatic reply from Lobo. Is a sea change coming?
I noticed it was signed "A Lobo" :D
Ha, me too. That would explain some things.
-
Maybe someone finally talked to Lobo about his etiquette.
Although, I'm still waiting for a "YOU ARE A CONTRIBUTOR TOO, AREN'T YOU!? WHAT IS YOUR REAL NAME?"
:D
-
Like I always say, if I've got designer tastes on an M&S budget, it won't do me any good whining to the designer shop!
Maybe the Dollar Bin should be a bit more 'visible'.
As long as Vetta, Agency, E+ and dollar bin can be separately searchable if desired, I think that the dollar bin might be a great way to handle the budget conscious buyer. Problems with it at the moment are many - no new content, prices are too high (I think there need to be a max of 3 price bands rather than the sizes matching the rest of the collections; given their programming challenges, they can keep all the same sizes, but XS & S are 1, M & L are 2, XL and up are 3 credits).
If things that hadn't sold at all in 2 years (or even 3 years if 2 years is too short - things that stop selling, not just things that never sold) were moved to the dollar bin automatically and regularly, I think it'd be more interesting to buyers. Right now it's a forgotten place for the most part.
I know there'd be a huge uproar from IS exclusives, but I think a sort order by price would be something buyers would value. I'd rather keep the buyers and take the risk that I might lose a sale or two by giving them the choice of an independent image over mine if they were really cash strapped for a particular project. I think that driving buyers away is a riskier move than letting them order searches the way they want.
-
, just to keep up with rising expections of standards.
I think personally the decision of IS to attempt to raise standards and position themselves at a quality level above other micro competitors is a good one. They attract a high standard of work, in fact I'd like it to be even higher personally, and more selective. I'm less sure about things like Vetta, it should all be great with a big weeding out of the mediocre. I have a lightbox of mediocre images at IS, for my own amusement, those images should all be gone.
I agree
-
, just to keep up with rising expections of standards.
I think personally the decision of IS to attempt to raise standards and position themselves at a quality level above other micro competitors is a good one. They attract a high standard of work, in fact I'd like it to be even higher personally, and more selective. I'm less sure about things like Vetta, it should all be great with a big weeding out of the mediocre. I have a lightbox of mediocre images at IS, for my own amusement, those images should all be gone.
I agree
I totally disagree. There should be stuff available at all prices.
Sometimes I buy a cheap wine which is perfect for a sauce. Other times I am looking for something very special to serve to my friends (or drink myself). The same store done well can serve both those needs. If the really good stuff is over-priced (or not quite good enough) then I am going somewhere else. If the stuff I am probably going to cook with is not cheap enough then ditto.
That's why branding works. You can have well done store which has different ranges at different prices. It's the total experience of the store which matters.
-
, just to keep up with rising expections of standards.
I think personally the decision of IS to attempt to raise standards and position themselves at a quality level above other micro competitors is a good one. They attract a high standard of work, in fact I'd like it to be even higher personally, and more selective. I'm less sure about things like Vetta, it should all be great with a big weeding out of the mediocre. I have a lightbox of mediocre images at IS, for my own amusement, those images should all be gone.
I agree
I totally disagree. There should be stuff available at all prices.
Sometimes I buy a cheap wine which is perfect for a sauce. Other times I am looking for something very special to serve to my friends (or drink myself). The same store done well can serve both those needs. If the really good stuff is over-priced (or not quite good enough) then I am going somewhere else. If the stuff I am probably going to cook with is not cheap enough then ditto.
That's why branding works. You can have well done store which has different ranges at different prices. It's the total experience of the store which matters.
I agree with this too so let me clarify. I agree that iStock continues to raise standards and part of the iStock brand is the expectation of quality. having said that, I think it is important that they continue to offer images at various price points for different types of buyers.
-
, just to keep up with rising expections of standards.
I think personally the decision of IS to attempt to raise standards and position themselves at a quality level above other micro competitors is a good one. They attract a high standard of work, in fact I'd like it to be even higher personally, and more selective. I'm less sure about things like Vetta, it should all be great with a big weeding out of the mediocre. I have a lightbox of mediocre images at IS, for my own amusement, those images should all be gone.
I agree
I totally disagree. There should be stuff available at all prices.
Sometimes I buy a cheap wine which is perfect for a sauce. Other times I am looking for something very special to serve to my friends (or drink myself). The same store done well can serve both those needs. If the really good stuff is over-priced (or not quite good enough) then I am going somewhere else. If the stuff I am probably going to cook with is not cheap enough then ditto.
That's why branding works. You can have well done store which has different ranges at different prices. It's the total experience of the store which matters.
I agree with bunhill. If IS wants to continue to raise their prices (nothing wrong with that, if they can sell the stuff) then they should take themselves out of the microstock market and start calling themselves a midstock agency. The problem is they want their cake and eat it too. They are continuing to brand their wares as microstock, but not at microstock prices. They get the buyers in under the premise that they are microstock, then try to shove midstock and trad agency prices down their throat. And the result? Exactly what is happening...buyers going somewhere else.
-
I agree with bunhill. If IS wants to continue to raise their prices (nothing wrong with that, if they can sell the stuff) then they should take themselves out of the microstock market and start calling themselves a midstock agency. The problem is they want their cake and eat it too. They are continuing to brand their wares as microstock, but not at microstock prices. They get the buyers in under the premise that they are microstock, then try to shove midstock and trad agency prices down their throat. And the result? Exactly what is happening...buyers going somewhere else.
There's content on IS from 1 credit, up to lots of credits. All kinds of content. Just like Walmart sells crap tvs and expensive tvs. Etc.
-
, just to keep up with rising expections of standards.
I think personally the decision of IS to attempt to raise standards and position themselves at a quality level above other micro competitors is a good one. They attract a high standard of work, in fact I'd like it to be even higher personally, and more selective. I'm less sure about things like Vetta, it should all be great with a big weeding out of the mediocre. I have a lightbox of mediocre images at IS, for my own amusement, those images should all be gone.
I agree
I totally disagree. There should be stuff available at all prices.
Sometimes I buy a cheap wine which is perfect for a sauce. Other times I am looking for something very special to serve to my friends (or drink myself). The same store done well can serve both those needs. If the really good stuff is over-priced (or not quite good enough) then I am going somewhere else. If the stuff I am probably going to cook with is not cheap enough then ditto.
That's why branding works. You can have well done store which has different ranges at different prices. It's the total experience of the store which matters.
I agree with bunhill. If IS wants to continue to raise their prices (nothing wrong with that, if they can sell the stuff) then they should take themselves out of the microstock market and start calling themselves a midstock agency. The problem is they want their cake and eat it too. They are continuing to brand their wares as microstock, but not at microstock prices. They get the buyers in under the premise that they are microstock, then try to shove midstock and trad agency prices down their throat. And the result? Exactly what is happening...buyers going somewhere else.
Where exactly do they state that they are "microstock" ? couldn't find it mentioned anywhere.
And another question: where exactly is the border between microstock, midstock and macrostock ?
And my final question: why sell 1 product when you can sell all 3 of them ???
-
I agree with bunhill. If IS wants to continue to raise their prices (nothing wrong with that, if they can sell the stuff) then they should take themselves out of the microstock market and start calling themselves a midstock agency. The problem is they want their cake and eat it too. They are continuing to brand their wares as microstock, but not at microstock prices. They get the buyers in under the premise that they are microstock, then try to shove midstock and trad agency prices down their throat. And the result? Exactly what is happening...buyers going somewhere else.
There's content on IS from 1 credit, up to lots of credits. All kinds of content. Just like Walmart sells crap tvs and expensive tvs. Etc.
My point exactly.
-
I agree with bunhill. If IS wants to continue to raise their prices (nothing wrong with that, if they can sell the stuff) then they should take themselves out of the microstock market and start calling themselves a midstock agency. The problem is they want their cake and eat it too. They are continuing to brand their wares as microstock, but not at microstock prices. They get the buyers in under the premise that they are microstock, then try to shove midstock and trad agency prices down their throat. And the result? Exactly what is happening...buyers going somewhere else.
There's content on IS from 1 credit, up to lots of credits. All kinds of content. Just like Walmart sells crap tvs and expensive tvs. Etc.
My point exactly.
Is there a search filter to eliminate exclusive files? Aren't exclusive files more expensive than non-exclusive? Why do you suppose that isn't happening? Rhetorical question. ;)
-
I agree with bunhill. If IS wants to continue to raise their prices (nothing wrong with that, if they can sell the stuff) then they should take themselves out of the microstock market and start calling themselves a midstock agency. The problem is they want their cake and eat it too. They are continuing to brand their wares as microstock, but not at microstock prices. They get the buyers in under the premise that they are microstock, then try to shove midstock and trad agency prices down their throat. And the result? Exactly what is happening...buyers going somewhere else.
There's content on IS from 1 credit, up to lots of credits. All kinds of content. Just like Walmart sells crap tvs and expensive tvs. Etc.
The major problem at the moment, IMO, is not the presence of the higher priced collections but the inability for the buyer to choose what they want to look at. There is some numb skulled idea that if you just stick what you want (versus what the buyer wants) in front of them, you'll get buyers to fork out for the higher priced items.
If you make buyers climb over the expensive TVs that you've used to hide the cheaper ones, at some point they'll consider trying stores that make it easier to find what they want.
I do think it's feasible to have a range of price levels at one site (call it micro and mid if you like, but not sure it much matters) as long as you don't have the same isolated apple priced for $250 and $5 in different sections of the collection.
-
Is there a search filter to eliminate exclusive files? Aren't exclusive files more expensive than non-exclusive? Why do you suppose that isn't happening? Rhetorical question. ;)
Because it's about the only thing left for exclusives, plus for some, slightly or reasonably higher commission rates.
For the record, I have asked since the price-splitting began, for exclusives to have the right to nominate certain files to be priced at non exclusive rates. But I've been a lone voice shouting in the wilderness.
-
The major problem at the moment, IMO, is not the presence of the higher priced collections but the inability for the buyer to choose what they want to look at. There is some numb skulled idea that if you just stick what you want (versus what the buyer wants) in front of them, you'll get buyers to fork out for the higher priced items.
If you make buyers climb over the expensive TVs that you've used to hide the cheaper ones, at some point they'll consider trying stores that make it easier to find what they want.
Exactly. There are different priced images at DT & FT too but at least, for the price-sensitive buyer, there are means of sorting by price on FT and/or downloads at DT (which amounts to the same thing).
The other major issue IMHO is the sheer number of price increases for different images that IS customers have had to endure, particularly over the last 18 months or so. I'm not surprised that some of them are choosing to go elsewhere.
-
I agree with bunhill. If IS wants to continue to raise their prices (nothing wrong with that, if they can sell the stuff) then they should take themselves out of the microstock market and start calling themselves a midstock agency. The problem is they want their cake and eat it too. They are continuing to brand their wares as microstock, but not at microstock prices. They get the buyers in under the premise that they are microstock, then try to shove midstock and trad agency prices down their throat. And the result? Exactly what is happening...buyers going somewhere else.
There's content on IS from 1 credit, up to lots of credits. All kinds of content. Just like Walmart sells crap tvs and expensive tvs. Etc.
I don't know, I think Walmart sells mostly crap everything. I would compare it more to a brand house like The Gap. You have A-store Banana Republic, B-store The Gap, and C-store Old Navy.....but all are owned and operated by the same company. and yes, the obvious in this analogy is that we're members of the sweat shop......though I don't want to trivialize the issue of sweat shops by stating that. but I know someone else will say it.
at least right now I still have the option of not contributing to the partner program which keeps my 'TVs' out of Walmart for the time being.
-
After months of downward sales this month is proving surprisingly much better. I hope it will continue.
-
I agree with bunhill. If IS wants to continue to raise their prices (nothing wrong with that, if they can sell the stuff) then they should take themselves out of the microstock market and start calling themselves a midstock agency. The problem is they want their cake and eat it too. They are continuing to brand their wares as microstock, but not at microstock prices. They get the buyers in under the premise that they are microstock, then try to shove midstock and trad agency prices down their throat. And the result? Exactly what is happening...buyers going somewhere else.
I don't agree with myself then. Or maybe you are extrapolating from what I wrote. Anyhow I don't really agree with you. With respect :)
My point is simple. I want the super cool stuff I really admire to be in the shop window. And it should be more pricey. I want the shop to be really cool and look great.
But I also want there to be lots of good solid day - to - day stuff available (and easy to search) too. The stuff people can afford to use in bulk. My cheap wine for a sauce analogy.
-
I guess I am of several minds here. I find myself agreeing with everyone a little bit.
I don't object to some price stratification to separate out the high production value, creative stuff from the every day, low budget micro images. That makes sense.
But Istock seems to have gone overboard the past year or so by creating so many different collections at such vastly differing price points. The ability to search the site and filter the various price points hasn't kept up. Add to that the deliberate front loading of the most expensive images in the default search.
Even though there are still a majority of low to moderately priced images on the site, the perception seems to be that most of the good content has skyrocketed in price. The end result is lots of confused and angry buyers.
-
I agree with bunhill. If IS wants to continue to raise their prices (nothing wrong with that, if they can sell the stuff) then they should take themselves out of the microstock market and start calling themselves a midstock agency. The problem is they want their cake and eat it too. They are continuing to brand their wares as microstock, but not at microstock prices. They get the buyers in under the premise that they are microstock, then try to shove midstock and trad agency prices down their throat. And the result? Exactly what is happening...buyers going somewhere else.
I don't agree with myself then. Or maybe you are extrapolating from what I wrote. Anyhow I don't really agree with you. With respect :)
My point is simple. I want the super cool stuff I really admire to be in the shop window. And it should be more pricey. I want the shop to be really cool and look great.
But I also want there to be lots of good solid day - to - day stuff available (and easy to search) too. The stuff people can afford to use in bulk. My cheap wine for a sauce analogy.
Actually, I was agreeing with you, then adding my own thoughts. You don't have to agree with me. ;)
-
Even though there are still a majority of low to moderately priced images on the site, the perception seems to be that most of the good content has skyrocketed in price. The end result is lots of confused and angry buyers.
Perception is definitely a big part of it. I hope that if the site is fixed then afterwards there will be a real push to make it all cool again. Showcasing some of the great low cost images available would be a great move. I really really hope they are in it for the long run.
-
Maybe someone finally talked to Lobo about his etiquette.
I think this does seem to be the case. It does seem like his posts have an entirely different "tone" now. Much more constrained and professional, with a lot less of the "Dude it's all for lolz, the internets isn't real life so I can act like a total inconsiderate ass 'cause I's so funny" schtick.
-
I guess I am of several minds here. I find myself agreeing with everyone a little bit.
I don't object to some price stratification to separate out the high production value, creative stuff from the every day, low budget micro images. That makes sense.
But Istock seems to have gone overboard the past year or so by creating so many different collections at such vastly differing price points. The ability to search the site and filter the various price points hasn't kept up. Add to that the deliberate front loading of the most expensive images in the default search.
Even though there are still a majority of low to moderately priced images on the site, the perception seems to be that most of the good content has skyrocketed in price. The end result is lots of confused and angry buyers.
I know I've mentioned it before, but I really like Veer's search functionality. They have prices ranging from 1,5 Euro to 679 Euro, and will show everything in the default search. But there is a very visible and easy to use slide bare on the side, where you can narrow it to less than 399, less than 199, or less than 29.
A lot of different prices, everything thrown together in the same database, but easy to use to the buyer.
-
@caspixel - IIRC from the iStockphoto forum you used to be someone who as a buyer was quite (something like ... ) critical of iStockphoto. I hope that's fair analysis. What brought you back to iStockphoto ?
-
@caspixel - IIRC from the iStockphoto forum you used to be someone who as a buyer was quite (something like ... ) critical of iStockphoto. I hope that's fair analysis. What brought you back to iStockphoto ?
Haha. Yes, I have been (and still am) critical of iStock. I wouldn't say that I'm "back" at iStock. Now I buy primarily from Dreamstime. On the rare occasion that I might happen to purchase from iStock, I would only buy from non-exclusives at this point. I'm glad there are still other people who buy from exclusives, because I don't have anything against them, I just don't care for the greedy corporate attitude and constant price hikes coming out of HQ.
I do still read the forums every now and then though. It's like an afternoon soap. You know it sucks and it's not worth the time to watch, but you can't seem to keep yourself from tuning in. :D
-
On the rare occasion that I might happen to purchase from iStock, I would only buy from non-exclusives at this point. I'm glad there are still other people who buy from exclusives, because I don't have anything against them, I just don't care for the greedy corporate attitude and constant price hikes coming out of HQ.
Yeah, that'll show 'em. Buy the images where they get to keep the most, instead of supporting the people who get to keep a higher percentage. Good thought process!
-
Now I buy primarily from Dreamstime. On the rare occasion that I might happen to purchase from iStock, I would only buy from non-exclusives at this point.
So what makes you buy non exclusive content from iStockphoto rather than from somewhere else ? Is it less expensive ?
-
On the rare occasion that I might happen to purchase from iStock, I would only buy from non-exclusives at this point. I'm glad there are still other people who buy from exclusives, because I don't have anything against them, I just don't care for the greedy corporate attitude and constant price hikes coming out of HQ.
Yeah, that'll show 'em. Buy the images where they get to keep the most, instead of supporting the people who get to keep a higher percentage. Good thought process!
It is a good thought process. The images are less expensive.
-
So people saying that iStockphoto is too expensive but actually you're shopping there because it's less expensive. Interesting. It seems to rather contradict the "bailing" meme :)
I guess iStockphoto needs to get the word out better ?
-
Now I buy primarily from Dreamstime. On the rare occasion that I might happen to purchase from iStock, I would only buy from non-exclusives at this point.
So what makes you buy non exclusive content from iStockphoto rather than from somewhere else ? Is it less expensive ?
Here's an example: If I find an image that I like at Dreamstime, but it's a level 3 or 4 image, I'll check out Stock Fresh to see if it's on there. If it's not, I might check to see if it's on iStock (since it's non-exclusive, I know it will be at the lowest price point). I'm probably the kind of buyer you all hate the most because my clients all have small budgets. If I had clients with bigger budgets I wouldn't mind buying more expensive photos, but right now, it is what it is. Sorry.
Though even if I had bigger budgets, I can't say I'd ever shop at iStock exclusively again. Too much of a bad taste in my mouth with that company now.
-
So people saying that iStockphoto is too expensive but actually you're shopping there because it's less expensive.
No, I'm not saying they are less expensive than other agencies. In general they aren't, because the credits are across the board more expensive than at other agencies. What I am saying is that the non-exclusive files are less expensive than the exclusive one.
See my previous post that clarifies how I might purchase an image.
BTW, one of the main reasons I also don't want to pay a lot for stock is because I don't really buy images that require big studio set-ups and models. Mostly I buy a lot of textures and things like that. I don't see a need to plunk down a hundred bucks for stuff like that. When things were really tight last year (and iStock's prices kept rising) I actually just started making my own background textures.
-
On the rare occasion that I might happen to purchase from iStock, I would only buy from non-exclusives at this point. I'm glad there are still other people who buy from exclusives, because I don't have anything against them, I just don't care for the greedy corporate attitude and constant price hikes coming out of HQ.
Yeah, that'll show 'em. Buy the images where they get to keep the most, instead of supporting the people who get to keep a higher percentage. Good thought process!
if you're referring to "where iStock (they) get to the keep the most" - technically you're right - istock keeps a higher percentage BUT it is of a lower dollar amount so istock actually makes less money off of the non-exclusive content then they do off of the exclusive content.
-
If I had clients with bigger budgets I wouldn't mind buying more expensive photos, but right now, it is what it is. Sorry.
Don't be sorry ! I'm a very small fish and it's none of my business where you buy images. So I appreciate you sharing your interesting insights. And I'm absolutely neutral about the advantages and disadvantages of the different main agencies. I want them all to be great. I'm very much in favour of competition and innovation.
It's always interesting to see new perspectives about how this all works. So I am especially interested about what you say about iStockphoto being less expensive in some cases. I was thinking that the Dollar Bin is where the bargains remain where as actually you have pointed out that it is a more complicated picture. I guess it is rather like comparing different phone tariffs.
And FWIW I totally get what you are saying about price being the main issue for you. Do you charge your clients for the time it takes to find images ?
-
I work for an ad agency in the LA area — and I must say, the iStock content is by far superior from other microstock sites. We actually save money using iStock because the quality is right up there with macro sites. Dreamstimes, Fotolia, Canstockphoto, …etc seem to accept any low quality photos. Its seems their inspectors need to raise the bar. Time is money, and finding a high quality photo is the key.
-
I work for an ad agency in the LA area — and I must say, the iStock content is by far superior from other microstock sites. We actually save money using iStock because the quality is right up there with macro sites. Dreamstimes, Fotolia, Canstockphoto, …etc seem to accept any low quality photos. Its seems their inspectors need to raise the bar. Time is money, and finding a high quality photo is the key.
As a supplier I don't find much difference between the acceptance/rejection rate on any of the leading sites. Sometimes one rejects what another accepts, but that can be iS accepting what DT, Fotolia or SS reject.
One of the bizarre effects of iS policy is that image price depends on supplier status not image quality. That means you can have two near identical images, one listed as "vetta" and another in the non-exclusive price range.
-
I work for an ad agency in the LA area — and I must say, the iStock content is by far superior from other microstock sites. We actually save money using iStock because the quality is right up there with macro sites. Dreamstimes, Fotolia, Canstockphoto, …etc seem to accept any low quality photos. Its seems their inspectors need to raise the bar. Time is money, and finding a high quality photo is the key.
As a supplier I don't find much difference between the acceptance/rejection rate on any of the leading sites. Sometimes one rejects what another accepts, but that can be iS accepting what DT, Fotolia or SS reject.
One of the bizarre effects of iS policy is that image price depends on supplier status not image quality. That means you can have two near identical images, one listed as "vetta" and another in the non-exclusive price range.
What's bizarre? Yes Exclusive/Non-Exclusive main collection images are cheaper then Vetta/Agency images. Yes I know you non-exclusive have great images too! But how could istock sell them for 30-200 credits if you have the same images for sell on Shutterstock for $.56? .
-
I work for an ad agency in the LA area — and I must say, the iStock content is by far superior from other microstock sites. We actually save money using iStock because the quality is right up there with macro sites. Dreamstimes, Fotolia, Canstockphoto, …etc seem to accept any low quality photos. Its seems their inspectors need to raise the bar. Time is money, and finding a high quality photo is the key.
As a supplier I don't find much difference between the acceptance/rejection rate on any of the leading sites. Sometimes one rejects what another accepts, but that can be iS accepting what DT, Fotolia or SS reject.
One of the bizarre effects of iS policy is that image price depends on supplier status not image quality. That means you can have two near identical images, one listed as "vetta" and another in the non-exclusive price range.
I can care less about the acceptance rate. Our agency just cares about quality. Companies are willing to spend the money for the right photo.
Let me show you some examples of some garbage:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466)
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178)
I just searched with the keywords, "laptop, man". Now tell me, if you cant tell the difference between istock and the other agencies than you don't have an eye for design. If I were a student or a freelancer with a low budget, then I would consider using canstock, dreamstime, shutterstock…etc.
-
Yep! content looks better, and guess what 33 out of the first 200 images are from non-exclusives.
-
I work for an ad agency in the LA area — and I must say, the iStock content is by far superior from other microstock sites. We actually save money using iStock because the quality is right up there with macro sites. Dreamstimes, Fotolia, Canstockphoto, …etc seem to accept any low quality photos. Its seems their inspectors need to raise the bar. Time is money, and finding a high quality photo is the key.
As a supplier I don't find much difference between the acceptance/rejection rate on any of the leading sites. Sometimes one rejects what another accepts, but that can be iS accepting what DT, Fotolia or SS reject.
One of the bizarre effects of iS policy is that image price depends on supplier status not image quality. That means you can have two near identical images, one listed as "vetta" and another in the non-exclusive price range.
I can care less about the acceptance rate. Our agency just cares about quality. Companies are willing to spend the money for the right photo.
Let me show you some examples of some garbage:
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466[/url])
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178[/url])
I just searched with the keywords, "laptop, man". Now tell me, if you cant tell the difference between istock and the other agencies than you don't have an eye for design. If I were a student or a freelancer with a low budget, then I would consider using canstock, dreamstime, shutterstock…etc.
Don't know many student or freelancer designer willing to go on the hook for 199,00 EUR per month for a Shutterstock Subscribe, but I guess they could paid the on demand cost of 39,00 EUR for 5 images.
-
Yep! content looks better, and guess what 33 out of the first 200 images are from non-exclusives.
And on the first page of iStock's search "laptop man" is a "woman with a laptop".
Eight of iStock's first 19 (best match search) are from independents which suggests DT's problem is with what its search is returning - presumably those eight are on DT somewhere.
-
I work for an ad agency in the LA area — and I must say, the iStock content is by far superior from other microstock sites. We actually save money using iStock because the quality is right up there with macro sites. Dreamstimes, Fotolia, Canstockphoto, …etc seem to accept any low quality photos. Its seems their inspectors need to raise the bar. Time is money, and finding a high quality photo is the key.
As a supplier I don't find much difference between the acceptance/rejection rate on any of the leading sites. Sometimes one rejects what another accepts, but that can be iS accepting what DT, Fotolia or SS reject.
One of the bizarre effects of iS policy is that image price depends on supplier status not image quality. That means you can have two near identical images, one listed as "vetta" and another in the non-exclusive price range.
I can care less about the acceptance rate. Our agency just cares about quality. Companies are willing to spend the money for the right photo.
Let me show you some examples of some garbage:
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466[/url])
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178[/url])
I just searched with the keywords, "laptop, man". Now tell me, if you cant tell the difference between istock and the other agencies than you don't have an eye for design. If I were a student or a freelancer with a low budget, then I would consider using canstock, dreamstime, shutterstock…etc.
I could find you some garbage on IS too. Most independents I know, and these are contributors who don't shoot "garbage", upload to all the major sites, so yes, you can find the same quality images on all the other sites.
Uh oh, another wave of IS exclusives/cheerleaders trying to prove all the other sites are inferior. Too funny.
-
Uh oh, another wave of IS exclusives/cheerleaders trying to prove all the other sites are inferior. Too funny.
So, a buyer actually comes in to say something, and he's just an "exclusive/cheerleader" ?
-
Funny sh*t on this site ;D
-
Uh oh, another wave of IS exclusives/cheerleaders trying to prove all the other sites are inferior. Too funny.
So, a buyer actually comes in to say something, and he's just an "exclusive/cheerleader" ?
Kind of like the same treatment the buyer/contributors get over at the IS forum, huh?
He has pointed out garbage on other sites, as if IS has none. Come on. Please. And look at you, jumping in here, putting me down. You don't ever see garbage on IS? Why do you think there is a dollar bin? So you pull my comment out and choose to say something about it, making me look stupid, but you won't comment on the fact that this person, who by the way is a new member here with 4 posts, most of which are right here in this thread, doesn't think there is any garbage on IS?
If this person is a buyer, that's great! If this person loves IS, that's great! But there are still buyers leaving IS, and there is still garbage on IS, too. His post is very transparent.
edited: same for EyeDesigns posts...a little transparent
-
Eight of iStock's first 19 (best match search) are from independents ...
Isn't that interesting, considering the buyers who complain that all the best match results are agency/Vetta/Exc+/Exc, so too high in price.
That is a pretty 'commercial' search string, and there are 27899 results.
I always wondered, if "all the top searches are Agency and Vetta", and buyers "can't find value images" as is so often claimed, how come Yuri keeps getting sales on iStock!
-
Eight of iStock's first 19 (best match search) are from independents ...
Isn't that interesting, considering the buyers who complain that all the best match results are agency/Vetta/Exc+/Exc, so too high in price.
That is a pretty 'commercial' search string, and there are 27899 results.
I always wondered, if "all the top searches are Agency and Vetta", and buyers "can't find value images" as is so often claimed, how come Yuri keeps getting sales on iStock!
I just did the search for laptop man and sorted by best match. Of the first 60, 14 are from independents. Of those 14, 6 are videos. That leaves 8. Of those 8, a couple are very new uploads. And the sort by best match just means the keywords are spot on. And 3 are from Yuri and Monkey Business, which means they have megadownloads. If a buyer is looking for something fresh, that leaves 5 images to choose from, out of 60. Now, if they could just sort by independents only, they could truly find value images. I think that's why buyers complain.
-
If a buyer is looking for something fresh, that leaves 5 images to choose from, out of 60. Now, if they could just sort by independents only, they could truly find value images. I think that's why buyers complain.
If the buyer wants something 'fresh', they should sort by age.
If they could sort by independents only, that would be yet another promise broken to exclusives. I'm not sure how much they want to keep exclusives 'exclusive' nowadays, though.
-
If this person is a buyer, that's great! If this person loves IS, that's great! But there are still buyers leaving IS, and there is still garbage on IS, too. His post is very transparent.
Yeah, it's transparent. It's clear that he stated why he likes IS. You're the one reading conspiracy into something you don't agree with.
-
If this person is a buyer, that's great! If this person loves IS, that's great! But there are still buyers leaving IS, and there is still garbage on IS, too. His post is very transparent.
Yeah, it's transparent. It's clear that he stated why he likes IS. You're the one reading conspiracy into something you don't agree with.
:)
-
If this person is a buyer, that's great! If this person loves IS, that's great! But there are still buyers leaving IS, and there is still garbage on IS, too. His post is very transparent.
He probably works for iStock. Remember that blog post that had a bunch of "users" leaving comments, only they all came from the same IP address, and that IP address was one of iStock's computers. Someone check his IP address, quick. :D
Edit: Apparently he doesn't work for iStock, but he is a contributor who is planning on going exclusive ASAP. So it seems he is an iStock "exclusive/cheerleader". So yup. Post is very transparent.
-
If a buyer is looking for something fresh, that leaves 5 images to choose from, out of 60. Now, if they could just sort by independents only, they could truly find value images. I think that's why buyers complain.
If the buyer wants something 'fresh', they should sort by age.
If they could sort by independents only, that would be yet another promise broken to exclusives. I'm not sure how much they want to keep exclusives 'exclusive' nowadays, though.
I agree about sorting by age, or by downloads. I never sorted by best match.
I understand about the promise to exclusives, but I'm just commenting on how the sort might be helpful for buyers looking for the least expensive images.
-
Uh oh, another wave of IS exclusives/cheerleaders trying to prove all the other sites are inferior. Too funny.
So, a buyer actually comes in to say something, and he's just an "exclusive/cheerleader" ?
Sorry Sean - this guy is NOT a real buyer - my guess is he is an exclusive IS contributor. I would be willing to put money on it. He has probably gone rogue (I am not saying IS put him/her up to it) but a realy buyer he or she ain't. The amount of "bad" content is about the same at DT, SS, Fotolia and IS (most of it legacy from years ago). The quality of what is available on the top sites is very similar. Where IS has the advantage and the edge still is in its wider choice of good imagery because it has the exclusives and the indepenents. Anyone who is a real buyer knows this.
I shop at the other sites because 90% of the time they have what I need at a cheaper price - if I cannot find it I go to IS as a lost resort because chances are they will have whatever it is I am looking for. But that's the only time I go there to buy these days.
-
If this person is a buyer, that's great! If this person loves IS, that's great! But there are still buyers leaving IS, and there is still garbage on IS, too. His post is very transparent.
He probably works for iStock. Remember that blog post that had a bunch of "users" leaving comments, only they all came from the same IP address, and that IP address was one of iStock's computers. Someone check his IP address, quick. :D
Edit: Apparently he doesn't work for iStock, but he is a contributor who is planning on going exclusive ASAP. So it seems he is an iStock "exclusive/cheerleader". So yup. Post is very transparent.
lol Cas you beat me to it ...
-
BTW, I did a search for "laptop man" on DT and I did not see the photos that he linked to on any of the first three pages of my search with the search results set to 200. So I have to wonder what other filters he was using or how far back he went in his search.
Most of the results on DT looked very similar to the results that came up on iStock...except none of them cost $100+. I'd like to see the justification for the price of this Agency photo: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13873914-laptop.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13873914-laptop.php)
-
Most of the results on DT looked very similar to the results that came up on iStock...except none of them cost $100+. I'd like to see the justification for the price of this Agency photo: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13873914-laptop.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13873914-laptop.php[/url])
He has a green tie.
-
Assuming any customer that says that he prefers buying at istock is an impostor is plain ludricous. That many people prefer istock is clear just looking at the sheer volume of downloads there, and the customer base, probably in the ten of thousands, at all prince ranges. Others will prefer SS or DT or whatever, no doubt, but I wouldn't never infere that someone that says is buying at SS or elsewhere is an impostor.
-
He has a green tie.
:D That occurred to me! Along with the thought that they probably changed the color in Photoshop. All that post-processing MUST account for the premium price tag. Not to mention the expensive shooting location. ;)
-
He has a green tie.
:D That occurred to me! Along with the thought that they probably changed the color in Photoshop. All that post-processing MUST account for the premium price tag. Not to mention the expensive shooting location. ;)
Naw, it was the cost of the model. Models charge a lot to let you cut off their heads, what with the lost income from no longer having one.
-
Most of the results on DT looked very similar to the results that came up on iStock...except none of them cost $100+. I'd like to see the justification for the price of this Agency photo: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13873914-laptop.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13873914-laptop.php[/url])
He has a green tie.
Not only does the man have a green tie but it also nearly matches the green of the grass. Almost anyway. If the tie and grass almost matching doesn't put $200's worth of added value to an image ... well, frankly I don't know what will.
Oh no, just a thought, maybe it's simply the blue camera logo indicating 'Agency'? And nothing else at all really.
-
Uh oh, another wave of IS exclusives/cheerleaders trying to prove all the other sites are inferior. Too funny.
So, a buyer actually comes in to say something, and he's just an "exclusive/cheerleader" ?
that seems to be the rule around here.....if the buyer had come in here bashing istock, than his/her perspective would have been golden. iStock has made all of my photography better, even my work that isn't stock. buyers I speak to have said the same thing that iStock is well beyond other micros. that's one of the many reasons I've remained exclusive.
-
it seems to me that istock has some excellent marketing. with that they have built a large, loyal buyer and contributor base. I would venture to guess that many folks have been convinced from some really good marketing that iStock has the best images without actually downloading and reviewing files from other sites. It's kind of like the microsoft v. apple or canon v. nikon -- both are good in their own right and people will believe what they want to believe.
I don't think that the likes of Yuri, MonkeyBusiness and LisaFX only upload their best stuff to iStock and their crap work (if they actually had any!) to the other sites. If a buyer wanted to find quality images on other sites I am sure they will find them.
perhaps the inspections at other sites (non-istock) had lower standards sometime back, but in my recent experience, I would say they are pretty much on par with istock. I've had images rejected from the other SS, DT and FT that were accepted by iStock.
-
Kind of seems as if it is unfashionable here to be positive or even neutral about iStockphoto :) But surely it's more useful to be neutral. I'm neutral. I think there are some other great sites too. I also love flickr. So there. Despite the economy it's still a vibrant market.
Caspixel says she uses the site for various reasons - one being that it has the content she wants at lower prices. That's useful buyer info. There is someone who is quite definitely not an iStockphoto cheerleader saying something which seems to very much contradict the idea that people would be 'bailing' because it is too expensive etc.
That's anecdotal feedback worth not ignoring. Even though it seems to contradict the meme being propagated here. So there are obviously lots of issues. But it seems that the rumour that iStockphoto is necessarily more expensive is potentially bogus.
-
That's anecdotal feedback worth not ignoring. Even though it seems to contradict the meme being propagated here. So there are obviously lots of issues. But it seems that the rumour that iStockphoto is necessarily more expensive is potentially bogus.
You are absolutely right. There is still lots of reasonably priced work on Istock. The problem is that with the search the way it is now, most buyers aren't FINDING it.
If Istock can get it's site glitches sorted, and they implement some way to sort by price, I imagine there will be a lot fewer buyers pulling up stakes. Problem is that they are taking forever and a day to get the site fixed, and they haven't expressed any intention to ever allow sorting by price...
-
Kind of seems as if it is unfashionable here to be positive or even neutral about iStockphoto :) But surely it's more useful to be neutral. I'm neutral. I think there are some other great sites too. I also love flickr. So there. Despite the economy it's still a vibrant market.
Caspixel says she uses the site for various reasons - one being that it has the content she wants at lower prices. That's useful buyer info. There is someone who is quite definitely not an iStockphoto cheerleader saying something which seems to very much contradict the idea that people would be 'bailing' because it is too expensive etc.
That's anecdotal feedback worth not ignoring. Even though it seems to contradict the meme being propagated here. So there are obviously lots of issues. But it seems that the rumour that iStockphoto is necessarily more expensive is potentially bogus.
Well, I have read MANY posts over on the IS forum from contributors and buyers who DON'T come here that say plenty of negative things. So I don't think it's true to make the statement that it is unfashionable here to be positive or neutral about IS. The fact is, there are a lot of negative things going on at istock and they are going to be talked about everywhere, including twitter and facebook.
I don't think anyone here has said that ALL buyers and ALL contributors are bailing. This thread was started as a reporting site for all the buyers who were posting on the istock forum that were leaving IS. We're all not sitting over here making the stuff up! It's copied from there and pasted here.
And I know for a fact that it is not just rumor that istock is more expensive...all you have to do is look! I have anecdotal feedback, too. I used to be a buyer from istockphoto and a contributor to istockphoto. Fact is, in the last couple of years, I did not buy from IS anymore because their prices were too high. My clients are not ad agencies or Fortune 500 companies (unfortunately). Their budgets just couldn't handle the price increases. But my comments and anecdotal feedback will be dismissed, like so many others, because I was a contributor, too. Because those who dismiss me seem to think that I am making the fact up that IS is more expensive just because I am unhappy as a contributor. How silly is that?
-
Kind of seems as if it is unfashionable here to be positive or even neutral about iStockphoto :) But surely it's more useful to be neutral. I'm neutral. I think there are some other great sites too. I also love flickr. So there. Despite the economy it's still a vibrant market.
Caspixel says she uses the site for various reasons - one being that it has the content she wants at lower prices. That's useful buyer info. There is someone who is quite definitely not an iStockphoto cheerleader saying something which seems to very much contradict the idea that people would be 'bailing' because it is too expensive etc.
That's anecdotal feedback worth not ignoring. Even though it seems to contradict the meme being propagated here. So there are obviously lots of issues. But it seems that the rumour that iStockphoto is necessarily more expensive is potentially bogus.
I think you mis-read her post. here is the follow-up she posted:
So people saying that iStockphoto is too expensive but actually you're shopping there because it's less expensive.
No, I'm not saying they are less expensive than other agencies. In general they aren't, because the credits are across the board more expensive than at other agencies. What I am saying is that the non-exclusive files are less expensive than the exclusive one.
See my previous post that clarifies how I might purchase an image.
BTW, one of the main reasons I also don't want to pay a lot for stock is because I don't really buy images that require big studio set-ups and models. Mostly I buy a lot of textures and things like that. I don't see a need to plunk down a hundred bucks for stuff like that. When things were really tight last year (and iStock's prices kept rising) I actually just started making my own background textures.
-
those who dismiss me seem to think that I am making the fact up that IS is more expensive
As Lisafx has pointed out, it's true that currently you have to search deeper to find the lower priced content (lots of retailers are like that too - you have to search for the bargains).
Sure there are going to be examples which contradict this but in many cases it does seem to be that the same content can be bought for less at iStockphoto. That doesn't mean it's bargain basement.
ETA: and if everything was uniformly the same price then there would not be any competition. Which would not be in anyone's interests.
-
Caspixel says she uses the site for various reasons - one being that it has the content she wants at lower prices. That's useful buyer info. There is someone who is quite definitely not an iStockphoto cheerleader saying something which seems to very much contradict the idea that people would be 'bailing' because it is too expensive etc.
The problem with this is that you are making it look like it is the only place I shop because the prices are lower, and that's only the case in very rare circumstances.
The only time iStock content is cheaper is if it is NON-EXCLUSIVE and available at other sites at a higher price point. Otherwise, it is generally more expensive across the board. Credits are more expensive and the images cost more credits.
I want to make it very clear, that iStock is my LAST resort now when shopping (and an option that I don't even consider, really). In general, I can find all the content I want at lower prices at other sites.
EDIT: Oh, I see jamierae has also tried to clear up the misunderstanding. I would again like to make it clear that I do not think iStock is the less expensive option, lest it keep being misquoted. The part about less expensive had more to do with the non-exclusive content being cheaper than exclusive content (and in rare cases, where Dreamstime photos are Levels 3 and up). But then I look on StockFresh first. ;)
-
you are making it look like it is the only place I shop because the prices are lower
Not intentionally. Sorry if it seemed like that :)
iStock content is cheaper is if it is NON-EXCLUSIVE and available at other sites at a higher price point
Yes - that was what I thought you meant too. Clearly there is also more expensive content there too. It's quite a spread. As I said I think that, on price, it is rather like comparing phone tariffs.
I think we are saying the same thing. It's a mixed picture.
-
I think we are saying the same thing. It's a mixed picture.
That it is.
-
LOL, jjauregui, another Anonymous poster that only sings the praises of IStockphoto and puts others down. Why be anonymous? Must be related to Vlad_the_imp. It's funny how one disappears and the other shows up...LOL
C'mon Mr. Big Buyer? Show us your talent... Don't be scared.
-
...One of the bizarre effects of iS policy is that image price depends on supplier status not image quality...
This has been my biggest objection to IS since 2005 when I was accepted as a contributor. IS, much more than any other site, always seems to be searching for ways to favor some contributors over others (cannisters, best match preference, Vetta, exclusive/non-exclusive, review times, and on and on).
IMHO it would be better if images were judged on their merits, not so much on who made them. Wouldn't this also be better for buyers, who surely have little or no interest in who made the images?
-
I can care less about the acceptance rate. Our agency just cares about quality. Companies are willing to spend the money for the right photo.
Let me show you some examples of some garbage:
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466[/url])
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178[/url])
I just searched with the keywords, "laptop, man". Now tell me, if you cant tell the difference between istock and the other agencies than you don't have an eye for design. If I were a student or a freelancer with a low budget, then I would consider using canstock, dreamstime, shutterstock…etc.
So these are examples to show that Istock has the superior images and other sites' reviewers need to step up?
As others have said, there is crap on all sites (including Istock). Sometimes the same crap (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10047922-reative-work.php)(including Istock).
Maybe Istock reviewers need to step up too... ;)
-
I can care less about the acceptance rate. Our agency just cares about quality. Companies are willing to spend the money for the right photo.
Let me show you some examples of some garbage:
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466[/url])
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178[/url])
I just searched with the keywords, "laptop, man". Now tell me, if you cant tell the difference between istock and the other agencies than you don't have an eye for design. If I were a student or a freelancer with a low budget, then I would consider using canstock, dreamstime, shutterstock…etc.
So these are examples to show that Istock has the superior images and other sites' reviewers need to step up?
As others have said, there is crap on all sites (including Istock). Sometimes the same crap ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10047922-reative-work.php[/url])(including Istock).
Maybe Istock reviewers need to step up too... ;)
that's funny. I guess it just goes to show that you need to do your homework and get the facts before you post - especially around here! :)
-
I can care less about the acceptance rate. Our agency just cares about quality. Companies are willing to spend the money for the right photo.
Let me show you some examples of some garbage:
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466[/url])
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178[/url])
I just searched with the keywords, "laptop, man". Now tell me, if you cant tell the difference between istock and the other agencies than you don't have an eye for design. If I were a student or a freelancer with a low budget, then I would consider using canstock, dreamstime, shutterstock…etc.
So these are examples to show that Istock has the superior images and other sites' reviewers need to step up?
As others have said, there is crap on all sites (including Istock). Sometimes the same crap ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10047922-reative-work.php[/url])(including Istock).
Maybe Istock reviewers need to step up too... ;)
Hilarious, that is too funny, post of the year in my opinion
-
I can care less about the acceptance rate. Our agency just cares about quality. Companies are willing to spend the money for the right photo.
Let me show you some examples of some garbage:
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466[/url])
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178[/url])
I just searched with the keywords, "laptop, man". Now tell me, if you cant tell the difference between istock and the other agencies than you don't have an eye for design. If I were a student or a freelancer with a low budget, then I would consider using canstock, dreamstime, shutterstock…etc.
So these are examples to show that Istock has the superior images and other sites' reviewers need to step up?
As others have said, there is crap on all sites (including Istock). Sometimes the same crap ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10047922-reative-work.php[/url])(including Istock).
Maybe Istock reviewers need to step up too... ;)
Hilarious, that is too funny, post of the year in my opinion
Maybe even best...post...EVER!
:D :D :D
-
I can care less about the acceptance rate. Our agency just cares about quality. Companies are willing to spend the money for the right photo.
Let me show you some examples of some garbage:
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466[/url])
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178[/url])
I just searched with the keywords, "laptop, man". Now tell me, if you cant tell the difference between istock and the other agencies than you don't have an eye for design. If I were a student or a freelancer with a low budget, then I would consider using canstock, dreamstime, shutterstock…etc.
So these are examples to show that Istock has the superior images and other sites' reviewers need to step up?
As others have said, there is crap on all sites (including Istock). Sometimes the same crap ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10047922-reative-work.php[/url])(including Istock).
Maybe Istock reviewers need to step up too... ;)
Great catch, dirkr! ::) ;D
-
Uh oh, another wave of iStock exclusives/cheerleaders trying to prove all the other sites are inferior. Too funny.
So, a buyer actually comes in to say something, and he's just an "exclusive/cheerleader" ?
Kind of like the same treatment the buyer/contributors get over at the iStock forum, huh?
He has pointed out garbage on other sites, as if iStock has none. Come on. Please. And look at you, jumping in here, putting me down. You don't ever see garbage on iStock? Why do you think there iStock a dollar bin? So you pull my comment out and choose to say something about it, making me look stupid, but you won't comment on the fact that this person, who by the way iStock a new member here with 4 posts, most of which are right here in this thread, doesn't think there iStock any garbage on iStock?
If this person iStock a buyer, that's great! If this person loves iStock, that's great! But there are still buyers leaving iStock, and there iStock still garbage on iStock, too. His post iStock very transparent.
edited: same for EyeDesigns posts...a little transparent
I'm at the agency practically the entire day designing, so I don't have time to post messages here. After work, I spend time with my family. So, now its 11:30 pm pacific time right now, and this is the time I get to go online and read up on stuff.
You are right — every stock site has bad photos, but you have to realize some of these stock sites need to tightening up their standards. Familiarize yourself who is out there, a lot of macro shooters have crossed the line, and now are submitting photos to iStock as exclusive photos. For instance, Steve Cole is now exclusive with istock, our agency has old Photodisc CD collections with some of his works in there. Theres many more I can name that are exclusive.
-
^^^I think there are a lot more from the macro world that have huge portfolios on all the other sites and only a small portfolio on istock because of the upload limits. I don't think many of them would go exclusive with istock because they don't want to be exclusive for all their RF work. They might not even bother with istock cutting commissions now, I'm not sure how many macro contributors want to start on 15% commission. Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Fotolia have tightened up their standards, it's much harder to get images accepted with them now. I really don't see istock as a place with superior quality, they have accepted lots of my photos that have never sold and I really shouldn't of bothered uploading there. When I look at their newly approved images, I'm often left wondering how they approve some of them.
I also don't like the sites tightening their standards too much because reviewers often reject images that sell well elsewhere. They just aren't good enough to make the choice. Images that don't sell get buried in the search anyway, so I don't see the problem. Shutterstock and Dreamstime have raised the bar too high now. I think all the sites would be better off accepting more and then deleting images that haven't sold after a year. They have millions of old files taken years ago with old lower mega pixel cameras. Why not delete them and accept more new images that are superior quality? A lot of us have invested in better cameras and lenses but can't get as many images accepted now, it really doesn't make much sense to me.
-
If this person iStock a buyer, that's great! If this person loves iStock, that's great! But there are still buyers leaving iStock, and there iStock still garbage on iStock, too. His post iStock very transparent.
He probably works for iStock. Remember that blog post that had a bunch of "users" leaving comments, only they all came from the same IP address, and that IP address was one of iStock's computers. Someone check his IP address, quick. :D
Edit: Apparently he doesn't work for iStock, but he iStock a contributor who iStock planning on going exclusive ASAP. So it seems he iStock an iStock "exclusive/cheerleader". So yup. Post iStock very transparent.
Put yourself in my situation. If you worked for an ad agency, and the agency buys a large credit package from iStock for their designers, would you care if the photo has a "little crown" or not when buying a photo? Honestly, I don't care if the photographer has that exclusive icon or not, if the shot is what I need then I just buy it. I'm not going to search other sites to find it cheaper. The cost gets rolled into the client's bill anyway.
As a matter of fact, we have Dreamstime and Bigstock credits still remaining, but we haven't used them up. We just don't buy from them. Years ago, we realized that a lot of those non-exclusives are at istock. iStock has a good mixture of non-exclusive and exclusive work. iStock is usually pretty good at filtering out the bad stuff.
-
Uh oh, another wave of IS exclusives/cheerleaders trying to prove all the other sites are inferior. Too funny.
So, a buyer actually comes in to say something, and he's just an "exclusive/cheerleader" ?
Sorry Sean - this guy is NOT a real buyer - my guess is he is an exclusive IS contributor. I would be willing to put money on it. He has probably gone rogue (I am not saying IS put him/her up to it) but a realy buyer he or she ain't. The amount of "bad" content is about the same at Dreamstime, Shutterstock, Fotolia and IS (most of it legacy from years ago). The quality of what is available on the top sites is very similar. Where IS has the advantage and the edge still is in its wider choice of good imagery because it has the exclusives and the indepenents. Anyone who is a real buyer knows this.
I shop at the other sites because 90% of the time they have what I need at a cheaper price - if I cannot find it I go to IS as a lost resort because chances are they will have whatever it is I am looking for. But that's the only time I go there to buy these days.
You are funny, I have no reason to lie.
We use to get catalogs from stock sites sent to us back in the days. They would send us thumbnails, then we would call to purchase the photos we would need. Or in some cases hire a photographer. Our storage room, is filled with CDs from photodisc, eyewire, stockbyte, comstock...etc. And its nice now, because Getty now has virtual CDs that make it easier when buying a collection. You don't have to worry about storing it.
Here's a thought that came to me right now. Not to far from where I live, is CalArts. CalArts is one of the top notch art schools in the nation. Some of the top animators (John Lasseter, Brad Bird, John Musker, Henry Selick and Tim Burton) went to this school. To get accepted a portfolio is required, which is part of their review process. iStock and macro sites use a similar process, you need to submit work before getting accepted. I think Dreamstime, and other sites should consider doing this before accepting a photographer's application. Personally, I think it would help their business. Its about quality, not quantity.
-
I can care less about the acceptance rate. Our agency just cares about quality. Companies are willing to spend the money for the right photo.
Let me show you some examples of some garbage:
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466[/url])
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178[/url])
I just searched with the keywords, "laptop, man". Now tell me, if you cant tell the difference between istock and the other agencies than you don't have an eye for design. If I were a student or a freelancer with a low budget, then I would consider using canstock, dreamstime, shutterstock…etc.
So these are examples to show that Istock has the superior images and other sites' reviewers need to step up?
As others have said, there is crap on all sites (including Istock). Sometimes the same crap ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10047922-reative-work.php[/url])(including Istock).
Maybe Istock reviewers need to step up too... ;)
Nice, you got me! LOL! I wonder if those inspectors were on crack. I showed one of the account execs at work these photos of this furball. Man, he got a good laugh.
-
To get accepted a portfolio is required, which is part of their review process. iStock and macro sites use a similar process, you need to submit work before getting accepted. I think Dreamstime, and other sites should consider doing this before accepting a photographer's application. Personally, I think it would help their business. Its about quality, not quantity.
Perhaps you aren't aware of it, but Shutterstock requires contributors to submit 10 images with their initial application. At least 7 of the 10 have to pass before the contributor is accepted. From what I read in the forums, most contributors aren't accepted the first time around, and unlike Istock they have to wait a month to reapply.
Fotolia doesn't have an initial application review, that I know of, but they do seem to reject more than any of the other micros, including Istock.
Dreamstime is harder on similars than any of the other micros.
So my point is they all have tough inspections, in one way or another. And as demonstrated here, some crap gets through on all of them. Probably a big part of the problem is that they are all mostly looking at technical aspects, and not aesthetic ones, or marketability.
-
If this person iStock a buyer, that's great! If this person loves iStock, that's great! But there are still buyers leaving iStock, and there iStock still garbage on iStock, too. His post iStock very transparent.
He probably works for iStock. Remember that blog post that had a bunch of "users" leaving comments, only they all came from the same IP address, and that IP address was one of iStock's computers. Someone check his IP address, quick. :D
Edit: Apparently he doesn't work for iStock, but he iStock a contributor who iStock planning on going exclusive ASAP. So it seems he iStock an iStock "exclusive/cheerleader". So yup. Post iStock very transparent.
Put yourself in my situation. If you worked for an ad agency, and the agency buys a large credit package from iStock for their designers, would you care if the photo has a "little crown" or not when buying a photo? Honestly, I don't care if the photographer has that exclusive icon or not, if the shot is what I need then I just buy it. I'm not going to search other sites to find it cheaper. The cost gets rolled into the client's bill anyway.
If I worked for a big ad agency in SoCal I'd probably buy from wherever they told me too and not care about the cost either ;). But since I'm just one little old freelancer with small budget clients, I have to go with the least expensive options. It doesn't really take any longer to find photos at other agencies. Many contributors use the same name across the board. And there's always TinEye.
-
To get accepted a portfolio is required, which is part of their review process. iStock and macro sites use a similar process, you need to submit work before getting accepted. I think Dreamstime, and other sites should consider doing this before accepting a photographer's application. Personally, I think it would help their business. Its about quality, not quantity.
Perhaps you aren't aware of it, but Shutterstock requires contributors to submit 10 images with their initial application. At least 7 of the 10 have to pass before the contributor is accepted. From what I read in the forums, most contributors aren't accepted the first time around, and unlike Istock they have to wait a month to reapply.
Fotolia doesn't have an initial application review, that I know of, but they do seem to reject more than any of the other micros, including Istock.
Dreamstime is harder on similars than any of the other micros.
So my point is they all have tough inspections, in one way or another. And as demonstrated here, some crap gets through on all of them. Probably a big part of the problem is that they are all mostly looking at technical aspects, and not aesthetic ones, or marketability.
FWIW, it took me six months to get accepted on iStock. I was accepted on Shutterstock first time. to be fair though, I was accepted on SS two years later when I was considering non-exclusivity. but I was still surprised to get 10 accepted off the bat. especially when my acceptance rate at iStock continues to hover around 76%.
-
FWIW, it took me six months to get accepted on iStock. I was accepted on Shutterstock first time. to be fair though, I was accepted on Shutterstock two years later when I was considering non-exclusivity. but I was still surprised to get 10 accepted off the bat. especially when my acceptance rate at iStock continues to hover around 76%.
Good point. I was mainly thinking about the difficulty for newbies of getting into Shutterstock. Experienced, high-ranking Istockers should have no trouble because presumably their work (like yours) is high quality and they already know what good stock is :)
-
Nice, you got me! LOL! I wonder if those inspectors were on crack. I showed one of the account execs at work these photos of this furball. Man, he got a good laugh.
Its interesting looking at the keywords for these sorts of images. They're probably not what everyone is looking for, but one of the images in the series has found 2 buyers on IS: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10042839-hairy-attractive-man.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10042839-hairy-attractive-man.php) and the result is that "hairy" is the highest ranked keyword, followed by men and messy. In some ways its an indication that the search is doing something right.
-
another one..
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=305092&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=305092&page=1)
Hi,
I think it is a rather unfortunate exercise in corporatism that StockXpert was shut down and when the credits were migrated (we didn't have a choice of a refund), they were not honoured 1:1. Add to that images that are much more expensive. And now, we are receiving notices that our credits are due to expire on iStock, due to the 1-year limit.
I am thoroughly dissatisfied with this model, and after reluctantly spending my remaining credits, I assure you I will not be returning to iStock.
-
I work for an ad agency in the LA area — and I must say, the iStock content is by far superior from other microstock sites. We actually save money using iStock because the quality is right up there with macro sites. Dreamstimes, Fotolia, Canstockphoto, …etc seem to accept any low quality photos. Its seems their inspectors need to raise the bar. Time is money, and finding a high quality photo is the key.
As a supplier I don't find much difference between the acceptance/rejection rate on any of the leading sites. Sometimes one rejects what another accepts, but that can be iS accepting what Dreamstime, Fotolia or Shutterstock reject.
One of the bizarre effects of iS policy is that image price depends on supplier status not image quality. That means you can have two near identical images, one listed as "vetta" and another in the non-exclusive price range.
I can care less about the acceptance rate. Our agency just cares about quality. Companies are willing to spend the money for the right photo.
Let me show you some examples of some garbage:
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-creative-work-image10178466[/url])
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-what-s-the-problem--image10178178[/url])
I just searched with the keywords, "laptop, man". Now tell me, if you cant tell the difference between istock and the other agencies than you don't have an eye for design. If I were a student or a freelancer with a low budget, then I would consider using canstock, dreamstime, shutterstock…etc.
This week I had a project and the client specified images from IS. Unfortunately I could not find the majority of images they needed on IS. DT and Veer had a much better selection and DT had every image they needed @ high quality! In fact the quality was better on DT.
-
Maybe the name of this thread should be changed to "Buyers Bailing on Microstockgroup".
-
Maybe the name of this thread should be changed to "Buyers Bailing on Microstockgroup".
rofl
-
Maybe the name of this thread should be changed to "Buyers Bailing on Microstockgroup".
rofl
Too funny! :D
-
Another disgruntled customer, psasser;
"If I search 2 terms and a NOT, I get ZERO results. Search is a mess now. I've already started using other sites to download from, because other than costing me money by constantly increasing prices per credit while increasing number of credits required for each download, iStock is now costing me money through ubillable hours. This is become a huge waste of my time. All of this screw up for what? A system that is minutely more visually appealing but, even without the bugs, is at best no better than the former system. If I tallied up the hours wasted since F5 (wonder what 'F' stands for?), they would no doubt hit triple digits. Why can't I simply search as I once did:
woman AND pain NOT sexy
so that I can illustrate an article about a medical issue?"
-
A few pages back there was a riff about sometimes IS being cheaper than other sites. I was thinking about the ways that can be and thought an example might be interesting.
I had looked at LisaFX's new personal site and noted that her large size images there were selling for $15 - this (http://www.lisafxphotostock.com/medical_g69-nursing_home_visit_p2164.html) was the one I picked as it's sold like hotcakes at most sites. I thought $15 was pretty modest for the large size (although I think it's a quirk of ktools that it isn't the same large size as you get elsewhere; I think they have a uniform long side measurement for each size ... but I digress)
At FT, that image is 16 credits for the XL size, at IS 10 credits for L and at DT 16 credits for XL (the largest real size).
Buying the smallest credit packages I can, 16 credits at FT would cost $19.20, 10 credits at IS would be $15.40 and 16 credits at DT $16.00 (I'd have credits left over given package sizes; I'm just trying to get to a price per credit for small purchases).
So buying from Lisa direct is the best deal :) But the next best deal (arguably better as I get all the original pixels, which I don't via her own store) is IS.
I guess the other takeaway from this is that contributors have some leeway to undercut the agencies on price where their images are successful and prices are higher - obviously I'm guessing Lisa would rather buyers purchased from her at $15 :)
-
anyone noticed all new uploaded photos do not have EL by default? it's such a pain selecting it one by one
-
anyone noticed all new uploaded photos do not have EL by default? it's such a pain selecting it one by one
Use DeepMeta and it will do it for you (it reads your preference and makes sure the box is checked).
-
I don't know where else to +1 or WooYay it (as I'm banned by special request on IS forums), so I thought this thread made the most sense:
Posted by Saturated:
As Sean said, where's the growth?
Posted by jtyler:
To those who can produce Vetta and Agency files. I think all those people will be moved over to Getty and IS will shut down or no longer be a major player. The favoritism is becoming too apparent. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so and would never had said so a year ago.
Yup, yup.
Source: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=309072&page=8 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=309072&page=8)
-
I don't know where else to +1 or WooYay it (as I'm banned by special request on IS forums), so I thought this thread made the most sense:
Posted by Saturated:
As Sean said, where's the growth?
Posted by jtyler:
To those who can produce Vetta and Agency files. I think all those people will be moved over to Getty and IS will shut down or no longer be a major player. The favoritism is becoming too apparent. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so and would never had said so a year ago.
Yup, yup.
Source: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=309072&page=8[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=309072&page=8[/url])
I guess it just takes some folks a little longer to wake up and smell the coffee. :)
-
Thanks very much for the plug JoAnn! And for the excellent research. Now the big challenge is to somehow attract some customers! :)
Your point about Istock being the (second)best deal is certainly a good one. The problem with Istock, at the moment, is that most of my images would be * near impossible to find - between search issues, and non-exclusive files buried at the back.
-
Another Bailer
dragonflistudio
"I love great photography and I'm the first one to say that my job as a graphic artist is easier with good photography, but this site is getting too expensive. I can do my own local photo shoots for less money. I'm heading to another website to buy photos."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=309762&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=309762&page=1)
-
No, they would not move Vettas and agency-files into Getty and close IS.
The Getty name of today is lightyears away from what it used to be, they have lost major buyers in RM and RF, etc and they would never survive on micro alone.
Many of my colleques and Im talking big names, are so pissed off with it all theyre bailig themselves.
Further more the Vettas are not recognized as a major creative source among shall we say the upper-class buyers, I know many that still consult smaller RM and RF outlets for when they need and want something special.
-
Well, this isn't a buyer bailing, but it sure is a frustrated buyer: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312262&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312262&page=1)
While it is his responsibility to double check the size, it does seem like it's something that should be adjusted. First off, the selection you make should not change from not logged in to logged in, and second maybe they should consider having the default be something other than the largest size. Medium seems fair if they are going to have something checked by default. Or here's a novel idea. How about NOT having anything checked by default? It does seem somewhat intentionally deceptive to have the largest size checked...in the hopes that someone will make that mistake and resign themselves to the fact that they effed up, not realizing that they can contact customer relations to get it rectified. I wonder how many people it has happened to...
-
Well, this isn't a buyer bailing, but it sure is a frustrated buyer: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312262&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312262&page=1[/url])
to have the largest size checked...in the hopes that someone will make that mistake and resign themselves to the fact that they effed up
Actually, this is a marketing ploy, marketing 101; at fast food restaurants they teach the cashiers
If a customer orders a coke and does not say the size; you ask them "large?", you don't ask them "what size?". Granted, at IS they are not asking, they have the box checked and expect the buyer to make another choice.
-
It's hilarious that some people think it is a bug or a "glitch" and apparently think iS wouldn't do that sort of thing on purpose. They must be living in Cloudcuckooland. :D :D
-
Well, this isn't a buyer bailing, but it sure is a frustrated buyer: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312262&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312262&page=1[/url])
to have the largest size checked...in the hopes that someone will make that mistake and resign themselves to the fact that they effed up
Actually, this is a marketing ploy, marketing 101; at fast food restaurants they teach the cashiers
If a customer orders a coke and does not say the size; you ask them "large?", you don't ask them "what size?". Granted, at IS they are not asking, they have the box checked and expect the buyer to make another choice.
It's common practice. If I buy train tickets from an machine, it gives me a peak time ticket unless I specifically select off peak. On Amazon, items that I added in my basket but didn't check out stay in my basket. If a few weeks later I'm in a rush and buy an item with the 1 click purchase system, I get the other items that I'd put in my basket weeks before too. It's my responsibility, it's not hidden in any way, it's right there in my face. I did that once, and had to return all the other items for refund (which is what the iStock buyer has been repeatedly told she can do), and since that one time, I take the extra one second to check what I'm doing.
-
It's hilarious that some people think it is a bug or a "glitch" and apparently think iS wouldn't do that sort of thing on purpose. They must be living in Cloudcuckooland. :D :D
yep, likely the same people that believe it must take months and months worth of development to fix the vetta/agency can't be excluded "glitch"
-
Weird. Now the buyer is just gone. The buyer didn't threaten to quit, but looks like their busy "corporate master" account has vanished like they never existed.
???
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=312262&messageid=6033512 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=312262&messageid=6033512)
-
Weird. Now the buyer is just gone. The buyer didn't threaten to quit, but looks like their busy "corporate master" account has vanished like they never existed.
They've gone all right __ presumably taking their "2500 credits every few months" expenditure elsewhere.
I can see their point though. Imagine if you bought clothes on-line and they just automatically sent you the XXL size unless you stated otherwise. Especially if the XXL size just happened to cost twice as much as the most popular size you actually wanted. Of course no on-line clothing retailer has a default setting for size, it always has to be selected by the customer. Istock could do that too if they wanted, just like they could also allow the customer to exclude Vetta/Agency. Such tactics won't work in the long-term, that's for sure.
-
Weird. Now the buyer is just gone. The buyer didn't threaten to quit, but looks like their busy "corporate master" account has vanished like they never existed.
???
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=312262&messageid=6033512[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=312262&messageid=6033512[/url])
Interesting. I guess they bailed after all.
-
Weird. Now the buyer is just gone. The buyer didn't threaten to quit, but looks like their busy "corporate master" account has vanished like they never existed.
???
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=312262&messageid=6033512[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=312262&messageid=6033512[/url])
Interesting. I guess they bailed after all.
maybe they put buyers in a "time-out" too! "Bad, Buyer! go sit in Time-Out until you calm down. When you are ready to play nicely, then you can come back and play at iStock." maybe not, but it all seems a little fishy to me. I'm surprised the whole thread has not disappeared yet.
-
maybe they put buyers in a "time-out" too! "Bad, Buyer! go sit in Time-Out until you calm down. When you are ready to play nicely, then you can come back and play at iStock." maybe not, but it all seems a little fishy to me. I'm surprised the whole thread has not disappeared yet.
This was my thought too. A buyer can go shop elsewhere without immediately closing out their Istock account. To see a buyer account shut down so quickly definitely suggests administrative involvement.
-
Maybe, but they put me on a time out, remember, but I still have my account there and am still allowed to purchase images. In fact, I'm fairly sure my time out is permanent. I don't think they would delete a buyer's account just for griping on the forums like that. Ban them from the forums, yes, total deleting, highly unlikely.
I mean, look at all the things I've said about iStock here, and they still haven't deleted my account. No they are not going to do that. They still want your money no matter how much you gripe. ::)
-
The OP had a "Corporate Master" icon, so maybe they found another "master" for the company.
Have to say "Corporate Master" sound a bit kinky, but in a very dull way. ;D
-
Wow. Posted on the Royalties Claw Back thread:
An interesting side-note. By day I work for a large advertising group (not as a designer, in I.T.).. Our head office just received a notice form one of our biggest clients requesting (on moral grounds), that no artwork/images for any future contracts be sourced from iStock or any of the Getty images family! We have never had a request like this before.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=53 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=53)
Interesting.
Even more interesting that this post has now disappeared from the thread.
-
Wow. Posted on the Royalties Claw Back thread:
An interesting side-note. By day I work for a large advertising group (not as a designer, in I.T.).. Our head office just received a notice form one of our biggest clients requesting (on moral grounds), that no artwork/images for any future contracts be sourced from iStock or any of the Getty images family! We have never had a request like this before.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=53[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=53[/url])
Interesting.
Even more interesting that this post has now disappeared from the thread.
Ha ha ha __ but you were much too quick for them!!! That must have 'disappeared' in under two minutes. I only wish they were as quick to act against the thieves.
The comment has been duly noted and faithfully recorded in this mighty and historical tome ... on the interweb ... for everyone to read ... forever.
-
Ha ha ha __ but you were much too quick for them!!! That must have 'disappeared' in under two minutes. I only wish they were as quick to act against the thieves.
The comment has been duly noted and faithfully recorded in this mighty and historical tome ... on the interweb ... for everyone to read ... forever.
:D
I guess sometimes procrastination is a good thing. (Mine, that is.)
-
Interesting. Corporate buyer lhministries is back. And still pissed:
This is an update to http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312262&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312262&page=1)
since that discussion got shut down eventhough we were in the middle of it. (Thanks iStock moderators)
I submitted a ticket regarding that issue and I've been told they might try to fix it, which to me sounded like they're going to burry it.
So here's the link where everyone can petition istock to make that modification:
http://www.istockphoto.com/contact_ticket_comment.php?id=sgmkDuvS%2Bxk%3D (http://www.istockphoto.com/contact_ticket_comment.php?id=sgmkDuvS%2Bxk%3D)
Bottom Line: There's a programming "glitch" that if not paying attention, the buyer ends up purchasing and downloading a more expensive version of the stock. I'm not going to say anything bad about iStock anymore.You decide if you can live with this or not.
If you would like this glitch fixed send your coments to that ticket i posted.
Either way, following british examples of cases from the UK Online Trading Standards Comitte , if this doesn't get addressed, the FTC will be notified
I predict that thread will disappear: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314832&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314832&page=1)
-
Considering the response he got, I wonder if it is a "glitch" after all, or more of a "feature"?
BTW, Carolyn, thanks for posting his text, in case it is deleted.
-
It's not a glitch.
-
Considering the response he got, I wonder if it is a "glitch" after all, or more of a "feature"?
BTW, Carolyn, thanks for posting his text, in case it is deleted.
Yes, i think it is a "feature" as well.
-
oh here you are .. I thought this thread may be left to fizzle out as iStock would come to its senses and stop pissing off buyers. i guess I was mistaken.
From the now-locked thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325592&messageid=6313322 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325592&messageid=6313322)
posted by Kwest1216
I have to add my two cents to this discussion. I have about 60 credits left to spend and then I will no longer be a customer of istock.
I've been a customer for more than five years and have quickly seen the selection of non-agency, non-Vetta affordable images dwindle to almost nothing. I could deal with that but not being able to search quickly for a photo I need because agency/vetta images pop up first has driven me to extreme anger. I did a search today for Western and had to wade through nearly 30 pages before I could get to non-Agency non-Vetta photos. That is the extreme but it still takes too long to accomplish my goal.
I'm in web site design and KNOW that adding a search parameter to exclude these files is NOT a complicated process -- this is merely a business decision on istock's part to make me wade through them. I have NEVER been a Vetta buyer and I most likely NEVER will be -- I'm a one-person shop and can't justify the expense to my customers. So don't shove them down my throat.
Anyway, I would like to thank those talented artists over the years who have helped me to express my ideas in photos and graphics. Best wishes!
-
There are three others too jamirae. I posted them in the Best Match thread. Of course now all those threads are locked or deleted over on iStock.
Added here, just for posterity's sake:
Nic_Taylor - a long time exclusive contributor: There seriously needs to be a way to exclude Vetta and Agency collections. I've been with iStock for over 7 years and I'm getting sick and tired of image searches taking way too long because Vetta and Agency images are getting way way way to much freaking top placement in searches. I have bought from iStock because prices were cheap, key word there WERE. That's what iStock built it's name on and that's what people have always expected. If I was willing to pay $200-$300 I would be buying pics from Getty or some other site rather than iStock.
And don't give me this "we're working on it" bull-crap. I've been buying photos from other sites instead of iStock lately because I've gotten fed up with Vetta and Agency pictures that I can't exclude. I have never and will never buy them and there needs to be a way to remove them from searches.
FCDC - a buyer: Don't get me wrong -- I love iStock. I have spent thousands and thousands of dollars with iStockphoto.com over the past few years, between my own freelance business, other clients and contract work I've done.
That said, I'm at my end -- there HAS to be a way to exclue Vetta and Agency photos from the search.
There's nothing wrong with V/A -- but when introduced, it was promised to be a small, selective group of images, a very small percentage.
Today was the third time in 2 weeks where I searched for an image, got it approved by the client and went to final production -- only to realized, oops -- thats a Vetta image and my client is unwilling to pay that amount.
I am giving my business to Veer.com -- who lets you filter their marketplace photos by credit; sorry, istock -- you gotta do something different here.
-- Frustrated in DC
akirk- a buyer: These days when I search for an image, all I see are images costing 50 or more credits. What happened to the days of cheap photos? Time to hit Fotolia i guess.
-
I like how one of them got deleted because they mentioned going over to VEER. nice..
-
I'm a tiny minnow in this game, but used to make regular sales from my little, independent, no-Vetta portfolio, and continued to do so even as the recent search 'churn' got underway. But whatever they did this time, it's killed me dead. Stone cold dead.
-
I like how one of them got deleted because they mentioned going over to VEER. nice..
the whole post got deleted? usually (or in the past) they would just edit and blank out the competitor's name. I went back to look for that post but didnt see it in my quick look.
thanks for adding those, cas.. I had seen those in your other post and should have copied them over myself but was too lazy and instead just drudged up this thread since it does seem like there have been a lot of posts by upset buyers these days.
-
I like how people are trying to offer "solutions". Clearly iStock does not want to implement anything like that or it would have already been done. Personally, I think they want to trick the buyer into buying the higher priced stuff.
-
Obviusly, buyers are old enough to know what they are buying and what they are paying. Saying otherwise would mean callling them fools.
-
I have read more than one post where a customer has complained about accidentally selecting Vetta files for their customers' projects. I have even had a client buy some photos at iStock and mentioned to me how expensive they were (now if they had come to me first and asked where to buy stock photos, I would have directed them to another site). If a person doesn't know their way around iStock then it's easy to see how they could be tricked. I don't think they are fools. It's an honest mistake. If you didn't know to look for the different camera icons - which are very small and unobtrusive - then how would you know there are different collections?
-
Obviusly, buyers are old enough to know what they are buying and what they are paying. Saying otherwise would mean callling them fools.
It isn't a question of buyers being old enough or knowing what they are paying. The problem is that buyers are on deadlines...to have to wade through pages and pages of images that they can't afford to buy is most definitely trying to trick them. I suppose the istock mentality is that if buyers are on deadline and they can only afford to spend a few minutes searching, they will spend the few minutes, then pick a Vetta/Agency photo just to get the job done. To me that is pretty deceptive business practices. But hey, you won't see surprise written on my face.
-
What's shocking is the responses from some exclusives to these angry customers. Telling the budget-conscious customer that Istock is merely transitioning from microstock to midstock is essentially saying "Istock no longer wants your business cheepskate". Although that is evidently the case, I can't see why exclusives would be crowing about it.
Not to mention telling buyer that "Yes, there are cheaper stock sites out there, but the quality of their product is cheaper, too. You get what you pay for."
Sorry, but that is just BS. Anyone who has bothered to shop at the other sites has found that the images are comparable to what's on offer at Istock. This myth that every image produced by an Istock exclusive is pure genius and every image produced by a non-exclusive is cheap crappola is simply not supported by the facts. :P
-
Obviusly, buyers are old enough to know what they are buying and what they are paying. Saying otherwise would mean callling them fools.
No. When you're accustomed to all images being at the same price and don't pay attention to marketing stuff or the forums, you could very easily overlook these collection changes without being a fool.
When I buy orange juice at the grocery store, I don't look at the price each time - I know what sort of price OJ is and I buy it. If I were in a chic beachfront cafe in an expensive resort town I'd definitely check prices before buying anything.
iStock has a storefront that trumpets affordability - "Find affordable results" on the top of the home page. There's nothing (other than prior bad experiences) to alert the buyer to watch what they're buying as some of the OJ is $25 an ounce instead of $4 a half gallon.
-
I look at the prices at the grocery store. It's no wok at all, just a glance.
That said, istockphoto has enough different prices to make the customer aware of them. It is not that they have a "normal" price and a "Vetta" price. They have non-exclusive, regular exclusive, exclusive plus, Vetta and Agency. I think that being 5 different prices the customer should be almost instantly aware that there are differences.
-
I look at the prices at the grocery store. It's no wok at all, just a glance.
That said, istockphoto has enough different prices to make the customer aware of them. It is not that they have a "normal" price and a "Vetta" price. They have non-exclusive, regular exclusive, exclusive plus, Vetta and Agency. I think that being 5 different prices the customer should be almost instantly aware that there are differences.
But we have ample evidence that it is not the case that all buyers are like you. You can blame them for their foolishness or you can build an environment that works for them.
How many customers saying "I'm sick of this" "It's wasting my time" "It used to be so great here but now I'm shopping elsewhere because this site's too expensive" will it take before you accept the buyers as they are rather than trying to insist they shape up and pay attention to all the details of the site and its many changes?
-
Reading all the posts from customers saying they're leaving for other sites makes me sick to my stomach. Even a couple of friends I have who work for large design firms have said they are going to look elsewhere for photos.
TPTB at Getty and iStock have really jumped the shark this time. This really does seem like the beginning of the end to me.
-
Obviusly, buyers are old enough to know what they are buying and what they are paying. Saying otherwise would mean callling them fools.
Oh look! Case in point:
Nope. I’ve spent thousands of dollars with iStock over the last few years — for myself, for clients, for contract positions.
There NEEDS to be a way to exclude Vetta searches. I have had three occasions over the last few weeks when i missed that a photo was a vetta photos.
Send the photo to client, get approval, finalize the layout, get ready to finish production — oops, vetta.
I’ve given up in istock for the moment and gone over to veer.com’s marketplace, which actually lets you set a max credit amount in the search.
Vetta really doesn’t seem to be what istock said it to be in the beginning — sorry, istock but I think you’ve got it wrong on this one and have lost my faith on this one here.
Not to mention, they are also bailing.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325652&page=3#post6316632 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325652&page=3#post6316632)
-
What's shocking is the responses from some exclusives to these angry customers. Telling the budget-conscious customer that Istock is merely transitioning from microstock to midstock is essentially saying "Istock no longer wants your business cheepskate". Although that is evidently the case, I can't see why exclusives would be crowing about it.
Shouldn't they say "we're transitioning from the most successful photo sales model ever invented - and we invented it - to a model that has failed every time someone tried to introduce it".
It's hard to see how anybody involved is happy with this. The whole V/A concept is built on the idea that the customer base is so large and so stupid that it won't realise where to find cheaper images. It can only work for as long as the inertia from the old days keeps lumbering on.
The idea of hiding cheaper, usable, high-selling files behind five, or ten, or twenty pages of zero-sales V/A is unbelievably disrespectful to customers. It implies that their time has no value and they can be conned into buying anything as long as it is on the first page or two.
One of the important benefits of using iStock that was repeatedly quoted in the past was that its search was so much better at putting good search results in front of buyers. Apparently that it no longer considered a significant factor in attracting business.
I wonder if the slider got turned off because buyers had managed to find it and start using it, rather than because nobody used it. That was the Vetta-Agency filter which people are asking for.
-
Shouldn't they say "we're transitioning from the most successful photo sales model ever invented - and we invented it - to a model that has failed every time someone tried to introduce it".
Yup. Remember how successful iStockPro was. ;)
-
Amazing! here are a bunch of bona-fide buyers, spending thousands and they still dont get the drift about this vetta. One buyer even says "vettas are not the best" and they STILL, dont get it.
How can you expect to run a business where you treat buyers like this? lock their threads, insult their intelligence, ignoring their requests.
The actual neglience here bears the hallmark of a business that will soon be up for sale or amalgamated into another umbrella with a differant name.
As far as the exclusives rude remarks? well it just prooves that these so called exclusives are nothing but amateurs without any customer relations knowledge, lack of know-how.
Lets face it, to be independant and survive requires a bit of brains.
-
One thing I noticed on one of the threads was a contributor/buyer complaining about the V/A thing, yet they have plenty of Vettas in their port. So not only are they happy to have any Vetta benefits, but they must also be able to spot a Vetta image at 20 paces, and know all the tricks to avoid Vettas - different sort, go to page 2.3.4 ...
-
One thing I noticed on one of the threads was a contributor/buyer complaining about the V/A thing, yet they have plenty of Vettas in their port. So not only are they happy to have any Vetta benefits, but they must also be able to spot a Vetta image at 20 paces, and know all the tricks to avoid Vettas - different sort, go to page 2.3.4 ...
This is a very good point. Even for buyers that KNOW about V/A they are difficult to avoid. Why does anyone have to employ all sorts of tricks just to weed out expensive, low-interest photos?
Hasn't anyone at Istock ever heard of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid!)?
Case in point - Louddoor:
"I've dropped thousands of dollars in credits into iStock in the 2 short years I've been at LoudDoor and it is intensely frustrating to see simple fixes like RE-ADDING the Vetta Exclude filter constantly be ignored.
We are all adults here. We all see through the BS of answers that aim for appeasement rather than fully transparent explanation. We want to know the real reason that this feature hasn't been brought back.
...snip
Point blank: If we (the buyers, the people that make this site and its contributors money) can't get a real, definite timeline on when Exclusion search filters will be added, we will continue to explore other sites that are more interested in helping us use our time as best as possible. "
-
One thing I noticed on one of the threads was a contributor/buyer complaining about the V/A thing, yet they have plenty of Vettas in their port. So not only are they happy to have any Vetta benefits, but they must also be able to spot a Vetta image at 20 paces, and know all the tricks to avoid Vettas - different sort, go to page 2.3.4 ...
This is a very good point. Even for buyers that KNOW about V/A they are difficult to avoid. Why does anyone have to employ all sorts of tricks just to weed out expensive, low-interest photos?
Hasn't anyone at Istock ever heard of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid!)?
Case in point - Louddoor:
"I've dropped thousands of dollars in credits into iStock in the 2 short years I've been at LoudDoor and it is intensely frustrating to see simple fixes like RE-ADDING the Vetta Exclude filter constantly be ignored.
We are all adults here. We all see through the BS of answers that aim for appeasement rather than fully transparent explanation. We want to know the real reason that this feature hasn't been brought back.
...snip
Point blank: If we (the buyers, the people that make this site and its contributors money) can't get a real, definite timeline on when Exclusion search filters will be added, we will continue to explore other sites that are more interested in helping us use our time as best as possible. "
But people just keep making threats. How many times have I heard contributors here say "just one more stupid thing that happens and I am gone." That was 20 stupid things ago. Until people are willing to make a hard choice and walk away, the abuse is going to continue...to both contributors and buyers.
Here's a clue: there will NEVER be a real, definite timeline. And even if you are TOLD there is a real, definite timeline, it still isn't going to happen!
-
But people just keep making threats. How many times have I heard contributors here say "just one more stupid thing that happens and I am gone." That was 20 stupid things ago. Until people are willing to make a hard choice and walk away, the abuse is going to continue...to both contributors and buyers.
It's a hard choice for suppliers who get nothing from walking away. I doubt if it is hard at all for buyers, who stand to save both money and time (i.e. more money) from doing so. It's not surprising that iS thinks it can screw around with suppliers, it's amazing that they have decided they can do the same to customers.
-
Suppliers don't have to walk away from istock. Just stop uploading until the site has been sold or until they realize they need us. That might be enough to tip the scales now. They aren't going to do anything until they see its going to hit their profits. If everyone just complains but carries on using the site as normal, we are going to just see more of the same.
-
Suppliers don't have to walk away from istock. Just stop uploading until the site has been sold or until they realize they need us. That might be enough to tip the scales now. They aren't going to do anything until they see its going to hit their profits. If everyone just complains but carries on using the site as normal, we are going to just see more of the same.
They make most of their money on pics that are already popular, and basicaly 'old', the whole system is geared to promote those, so they hardly have any need for any of you, unless you remove stuff. They can live off the 10+ million images they have for years if they want to. They might even realize that without having the need to expand their strage they would make more money! Just look at what dreamstime is doing....
-
^^^That's partially true but I still think buyers like to see new images. Their old collections would start to look dated after a while. I just think its something that a lot of people could do, instead of complaining and carrying on uploading as normal.
-
^^^That's partially true but I still think buyers like to see new images. Their old collections would start to look dated after a while. I just think its something that a lot of people could do, instead of complaining and carrying on uploading as normal.
Some probably do, but if buyers liked new images so much, how do the sales pile up, and how did the '80% income from 20% of the port' come to be the standard? I support your cause, but this will not hurt them at all. Removal would... or maybe ppl just shouldn't have given their shots in the first place. Their moves are pretty radical, they can only be countered by equally radical moves on your side. Imho, crowd sourcing will always become crowd shafting, because each contributor in the crowd is expandable. It's just a matter of time untill they start to abuse that. : /
-
Instead of the generic orange juice shopping analogy try it with olive oil instead.
When I go to the supermarket looking for olive oil - well I might be after something quite cheap to use for roasting or as a base for a sauce. But then again I might be after something very expensive with a particular distinct flavor which I am going to want to actually taste. I expect to find both products in the store at different prices. Most likely the expensive stuff will be at eye level. Because not everything can be at eye level.
I tend to avoid the stores which only sell cheap stuff because both products are important.
I get the impression here sometimes than some people can only see the negatives. And yet it seems obvious to me that getting the right mix of stuff in front of clients is something for continual tweaking. The same as shops get rearranged and the windows re dressed regularly.
-
^^^ What have these last few posts got to do with the subject of the thread, 'Buyers Bailing on Istock'?
-
^^^That's partially true but I still think buyers like to see new images.
You'd think, but if so, why would the buyers be complaining about the V/A issue when they could just sort by age?
-
Looks like buyer 'Louddoor' is slamming the door, so to speak, on his way out too;
"There seems to be some misunderstanding of who a buyer is. Some posts in this thread have implied that there are "Vetta Buyers" and "regular buyers". Now, I can only speak of the buyers that I know personally but I don't think this is the case. I think that there are just BUYERS.
So when it is said that "One Vetta Buyer offsets 30 regular buyers" I can't help but chuckle a little bit. Doesn't anyone realize that they "regular buyers" that are leaving are also a percentage of your Vetta Buyers? I buy both. I know when I am here for one vs. the other. But let's say I finally say enough is enough and I start using a different site for my "regular" purchases. What if I realize that the niche content on said site is 90% as nice as the niche content that Vetta is for, and still costs significantly less?
Do you think I'd come back here just to make a Vetta purchase?
To ignore the need for categorization and drill-down search filtering is to stand on the bow of the Titanic and claim the ship isn't sinking. I'll use the Cars.com analogy again -- They know better than to try to sell me a Mercedes if I'm searching for Volkswagens."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325652&page=8#post6329902 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325652&page=8#post6329902)
-
Great points made by Louddoor. Thanks for posting them Gostwyck.
This sums it up perfectly:
"Doesn't anyone realize that they "regular buyers" that are leaving are also a percentage of your Vetta Buyers? I buy both. I know when I am here for one vs. the other. But let's say I finally say enough is enough and I start using a different site for my "regular" purchases. What if I realize that the niche content on said site is 90% as nice as the niche content that Vetta is for, and still costs significantly less?"
@bunhill, your olive oil analogy only holds up if there is a big difference between the expensive oils vs. the lower cost ones. Lots of V/A is not any better than the regular collection at IS or on the other sites. 60-70% of IS contribs are not eligible for V/A at all. Lise and Sean are there, but not Yuri, Monkeybusiness, or Andres...
-
it's not a perfect analogy but really I was reponding to the orange juice metaphor. Also, more than that, it's about branding.
And when we go in a shop - the thing which costs the most isn't always necessarily these best fit in all cases. No system is perfect.
Personally I can very much see the point of branding different images within different collections, lightboxes etc. When the collection is so huge especially there needs to be other ways of drilling down interestingly. It is definitely the way I would go if I was running the shop. Maybe the way in which those images get presented needs to be continually reviewed. And iStockphoto do more or less say that it is under continual review.
The people (eta: buyers I mean) I talk to are still saying that they think iStockphoto is great. This whole debate since last September has completely passed them by. And they like Vetta. Also - 1 of those people is someone I also shoot pictures for regularly. I can say for certain that one of the smallest costs of any project is still the images (to the extent that on occassions she has more or less told me to quote higher for jobs).
-
Instead of the generic orange juice shopping analogy try it with olive oil instead.
Actually both are good and OJ isn't all the same. Some comes from reconstituted, some from frozen, some is fresh squeezed, some from different oranges, some end of the year, some fresh prime and plump. Olive oil? First, second or later pressings. They are both good examples of the same basic products marketed at different levels with subtle differences. The consumers decide what level they want and need from a broad selection. Thus grocery store shelf and multiple levels of photos at one site. (no opinion of what's Vetta and what's not, just that they have those Getty, and ThinkStock as well.)
I tend to think the whole "buyers bailing" is wishful thinking because some people are bitter about the path IS/Getty have been taking over the past year.
People may care about some foods at the grocery store, but lets use the two above. How many people care about the orange growers and juice production? Does anyone buy one brand of olive oil over another because of the growers and harvest methods? No? Well many buyers don't care if we are getting the short end, having commissions cut or best match changes. All they want is the picture they want, at the price point that's in their budget. By the way, the FL orange growers dump oranges and use it for pig feed, to uphold the price structure. They are essentially price fixing by limiting what the members of the Assn. can sell, for how much and we pay in the end. Don't know about CA but I can assume it's the same cartel tactics.
The 80/20 part works for just about every business with a product and customers. The rest of the product line, the 80% that seems to waste space for only a small part of the sales, needs to be there to support the needs of customers. Otherwise if you went to a grocery store (we're back on food again?) And they only sold the profitable items and the ones that brought in most of the money and business, we'd have limited choices, and in the end, shop at a full service store. Imagine going to the store and finding only 20% of what you shop for, because they only sell the most profitable items? You would go someplace else!
For the same reason, the stock sites can't just say, we'll only sell what people buy and throw out the rest. It would be like an agency saying, we'll only take the photos from large contributors and the small ones and go fly a kite, we don't need them. Or maybe something as silly as, we don't have space for the little portfolios, because we have to take only the big ones. Kind of a contradiction in logic isn't it? It's a mistake to assume the 20% that brings in the 80% of sales, is enough to please the buyers.
-
Instead of the generic orange juice shopping analogy try it with olive oil instead.
Actually both are good and OJ isn't all the same. Some comes from reconstituted, some from frozen, some is fresh squeezed, some from different oranges, some end of the year, some fresh prime and plump. Olive oil? First, second or later pressings. They are both good examples of the same basic products marketed at different levels with subtle differences. The consumers decide what level they want and need from a broad selection. Thus grocery store shelf and multiple levels of photos at one site. (no opinion of what's Vetta and what's not, just that they have those Getty, and ThinkStock as well.)
I tend to think the whole "buyers bailing" is wishful thinking because some people are bitter about the path IS/Getty have been taking over the past year.
People may care about some foods at the grocery store, but lets use the two above. How many people care about the orange growers and juice production? Does anyone buy one brand of olive oil over another because of the growers and harvest methods? No? Well many buyers don't care if we are getting the short end, having commissions cut or best match changes. All they want is the picture they want, at the price point that's in their budget. By the way, the FL orange growers dump oranges and use it for pig feed, to uphold the price structure. They are essentially price fixing by limiting what the members of the Assn. can sell, for how much and we pay in the end. Don't know about CA but I can assume it's the same cartel tactics.
The 80/20 part works for just about every business with a product and customers. The rest of the product line, the 80% that seems to waste space for only a small part of the sales, needs to be there to support the needs of customers. Otherwise if you went to a grocery store (we're back on food again?) And they only sold the profitable items and the ones that brought in most of the money and business, we'd have limited choices, and in the end, shop at a full service store. Imagine going to the store and finding only 20% of what you shop for, because they only sell the most profitable items? You would go someplace else!
For the same reason, the stock sites can't just say, we'll only sell what people buy and throw out the rest. It would be like an agency saying, we'll only take the photos from large contributors and the small ones and go fly a kite, we don't need them. Or maybe something as silly as, we don't have space for the little portfolios, because we have to take only the big ones. Kind of a contradiction in logic isn't it? It's a mistake to assume the 20% that brings in the 80% of sales, is enough to please the buyers.
I don't see how you can say it's "wishful thinking" when posts both here AND on the IS forum state otherwise. It surely isn't my negative thinking (or anyone elses) making these buyers leave istock. It's no surprise to me that buyers have a brain of their own, can see the hassles, and are making their own decision.
-
I don't see how you can say it's "wishful thinking" when posts both here AND on the IS forum state otherwise. It surely isn't my negative thinking (or anyone elses) making these buyers leave istock. It's no surprise to me that buyers have a brain of their own, can see the hassles, and are making their own decision.
... and of course, as pretty much every significant independent contributor is reporting, there is the plain statistical evidence of buyers steadily migrating away from Istock and towards SS.
Maybe it's got something to do with all images at SS being the same low price (just like at Istock back when they were doing so well), a search engine that actually works and gives accurately weighted results, the lack of a stupid CV, no site downtime, the choice of PPD or a subscription, etc, etc, etc.
Wishful thinking? My arse.
-
Maybe I didn't phrase that clearly. Are the buyers actually leaving?
The part about wishful thinking would apply to people who think that a majority of the buyers give a hoot if we get stabbed, cut up and fed to the sharks. They just want the pictures they need. I can't see buyers bailing in large numbers because of our commissions getting cut?
If there's some evidence besides sales being down, which doesn't prove that it's less buyers. It may be dilution of sale from more available and newer images, competition and marketing from other agencies possibly some other reasons. But maybe someone can point out how I should come to the conclusion that "buyers are bailing" based on something more than people who have been banned from the IS forums, people who have had commissions cut, people who don't like the CV or the way IS is fiddling with the search, or those unhappy about ThinkStock subscriptions?
I don't expect IS to open their books and show me, but any sort of factual evidence would go a long way past disgruntled artists who are unhappy with the way Getty is ruining site in the opinion of most of us. I'm just trying to be fair, without letting my emotions rule my conclusions. (silly me as usual ;) )
Instead of the generic orange juice shopping analogy try it with olive oil instead.
Actually both are good and OJ isn't all the same. Some comes from reconstituted, some from frozen, some is fresh squeezed, some from different oranges, some end of the year, some fresh prime and plump. Olive oil? First, second or later pressings. They are both good examples of the same basic products marketed at different levels with subtle differences. The consumers decide what level they want and need from a broad selection. Thus grocery store shelf and multiple levels of photos at one site. (no opinion of what's Vetta and what's not, just that they have those Getty, and ThinkStock as well.)
I tend to think the whole "buyers bailing" is wishful thinking because some people are bitter about the path IS/Getty have been taking over the past year.
People may care about some foods at the grocery store, but lets use the two above. How many people care about the orange growers and juice production? Does anyone buy one brand of olive oil over another because of the growers and harvest methods? No? Well many buyers don't care if we are getting the short end, having commissions cut or best match changes. All they want is the picture they want, at the price point that's in their budget. By the way, the FL orange growers dump oranges and use it for pig feed, to uphold the price structure. They are essentially price fixing by limiting what the members of the Assn. can sell, for how much and we pay in the end. Don't know about CA but I can assume it's the same cartel tactics.
The 80/20 part works for just about every business with a product and customers. The rest of the product line, the 80% that seems to waste space for only a small part of the sales, needs to be there to support the needs of customers. Otherwise if you went to a grocery store (we're back on food again?) And they only sold the profitable items and the ones that brought in most of the money and business, we'd have limited choices, and in the end, shop at a full service store. Imagine going to the store and finding only 20% of what you shop for, because they only sell the most profitable items? You would go someplace else!
For the same reason, the stock sites can't just say, we'll only sell what people buy and throw out the rest. It would be like an agency saying, we'll only take the photos from large contributors and the small ones and go fly a kite, we don't need them. Or maybe something as silly as, we don't have space for the little portfolios, because we have to take only the big ones. Kind of a contradiction in logic isn't it? It's a mistake to assume the 20% that brings in the 80% of sales, is enough to please the buyers.
I don't see how you can say it's "wishful thinking" when posts both here AND on the IS forum state otherwise. It surely isn't my negative thinking (or anyone elses) making these buyers leave istock. It's no surprise to me that buyers have a brain of their own, can see the hassles, and are making their own decision.
-
Actually, in life outside of stock photo land, I'm seeing a lot of buyers that DO care about how businesses conduct themselves, treat their workers, manufacture their products. Whether they are actually doing something about it is debatable. But eventually there will be a tipping point. I think it shortchanges buyers to think they are so unaware or so callous that they don't care about what's happening with corporations and how they are treating people. Because that kind of business ethic always trickles up, down, and sideways. What's done to suppliers is eventually done to buyers and vice versa.
-
Well, this could be debated from now until forever because none of us know the actual truth, but I personally believe, judging by my own personal sales on other sites, that there are indeed buyers actually bailing. If you don't believe it, that's ok with me, no skin off my teeth! :)
-
Well, this could be debated from now until forever because none of us know the actual truth, but I personally believe, judging by my own personal sales on other sites, that there are indeed buyers actually bailing. If you don't believe it, that's ok with me, no skin off my teeth! :)
I'll bite on that one. :D
But that's the whole question. Is there anything showing us that buyers are leaving, other than our own personal experience and opinions?
Gostwiyck:
"... and of course, as pretty much every significant independent contributor is reporting, there is the plain statistical evidence of buyers steadily migrating away from Istock and towards Shutterstock." Can you show me a link or some of this statistical evidence? Maybe the significant independent contributors way of seeing iStocks buyers count. Buyers could be down because their market is down along with the economy? Sales could be down because there are new artists and new images, millions more every year. Where are these reports you are referring to, I'd like to read them.
It's obvious that the Earth is the center of the universe, everything revolves around use. A simple fool can look up at the night sky or the Sun and see this.
Observation without evidence is not always as simple as the obvious conclusions.
-
I can only speak for myself ... I was a buyer at iStock (a small one) and I bailed and won't come back. At some point you have to stand up and say enough is enough.
-
I think Race is making sense. My sales have been going up steadily in 2011. I have no doubt some buyers are leaving, but others are likely staying and joining.
I disagree with what they did in September. But if I think that all buyers would be leaving, then I would be wishful thinking. Personally I hope they are not leaving because it will hurt me more than it does iStock.
-
Its really hard to tell how many buyers are bailing on istock. It looks like a large proportion of contributors are carrying on as normal with istock, frightened that they might lose some earnings if they stop uploading. If so many contributors are unwilling to do anything, I find it hard to believe that enough buyers will move to the other sites to make a big difference.
There might be a big change if the buyers that have left istock have a better experience with other sites and tell other buyers about it. I'm amazed how far istock can push their contributors and buyers.
-
Racephoto, what are you talking about? Observations ARE evidence. So are posts by disgruntled buyers saying they are leaving and for every one who bothers to post there are probably 100 others who pack their tent and leave without saying a word. Maybe there are hundreds of others signing up to replace them. Maybe the overall "spend" from people switching to V/A and away from the non-elite is boosting iStock's profits. I don't know. But I do know that this is the first time in the company's history that quite a number of different buyers have come forward to protest about the service that they are getting.
And why would contributors continuing to upload make buyers less ticked off about having searches flooded with Vetta and Agency? Contributors are uploading everywhere else, too, and some of the top contributors upload a lot more to other sites than they do to iStock.
You're absolutely right that Getty will never let us see its books while it is a private company. But to go on from that to argue that therefore we shouldn't be saying anything because we don't have access to any evidence is just plain wrong. It's exactly like the Church telling people not to speculate about how the solar system works just because the official geocentric model is causing difficulties with the calculations (these observed difficulties aren't evidence of anything, are they?).
It's not just Shutterstock that is up, either. 123 is already up to its monthly average for me, with a third of the month to go. Canstock sales in the last three months have been well above the long-term average (so far, my number of files sold this month is 36% above the total for all of last April). Sales at both these sites would be more sensitive indicators of movement than Shutterstock, since their markets have been quite small.
-
Actually, in life outside of stock photo land, I'm seeing a lot of buyers that DO care about how businesses conduct themselves, treat their workers, manufacture their products. Whether they are actually doing something about it is debatable. But eventually there will be a tipping point. I think it shortchanges buyers to think they are so unaware or so callous that they don't care about what's happening with corporations and how they are treating people. Because that kind of business ethic always trickles up, down, and sideways. What's done to suppliers is eventually done to buyers and vice versa.
To be fair, though, while it is certainly true in the UK that Fair Trade goods are growing in consumer awareness and some shops are getting the message at last, that also involves a willingness for the customer to pay more (realistic prices).
To bring the Fair Trade argument into the micro table, the prices would have to rise much higher than they are just now. At the moment, only a few contributors are making reasonable living wages out of micro - even some of the full timers are supported by spouse's income etc.
You yourself were a regular complainer when prices rose on iStock, even from the derisory levels they were back when I started. Are buyers willing to meet the real costs of shooting images, when you take everything into consideration? Again, while some contributors pay models, many brag that they don't, so again, the buyers are getting their cheap images on an unrealistic, unsustainable and arguably unfair/exploitative model ("my sister/girlfriend/mother doesn't mind modelling for free and doesn't care what their pics might be used for").
(I know this has nothing to do with percentages over which I'm as p*ssed off as anyone else, as my canister turned to iron pyrites this weekend, and I'll be lucky to retain even a silver %age next year if dls continue to dwindle as they are. But if you're going to bring a Fair Trade argument in, you have to see things from all the angles.)
-
I'dhazard a guess that if regular buyers were leaving in large numbers then something would be done about it. Who can really tell what is happening there these days though?
I like the comment about your canister turning "iron pyrites" ShadySue" Congratulations on that. Mine should be turning "paste" some time soon. I too was wondering whether or not I'd get to keep my present "aluminium foil" level of royalties if things kept going the way they have been.
-
To be fair, though, while it is certainly true in the UK that Fair Trade goods are growing in consumer awareness and some shops are getting the message at last, that also involves a willingness for the customer to pay more (realistic prices).
To bring the Fair Trade argument into the micro table, the prices would have to rise much higher than they are just now. At the moment, only a few contributors are making reasonable living wages out of micro - even some of the full timers are supported by spouse's income etc.
You yourself were a regular complainer when prices rose on iStock, even from the derisory levels they were back when I started. Are buyers willing to meet the real costs of shooting images, when you take everything into consideration? Again, while some contributors pay models, many brag that they don't, so again, the buyers are getting their cheap images on an unrealistic, unsustainable and arguably unfair/exploitative model ("my sister/girlfriend/mother doesn't mind modelling for free and doesn't care what their pics might be used for").
(I know this has nothing to do with percentages over which I'm as p*ssed off as anyone else, as my canister turned to iron pyrites this weekend, and I'll be lucky to retain even a silver %age next year if dls continue to dwindle as they are. But if you're going to bring a Fair Trade argument in, you have to see things from all the angles.)
But buyers, at this point in time, can stand behind Fair Trade and STILL get reasonable prices. There is an alternative for buyers besides istock. It seems to me like you are saying that it's istock or nobody. Since contributors like lisafx, yuri arcurs and many other big name independents are contributors on many sites, there are quality images, using paid models, done on a professional basis, on many other sites, at less expensive prices than istock's. I'm not understanding why you are saying that in order for buyers to care about other people, they have to pay more. I think that's what all contributors would like to see happen, but that's not where it's at right now.
It's almost like there has been a renewed effort over in istockland to spread this propaganda that istock is the ONLY game in town and everyone else just sucks. As if that they keep repeating the mantra to themselves and everyone else, it will become true. It's not. :)
-
With respect, the 'fair trade' argument is inappropriate in this context IMO. We are not starving farmers or the exploited with no other options.
-
I don't think anyone's honestly trying to compare the plight of microstockers with poverty in developing nations. But if the term 'fair trade' is considered to be pre-defined solely for that purpose, let's just find another term.
'Reasonable Royalties'
'Considerate Commissions'
I can't think of anything punchy, but maybe someone else can?
-
Musicians get 10-20% typically AFAIK. The rates for stock photographers and photographers with big agencies are typically roughly in the same area I think.
The little agencies and co-ops pay more or profit share but often struggle to survive as businesses. Do you want a big royalty of not many sales or a sustainable royalty of many sales ?
Also remember that the agencies are increasingly competing with people who want to give their images away for free.
-
Do you want a big royalty of not many sales or a sustainable royalty of many sales ?
Since you ask, I'd like a big, sustainable royalty of many sales. ;D
Not sure why anyone would want anything else, frankly.
-
Racephoto, what are you talking about? Observations ARE evidence. So are posts by disgruntled buyers saying they are leaving and for every one who bothers to post there are probably 100 others who pack their tent and leave without saying a word. Maybe there are hundreds of others signing up to replace them. Maybe the overall "spend" from people switching to V/A and away from the non-elite is boosting iStock's profits. I don't know. But I do know that this is the first time in the company's history that quite a number of different buyers have come forward to protest about the service that they are getting.
And why would contributors continuing to upload make buyers less ticked off about having searches flooded with Vetta and Agency? Contributors are uploading everywhere else, too, and some of the top contributors upload a lot more to other sites than they do to iStock.
You're absolutely right that Getty will never let us see its books while it is a private company. But to go on from that to argue that therefore we shouldn't be saying anything because we don't have access to any evidence is just plain wrong. It's exactly like the Church telling people not to speculate about how the solar system works just because the official geocentric model is causing difficulties with the calculations (these observed difficulties aren't evidence of anything, are they?).
It's not just Shutterstock that is up, either. 123 is already up to its monthly average for me, with a third of the month to go. Canstock sales in the last three months have been well above the long-term average (so far, my number of files sold this month is 36% above the total for all of last April). Sales at both these sites would be more sensitive indicators of movement than Shutterstock, since their markets have been quite small.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, some buyers are not vocal about them leaving. Those are the kind of buyers that Istock doesn't notice unless them measure falloff (which any right minded company should measure). Case and point. My company just opened a Shutterstock account for two reasons: 1. Prices have gotten too high; 2. The site is dysfunctional. They will use up their credits and transition over to Shutterstock...and we do A LOT of visual management (web, TV, magazine, tradeshow, and brochure advertising). So this is an example of a buyer QUIETLY transitioning to another supplier. How many of those are leaving Istock? I bet more than one. So we cannot just tally up those vocal buyers we must consider the ones who are leaving in silent disagreement.
-
You yourself were a regular complainer when prices rose on iStock, even from the derisory levels they were back when I started. Are buyers willing to meet the real costs of shooting images, when you take everything into consideration?
You know what the irony of that is? Back when prices were those "derisory levels" few contributors were complaining. And it was those "derisory levels" that allowed many people to do microstock full time, because the volume was there. The whole reason microstock worked was because it was about volume and buyers being less discretionary with their spending. That was its success. So yes, the prices were cheap, but the volume of sales often made up for it. Things seemed to have reached a tipping point at iStock . It's moving in the other direction and not even the higher prices are yielding the same returns of a few years ago. And, from what people are reporting, the slack is starting to be picked up at other sites.
Just curious, since the prices were so low, why did you even start uploading in the first place?
-
You know what the irony of that is? Back when prices were those "derisory levels" few contributors were complaining. And it was those "derisory levels" that allowed many people to do microstock full time, because the volume was there. The whole reason microstock worked was because it was about volume and buyers being less discretionary with their spending. That was its success. So yes, the prices were cheap, but the volume of sales often made up for it. Things seemed to have reached a tipping point at iStock . It's moving in the other direction and not even the higher prices are yielding the same returns of a few years ago. And, from what people are reporting, the slack is starting to be picked up at other sites.
... is the correct answer!
-
I have to admit, now, when I look back at the price increases, my complaints seem funny. Who would have ever thought back then that a large file would be on sale at iStock for over $350?! At that time a large going from 3 credits to 5 credits (with a corresponding increase in credit pricing) was a big deal. LOL!
BUT, I think what many buyers saw in the increases was forshadowing of things to come at iStock (especially after the Getty sale). And apparently we were right.
-
but the volume of sales often made up for it.
I think a lot of contributors, regardless of where they submit, are seeing downloads plateau or drop even though they're submitting a ton of new images. Maybe buyer sales volumes are decreasing or sales are being spread across the constant flood of new contributors. For me, price increases have helped to justify continuing to invest time in this. If prices remained the same I probably would have quit a couple years ago because I would have been forced to shoot common objects with a cheap DSLR to stay profitable. And the market is already flooded with common objects.
I also think a major benefit buyers have received from micro is a significant number of contributors who aren't profitable, or don't even know if they're profitable, and continue to blindly spend more on creating images than they make. They spend $10,000 on equipment and tons more on props and shoots to make $50 or $100 per month. The agency gets their fat percentage, the buyer gets their professional level stock photo cheap, and the contributor loses money on every picture. Contributors can't go on indefinitely doing this because at some point they will run out of money.
Maybe macro shooters lived fat for a long time on macro prices but micro is too low for the quality of images that are available today. A few years ago buyers were getting a Buick for the price of a Chevy. Now they're getting a Mercedes for the price of a Chevy. Something needs to change with compensation because this current model seems to be, uh... unsustainable. :P
-
Maybe I didn't phrase that clearly. Are the buyers actually leaving?
The part about wishful thinking would apply to people who think that a majority of the buyers give a hoot if we get stabbed, cut up and fed to the sharks. They just want the pictures they need. I can't see buyers bailing in large numbers because of our commissions getting cut?
It seems like you are inventing an absurd assertion that nobody is making and then arguing with that. It's an old debating tactic and very easy to spot.
Can you point me to where anybody said that buyers are only leaving because they care about contributor conditions?
That would be a really naive position. I haven't managed to scrounge through this whole thread, but what I have read nobody's saying that. That would be a thread titled - "Buyers are bailing in solidarity with contributors". LOL. That'll be the day ;)
If the widely reported sales migrations and angry forum posts are to be believed, buyers are bailing in large numbers for a large number of reasons. Mostly they care about their own buying experience and the prices.
If Istock had stuck to mostly just screwing contributors this thread wouldn't be up to 1107 posts. But no, they had to go and screw with their buyers too. Big mistake!
-
If Istock had stuck to mostly just screwing contributors this thread wouldn't be up to 1107 posts
.. almost all of them written not by buyers, but for independent contributors who upload to other sites and that feell angry because istock structure of comissions to non-exclusives.
-
If Istock had stuck to mostly just screwing contributors this thread wouldn't be up to 1107 posts
.. almost all of them written not by buyers, but for independent contributors who upload to other sites and that feell angry because istock structure of comissions to non-exclusives.
... because this is a discussion group primarily for photographers rather than designers, perhaps.
-
If Istock had stuck to mostly just screwing contributors this thread wouldn't be up to 1107 posts
.. almost all of them written not by buyers, but for independent contributors who upload to other sites and that feell angry because istock structure of comissions to non-exclusives.
Sorry, I don't accept your premise. From what I can see, a lot of the posts by independent contributors are quoting irate buyers whose posts are being removed from the Istock forums or buried in locked threads.
Others are from contributors who are also buyers, and some are from buyers like Caspixel who have just had enough.
Not to mention the abundance of posts from frightened exclusives frantically trying to convince everybody Istockphoto is not in decline, as if that will make it true. Those posts are the most pitiful and desperate sounding ones. So sad.
-
If Istock had stuck to mostly just screwing contributors this thread wouldn't be up to 1107 posts
.. almost all of them written not by buyers, but for independent contributors who upload to other sites and that feell angry because istock structure of comissions to non-exclusives.
Well, that's a little true, but the thread was started to report when buyers were fed up with istock and posted their complaints on the istock forum. The posts were then copied and pasted here, because, well, it's easier to read them here, all in one place. And this thread contains a ton of those. And the thing is, since a lot of folks post anonymously, it's sometimes difficult to tell if a poster is a contributor, a buyer, or both. The difference here on this forum is that their opinion, no matter who they are or in what capacity they are interested in microstock, they are welcome.
-
but micro is too low for the quality of images that are available today.
An excellent post, Mr Walnuts. This point especially.
-
The difference here on this forum is that their opinion, no matter who they are or in what capacity they are interested in microstock, they are welcome.
Well said!
-
If Istock had stuck to mostly just screwing contributors this thread wouldn't be up to 1107 posts
.. almost all of them written not by buyers, but for independent contributors who upload to other sites and that feell angry because istock structure of comissions to non-exclusives.
Well, that's a little true, but the thread was started to report when buyers were fed up with istock and posted their complaints on the istock forum. The posts were then copied and pasted here, because, well, it's easier to read them here, all in one place. And this thread contains a ton of those. And the thing is, since a lot of folks post anonymously, it's sometimes difficult to tell if a poster is a contributor, a buyer, or both. The difference here on this forum is that their opinion, no matter who they are or in what capacity they are interested in microstock, they are welcome.
I'm just saying that there can be 5 or 10 or even 20 buyers posts quoted.... but that's a long shot from a thousand posts. A handful os buyers posts is anecdotal, a thousand would be serious.
And I may be wrong, but I don't think we have many buyers posting here, anonismously or not. Note that some contributors have posted scores of times in this discussion.
-
I'm just saying that there can be 5 or 10 or even 20 buyers posts quoted.... but that's a long shot from a thousand posts. A handful os buyers posts is anecdotal, a thousand would be serious.
And I may be wrong, but I don't think we have many buyers posting here, anonismously or not. Note that some contributors have posted scores of times in this discussion.
Before you go throwing around numbers about how many buyers posts are in this thread, you should do your due diligence and count them up. You don't have to guess. They're all there in black (or sometimes blue) and white.
Hint: There's more than 20 irate buyers quoted in just the first few pages.
-
Musicians get 10-20% typically AFAIK. The rates for stock photographers and photographers with big agencies are typically roughly in the same area I think.
The little agencies and co-ops pay more or profit share but often struggle to survive as businesses. Do you want a big royalty of not many sales or a sustainable royalty of many sales ?
Also remember that the agencies are increasingly competing with people who want to give their images away for free.
The musician's agent gets around 10%. They also pay a business manager and perhaps a lawyer and sometimes all three are combined.
You can't even begin to compare photographers to musicians. I have around 25K worth of gear - what does a musician have - a guitar and some leather pants?
Photographers have to pay for everything out of pocket. Equipment. Models. Locations. Props. We can get no endorsements to include Doritos and Ford in our product.
Record labels print cd's. They print merchandise. They pay publicists. They produce videos. They protect artists likeness and their art.
The artists who are smart and talented write their own material. They get pubishing royalties, and additional royalties every time a song is played on the radio. No matter how elaborate our productions are, it is purely risk assumed on our part.
I know that at first glance it looks we are similar, but it seems to me that we take all of the risk and foot 100% of the bill, pay extraordinary amounts to our distributors who don't even build a marketing campaign around our own individual work. They don't assume any responsibility of fraud. They don't protect our copyrights with full enthusiasm. They don't really appear to give a cr*p about us individually in any shape or form - but they are certainly happy to take 85% of our creative. Record labels fiercely protect their artists.
But when they get sick of their artists they just fire them or don't renew the contract. But maybe that is what IS is trying to do in the first place.
-
I'm just saying that there can be 5 or 10 or even 20 buyers posts quoted.... but that's a long shot from a thousand posts. A handful os buyers posts is anecdotal, a thousand would be serious.
If 1,000 irate buyers posted it wouldn't be serious, it would be the end. It would mean there were 100,000 others who were irate and not committed enough to iStock to want to bother sharing their concerns. After all, the "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" attitude is quite clear.
-
After all, the "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" attitude is quite clear.
This is assuming they have this attitude toward all buyers. Maybe they do. Or maybe they've more clearly defined their target buyer criteria and have no problem letting go of the buyers that no longer fit, don't spend much, and complain.
I would find it hard to believe if a big spender showed up in the forums complaining that IS would boot them. I'd think that the most important clients probably have some sort of IS service rep assigned to them who calls on them regularly to make sure they're happy.
ETA: Haha. I just got another ignore. Dummy me. How dare I post anything logical or thought provoking.
-
There is no way of knowing whether iStockphoto is losing customers either to other parts of the Getty model or to other sites. I doubt it personally but there is no way of knowing. Its daft trying to extrapolate from a few forum posts. And the vast majority of opinion about iStockphoto which I pick up is either positive or very positive.
Anyhow its margins rather than market share which ultimately determines the long term success and sustainability of a company. That pretty much also echos what Paulie Walnuts was saying above from a contributor perspective. Some prices need to be higher.
Ever wondered why Apple don't make cheapo netbooks ?
-
Thanks for putting words into my mouth and changing what I said.
Are buyers bailing on IS? 45 pages of people going on about it and not one bit of proof. That was the question. Evidence not, someone says so on the forums, or it's self evident. Not anecdotal personal sales. Heck I don't like the commission change and now that SS has popped back, my IS sales are down like everyone else, plus lower commission. I'm not defending them. Just asking for some moderation in the biased observations and claims.
For every buyer who bothers to come to the forum on IS there are 1000 that are too busy for Bulletin Boards and chat. At the least hundreds who don't know they exist.
Not that we shouldn't talk about it. Not that sales going up on X are anything to prove that they left IS. The whole market is down from the general tone of messages. Now you are saying that it's up because Canstock and 123 are up and attribute this to IS buyers? Because your personal sales are up, then "buyers are bailing" on IS?
Do people really act different and strange during a Full Moon or is it just "common knowledge" easily observed and that's the evidence? ;D
Do the Moai statues really look longingly out to sea as if waiting for some ancient astronauts to return? Common wisdom. ;)
Against all evidence people insist that Elvis, Michael Jackson, JFK, Tesla, Marilyn Monroe, Jim Morrison and others are Not Dead! And believe it!
Point is, without evidence, facts and data type evidence, it's just a bunch of people who are unhappy with IS and are expressing their anger and resentment because the agency has dumped on us.
So when someone comes back with something besides, everyone knows, it's common knowledge or I should question the accuracy of some claim, then I'll be convinced that Buyers actually are bailing. I don't know. I haven't seen anything that proves it's true.
Thus the original question? Are they really?
Racephoto, what are you talking about? Observations ARE evidence. So are posts by disgruntled buyers saying they are leaving and for every one who bothers to post there are probably 100 others who pack their tent and leave without saying a word. Maybe there are hundreds of others signing up to replace them. Maybe the overall "spend" from people switching to V/A and away from the non-elite is boosting iStock's profits. I don't know. But I do know that this is the first time in the company's history that quite a number of different buyers have come forward to protest about the service that they are getting.
And why would contributors continuing to upload make buyers less ticked off about having searches flooded with Vetta and Agency? Contributors are uploading everywhere else, too, and some of the top contributors upload a lot more to other sites than they do to iStock.
You're absolutely right that Getty will never let us see its books while it is a private company. But to go on from that to argue that therefore we shouldn't be saying anything because we don't have access to any evidence is just plain wrong. It's exactly like the Church telling people not to speculate about how the solar system works just because the official geocentric model is causing difficulties with the calculations (these observed difficulties aren't evidence of anything, are they?).
It's not just Shutterstock that is up, either. 123 is already up to its monthly average for me, with a third of the month to go. Canstock sales in the last three months have been well above the long-term average (so far, my number of files sold this month is 36% above the total for all of last April). Sales at both these sites would be more sensitive indicators of movement than Shutterstock, since their markets have been quite small.
-
Thanks for putting words into my mouth and changing what I said.
Are buyers bailing on IS? 45 pages of people going on about it and not one bit of proof. That was the question. Evidence not, someone says so on the forums, or it's self evident. Not anecdotal personal sales. Heck I don't like the commission change and now that Shutterstock has popped back, my IS sales are down like everyone else, plus lower commission. I'm not defending them. Just asking for some moderation in the biased observations and claims.
For every buyer who bothers to come to the forum on IS there are 1000 that are too busy for Bulletin Boards and chat. At the least hundreds who don't know they exist.
Not that we shouldn't talk about it. Not that sales going up on X are anything to prove that they left IS. The whole market is down from the general tone of messages. Now you are saying that it's up because Canstock and 123 are up and attribute this to IS buyers? Because your personal sales are up, then "buyers are bailing" on IS?
Now you have switched from talking about evidence, which is one thing, to demanding proof, which is another.
There are posts from buyers saying they are going elsewhere. That is evidence. We have no idea of the scale. But if you say that for each forum post there are 1,000 others who know nothing/don't care about the forums, then you can draw your own conclusions from 15 or 20 disgruntled buyers posting, or not as you like.
You reject the reports of sales SS going up (which is the biggest rival to iS and therefore the one where it takes the biggest changes to create a noticeable trend) and say instead that "the whole market is down from the general tone of messages". Well, suit yourself.
Then there is the ranking list thread, where it seems people are losing sales and moving up the rankings. Maybe all those sales are going to agency and not to SS, or maybe they are not going anywhere and just not happening. Who knows?
How can you say "there is no way of knowing if iS is losing sales to other sites" when buyers have posted that they are stopping using iS and going to Veer or Fotolia or Shutterstock? Either you think they are liars or there is proof that iS is losing sales. QED. What we don't know is whether the loss is really significant.
I'm no economist, but this doesn't sound right: "it's margins rather than market share which ultimately determines the long term success and sustainability of a company". Surely having a 99% margin on 0.00001% of the market is not more profitable than having 20% margins on 99% of the market? In that case, I'd definitely bet on the market share rather than the margin.
-
That was funny, a guitar and leather pants? Those went out in the 70s. I still have four drum sets, countless cymbals that cost hundreds each, sticks break, a truck to carry all that crap. ;) Mikes, amps, electronics, stands. People work for years, practice and play and improve and by the way, the agents take a standard 20% off the top, the band gets 80% to divide and pay expenses. You work by driving to the site, setting up for two hours, playing for four hours, tearing down in an hour and drive home. that's 7-8 hours for a lousy $40 or $50 and by the way, the same problems as photography, people willing to play for less to get in the door. Figure maybe $5 an hour before expenses and that doesn't include equipment.
Then there are the equivalent to microstock, Disc Jockeys. Who now have no disks, maybe a laptop and a stack of SD cards, lights, amps and speakers and it takes two people, they charge less and you get some darn nice sounds. But of course live music from professionals is best. :D
There are still some microstockers shooting P&S, I don't know how many. I see people talking about upgrading their Rebel or T2i of something, so everyone isn't using a 5D with a studio, but the ones making money are doing what you say. Investing in better equipment, lighting, models and all the while, agencies are giving us less commission, less money and competition has increased 10 times in four years. Small wonder sales are down!
You are correct though, and I agree, the agencies don't give a crap about us. But having worked for various booking agents, some who had pretty much the same attitude, it's not much different.
I liked this one best...
A few years ago buyers were getting a Buick for the price of a Chevy. Now they're getting a Mercedes for the price of a Chevy.
Musicians get 10-20% typically AFAIK. The rates for stock photographers and photographers with big agencies are typically roughly in the same area I think.
The little agencies and co-ops pay more or profit share but often struggle to survive as businesses. Do you want a big royalty of not many sales or a sustainable royalty of many sales ?
Also remember that the agencies are increasingly competing with people who want to give their images away for free.
The musician's agent gets around 10%. They also pay a business manager and perhaps a lawyer and sometimes all three are combined.
You can't even begin to compare photographers to musicians. I have around 25K worth of gear - what does a musician have - a guitar and some leather pants?
Photographers have to pay for everything out of pocket. Equipment. Models. Locations. Props. We can get no endorsements to include Doritos and Ford in our product.
Record labels print cd's. They print merchandise. They pay publicists. They produce videos. They protect artists likeness and their art.
The artists who are smart and talented write their own material. They get pubishing royalties, and additional royalties every time a song is played on the radio. No matter how elaborate our productions are, it is purely risk assumed on our part.
I know that at first glance it looks we are similar, but it seems to me that we take all of the risk and foot 100% of the bill, pay extraordinary amounts to our distributors who don't even build a marketing campaign around our own individual work. They don't assume any responsibility of fraud. They don't protect our copyrights with full enthusiasm. They don't really appear to give a cr*p about us individually in any shape or form - but they are certainly happy to take 85% of our creative. Record labels fiercely protect their artists.
But when they get sick of their artists they just fire them or don't renew the contract. But maybe that is what IS is trying to do in the first place.
-
I'm just saying that there can be 5 or 10 or even 20 buyers posts quoted.... but that's a long shot from a thousand posts. A handful os buyers posts is anecdotal, a thousand would be serious.
And I may be wrong, but I don't think we have many buyers posting here, anonismously or not. Note that some contributors have posted scores of times in this discussion.
Before you go throwing around numbers about how many buyers posts are in this thread, you should do your due diligence and count them up. You don't have to guess. They're all there in black (or sometimes blue) and white.
Hint: There's more than 20 irate buyers quoted in just the first few pages.
At about 200 or 300 photographer's comments coming from about 40-50 photographers. That is precisely my point, thanks for highlighting it.
-
At about 200 or 300 photographer's comments coming from about 40-50 photographers. That is precisely my point, thanks for highlighting it.
You are still just making up numbers, so from what I can see you are proving my point that you haven't done your research and don't know what you are talking about:
Before you go throwing around numbers about how many buyers posts are in this thread, you should do your due diligence and count them up. You don't have to guess. They're all there in black (or sometimes blue) and white.
Hint: There's more than 20 irate buyers quoted in just the first few pages.
I can understand why you want to argue and bicker over who posted what in this thread though, instead of addressing the larger issue that your Big Brother Istock is foundering on the rocks of their own greed and hubris. People always want to argue semantics when they have missed the larger point.
-
I'm guessing that loop is an exclusive over at istock. He sounds like one of the group that are on a mission to come here and try to disspell the notion that buyers are leaving istock; to convince us all that all is well in istockland; and that all exclusives over at istock are making a TON of money, because istock is taking care of them. istockholm syndrome. ;)
-
At about 200 or 300 photographer's comments coming from about 40-50 photographers. That is precisely my point, thanks for highlighting it.
You are still just making up numbers, so from what I can see you are proving my point that you haven't done your research and don't know what you are talking about:
That's his MO. Make accusations supported by zero evidence. It's just some sh*t that he makes up in his head. And then when called on it he usually says something to the effect, "Well, I don't have time to research [or back up his claims with proof]. I have a life!"
Desperate exclusive suffering from istockholm syndrome sounds about right.
-
More evidence of buyers bailing:
HOWEVER, I am a BUYER for the company I work for (we buy a lot of travel and lifestyle images) and they WANT an "exclude Vetta/Agency" option. We will buy E+, Vetta or Agency when we are looking for a cover or glamour shot. But the majority of our purchases are spot images.
We had a couple of incidents where designers "accidentally" purchased Vetta images (albeit without looking) which screwed up the budget. So my bosses (in a knee-jerk reaction) purchased a years subscription (not from Thinkstock) instead of buying more credits with IS. I tried to talk them out of it, but their response to me was "until I can guarantee that I can turn off the more expensive stuff" a subscription at SS is more cost effective and "avoids the inadvertent purchase of high priced images".
Perhaps we are the only company turning away from IS because of their "insistence of shoving high priced stuff down my throat" (a quote from the VP) but somehow I doubt that my company is alone in this opinion.
I don't think the OP's suggestion is better than an "V/A off" switch but I might be able to talk my company off the ledge if there was SOMETHING that immediately visually identified a V/A image so the designers would know it was off limits for the spot illustrations we need so many of.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325652&page=8#post6334532 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325652&page=8#post6334532)
-
I'm guessing that loop is an exclusive over at istock. He sounds like one of the group that are on a mission to come here and try to disspell the notion that buyers are leaving istock; to convince us all that all is well in istockland; and that all exclusives over at istock are making a TON of money, because istock is taking care of them. istockholm syndrome. ;)
Yes, I'm exclusive... I understand that if I'm not talking against Istock, I'm here on a mission. Should I pass my time bashing istock several days a week, I would be a free soul making use of my freedom on speech. I fear this is how things seem to go here now.
-
At about 200 or 300 photographer's comments coming from about 40-50 photographers. That is precisely my point, thanks for highlighting it.
You are still just making up numbers, so from what I can see you are proving my point that you haven't done your research and don't know what you are talking about:
That's his MO. Make accusations supported by zero evidence. It's just some sh*t that he makes up in his head. And then when called on it he usually says something to the effect, "Well, I don't have time to research [or back up his claims with proof]. I have a life!"
Desperate exclusive suffering from istockholm syndrome sounds about right. Don't mind it, but this talks a lot about you, and not about me.
You already called me "deranged" several days ago. Now you talk about "the sh*t out of my head". Dont mind it, but that talks about you, not about me.
-
You already called me "deranged" several days ago. Now you talk about "the sh*t out of my head". Dont mind it, but that talks about you, not about me.
And what talks about you are the lies, accusations, and the sh*t you make up. And when challenged on it, you NEVER back up your claims. And that's the truth. So if posting the truth says something about me, then so be it.
-
Thanks for posting Carolyn. This trickle seems to be turning into a flood. I can't understand why anyone would not find this trend worrying.
More evidence of buyers bailing:
HOWEVER, I am a BUYER for the company I work for (we buy a lot of travel and lifestyle images) and they WANT an "exclude Vetta/Agency" option. We will buy E+, Vetta or Agency when we are looking for a cover or glamour shot. But the majority of our purchases are spot images.
We had a couple of incidents where designers "accidentally" purchased Vetta images (albeit without looking) which screwed up the budget. So my bosses (in a knee-jerk reaction) purchased a years subscription (not from Thinkstock) instead of buying more credits with IS. I tried to talk them out of it, but their response to me was "until I can guarantee that I can turn off the more expensive stuff" a subscription at Shutterstock is more cost effective and "avoids the inadvertent purchase of high priced images".
Perhaps we are the only company turning away from IS because of their "insistence of shoving high priced stuff down my throat" (a quote from the VP) but somehow I doubt that my company is alone in this opinion.
I don't think the OP's suggestion is better than an "V/A off" switch but I might be able to talk my company off the ledge if there was SOMETHING that immediately visually identified a V/A image so the designers would know it was off limits for the spot illustrations we need so many of.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325652&page=8#post6334532[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325652&page=8#post6334532[/url])
-
As the new guy on the block, buyers bailing from IS kinda pisses me off but also makes me happy. It pisses me off because "percentage wise, IS is one of my best sites"; I have a bit over 100 images that have been uploaded since Feb 2011 with 23 sales-it pisses me off because IS is screwing the clients that are purchasing our images. I have my images at 20+ other sites so I am happy that, hopefully, these will get the new clients as they drift there-those that do drift to SS purchase my same images at much reduced prices-that kinda hurts also.
I wish IS would get their collective act together; for the benefit of clients, producers and employees.
-
one of the group that are on a mission to come here and try to disspell the notion that buyers are leaving istock;
Do you really believe that there is a group who come here to try to dispel any notions about iStockphoto? Seriously ?
You seem to be implying that anyone who expresses any opinion different to your own can be dismissed as some sort of propagandist.
People who choose to be exclusive at iStockphoto are not brainwashed minions. It's a 30 day contractual commitment which people choose based on deciding whether or not it works for them at the time. That's it. It really does not turn people into mindless automatons.
It's quite divisive and IMO unnecessary this continually trying to create division between people based on what agencies they choose to be with at any particular time.
-
^^ While your comments are perfectly correct, there are still some exclusives that refuse to hear/believe ANYTHING negative about iStock. These are the ones that are here cheerleading and whoo-yaying to no end.
When there are numerous posts from buyers stating that they're taking their business elsewhere and people say that it's not happening, what reaction would you expect?
-
one of the group that are on a mission to come here and try to disspell the notion that buyers are leaving istock;
Do you really believe that there is a group who come here to try to dispel any notions about iStockphoto? Seriously ?
You seem to be implying that anyone who expresses any opinion different to your own can be dismissed as some sort of propagandist.
People who choose to be exclusive at iStockphoto are not brainwashed minions. It's a 30 day contractual commitment which people choose based on deciding whether or not it works for them at the time. That's it. It really does not turn people into mindless automatons.
It's quite divisive and IMO unnecessary this continually trying to create division between people based on what agencies they choose to be with at any particular time.
Nope, not anyone. Just exclusives who rarely show up here, hardly ever contribute to any other threads, but only try and dispel what are facts.
What elvinstar said.
-
Nope, not anyone. Just exclusives who rarely show up here, hardly ever contribute to any other threads, but only try and dispel what are facts.
You should have put "facts" in quotes.
-
Proof?
Worst month in three years at IS so far this month. That following the second and third worst months in the previous two. Two BMEs at SS, one BME at DT and good showings at FT in the same period. Proof enough for me.
-
All this back and forth is interesting, but it doesn't change the central fact that the world does not stand still, and nothing is forever. Those of you who got into microstock, and by definition that would be Istock, at the beginning have had a great run. You got to ride the cycle up to the crest, and now you are watching it on the way down. The "wooyayers" can battle the "haters", but it really doesn't matter, because meanwhile, time is marching on. Pretty soon this whole thing will seem as anachronistic as West Side Story. It's fun to watch, but once you've seen the movie, you know whats going to happen. As the old master said to grasshopper, " you must make a friend of change".
-
As the old master said to grasshopper, " you must make a friend of change".
Indeed you must. But do you want to befriend destruction, too? The cheese hasn't just been moved - it's been taken away.
We all see that microstock is sinking and we want an alternative - some new way to market our skill. We're just not seeing one yet. It's hard to accept that this skill and knowledge just doen't have much value anymore. I keep thinking - hoping - that things will change somehow.
-
As the old master said to grasshopper, " you must make a friend of change".
Indeed you must. But do you want to befriend destruction, too? The cheese hasn't just been moved - it's been taken away.
We all see that microstock is sinking and we want an alternative - some new way to market our skill. We're just not seeing one yet. It's hard to accept that this skill and knowledge just doen't have much value anymore. I keep thinking - hoping - that things will change somehow.
I don't think microstock is sinking; just readjusting. There is a huge growing market for what we provide.
-
^^ +1
What we really need is for someone to come up with a way to get our images in front of more people than just designers. With all of the blogging, school projects, personal websites, etc. out there, a huge market doesn't even know that we exist!
-
^^ +1
What we really need is for someone to come up with a way to get our images in front of more people than just designers. With all of the blogging, school projects, personal websites, etc. out there, a huge market doesn't even know that we exist!
Those people used to shop at iStock.
-
^^ +1
What we really need is for someone to come up with a way to get our images in front of more people than just designers. With all of the blogging, school projects, personal websites, etc. out there, a huge market doesn't even know that we exist!
Most of them just pinch the pictures, anyway. I know they do at my daughter's school and any observations about it are brushed aside with remarks about it all being available from the internet.
-
^^ +1
What we really need is for someone to come up with a way to get our images in front of more people than just designers. With all of the blogging, school projects, personal websites, etc. out there, a huge market doesn't even know that we exist!
What???? Where do you ppl even come up with stuf like that???? That market is what makes up most of microstock customers. The type that someone would call a real designer, graphic artist at an ad agency etc, is but a small minority, and they work 50% with commissioned stuff, if you only had them you wouldn't even have fraction of the sales you may experience. Even 90+% of the tear sheets with print stuff are small-local-amateur stuff, and then you get the ppl who ask the contributor to horizontally mirror some stuff they just bought from them - totally design software illiterate, even the browsre can do that actually.
-
4 posts have just been removed from this thread for juvenile name calling.
-
While some people may steal images no matter how affordable they are, there are still large numbers of people that need images that don't even know that microstock exists. If even a small percentage of them started buying our work, how could it hurt?
-
While some people may steal images no matter how affordable they are, there are still large numbers of people that need images that don't even know that microstock exists. If even a small percentage of them started buying our work, how could it hurt?
So true! After 6 years doing this, the vast majority of people I talk to about my job have never even heard of Stock photography! Much less microstock.
-
^^ +1
What we really need is for someone to come up with a way to get our images in front of more people than just designers. With all of the blogging, school projects, personal websites, etc. out there, a huge market doesn't even know that we exist!
Most of them just pinch the pictures, anyway. I know they do at my daughter's school and any observations about it are brushed aside with remarks about it all being available from the internet.
What a fine example for the kids. At the same time the school districts are going nuts over inappropriate Facebook posts, they're showing the kids their complete disregard for intellectual property laws.
-
What a fine example for the kids. At the same time the school districts are going nuts over inappropriate Facebook posts, they're showing the kids their complete disregard for intellectual property laws.
I know that this is happening at a lot of schools, but I just wanted to add that at the college I go to, the Exit Portfolio class requires the purchase of GAG Handbook and Ethical Guidelines. We had several class discussions about copyright laws, intellectual property and contracts. When we discuss projects, the teacher recommends istockphoto (I need to take him aside and explain how unethical in their treatment of contributors they are) for stock photos. I am glad that he is setting a good example and he never suggests anyone just goes and grabs images. He also instills the fact that they are graduating with a good skill set and that is of some worth, and not to give themselves away for free.
I hope that other colleges, and I would hope that school districts as well, are doing this. But it can't happen if the teachers themselves are ignorant of the stock companies out there. sigh.
But anyway, I am a little off topic. Back to the regularly scheduled program of buyers bailing.
-
My son is in grade 4 and doing a project on Western Manitoba. His assignment this weekend was to scour the Internet for photos. We live in Central Manitoba so I have my own library of wildlife and plants which are found across the plains - so I was lucky I could send him off to school today with a few pages that weren't stolen. I guess I should really discuss this with teacher.
Then my 6 year old wrote and illustrated a fairy book this weekend and when she signed the last page she put the copyright symbol and 2011 beside her name. Made me laugh - I have no idea where she got that idea from, wonder if she knows what it is. Maybe she'll be a copyright advocate when she is doing this same project in grade 4.
-
My son is in grade 4 and doing a project on Western Manitoba. His assignment this weekend was to scour the Internet for photos. We live in Central Manitoba so I have my own library of wildlife and plants which are found across the plains - so I was lucky I could send him off to school today with a few pages that weren't stolen. I guess I should really discuss this with teacher.
Then my 6 year old wrote and illustrated a fairy book this weekend and when she signed the last page she put the copyright symbol and 2011 beside her name. Made me laugh - I have no idea where she got that idea from, wonder if she knows what it is. Maybe she'll be a copyright advocate when she is doing this same project in grade 4.
Good for her! It's never too early to teach them. :D
-
My son is in grade 4 and doing a project on Western Manitoba. His assignment this weekend was to scour the Internet for photos.
And the kids whose parents can't afford a computer and don't live near enough a public library with free internet access were to ... ?
(For kids who do have computer access, Good Practice would be to get them to look up lists of species found in Manitoba and try to get them on ARKive (399 Canadian species), and/or teach them to search filter for CC images on Flickr.)
BTW, in the UK, all pupils and teachers have access to GLOW, which inter alia has over a million images which have been cleared for use in schools. I have no idea how they did the clearing, but there's a lot of blurb about copyright in the site. And no use looking: I was kicked off GLOW three days after I left teaching, although I'm still fully paid up and registered. The photos are adequate to very good - certainly fine for school projects.
-
Sure it's ok if young kids grab photos off the internet to use in school projects. What I object to is the teachers essentially telling them that "if it's on the internet it's free". If they're showing the kids how to go to IS, search for an image, download a "comp" and use it for nothing, that's not right.
-
I know that this is happening at a lot of schools, but I just wanted to add that at the college I go to, the Exit Portfolio class requires the purchase of GAG Handbook and Ethical Guidelines. We had several class discussions about copyright laws, intellectual property and contracts. When we discuss projects, the teacher recommends istockphoto (I need to take him aside and explain how unethical in their treatment of contributors they are) for stock photos. I am glad that he is setting a good example and he never suggests anyone just goes and grabs images. He also instills the fact that they are graduating with a good skill set and that is of some worth, and not to give themselves away for free.
I hope that other colleges, and I would hope that school districts as well, are doing this. But it can't happen if the teachers themselves are ignorant of the stock companies out there. sigh.
This is very good to hear. My daughter is taking art and design classes at college and her design teacher also requires the students to license the images, or else get permission from the copyright owners to use them.
I think this is probably commonplace, because I have gotten a number of requests over the years from "poor struggling students" to use my images for free. My standard reply is that the images cost money to create and I can't afford to give them away for free. Then I send them to a site where they can get what they need for a dollar or two. Even a poor student can afford $1-2. :)
-
... and 'Exit stage left' from RealOnlineMarketing, a customer since 2005;
"Back when, I thought the whole Vetta re-brand was a bit of a forced shank to the customer base, but seeing how as nearly every decent photo on the site costs 55 credits for a small-sized photo, I can't really support this service any more.
Good luck."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=328266&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=328266&page=1)
What you just have to love is the suggested 'workarounds' by PCC et al. They really, really don't get it do they?
-
... and 'Exit stage left' from RealOnlineMarketing, a customer since 2005;
"Back when, I thought the whole Vetta re-brand was a bit of a forced shank to the customer base, but seeing how as nearly every decent photo on the site costs 55 credits for a small-sized photo, I can't really support this service any more.
Good luck."
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=328266&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=328266&page=1[/url])
What you just have to love is the suggested 'workarounds' by PCC et al. They really, really don't get it do they?
But wait, I though istock wanted the non-ad agency, small potatoes, non-Vetta-purchasing buyers to leave. That's sure what it seems like to me these past months!
Yeah, the workarounds that are being posted are too funny.
-
funny, but from my stats I guess buyers already found an easier "workaround": it's called Shutterstock
-
funny, but from my stats I guess buyers already found an easier "workaround": it's called Shutterstock
Yeah, I so wanted to post that on the istock forum. It will get deleted immediately though, since PCC is in the house. ;)
-
I don't blame the exclusives for posting workarounds. What else can they do when their agent is making it so hard for buyers to find their images?
But yes, my sales at SS would certainly indicate that is the most popular and effective workaround.
-
And inevitably...thread locked.
-
What else can they do when their agent is making it so hard for buyers to find their images?
It doesn't help when their agent has a featured lightbox on the landing of a well known common industry term but then doesn't include that term in their CV!
iStockphoto latest lightbox 'Blank slate', but of course 'blank slate' isn't known to the iStockphoto CV ::)
I would really hate to be a regular buyer trying to find things there.
-
Right! they dont find it anymore! read my thread from saturday! a mail saying they cant find my oil-pipeline shots they had seen a few months back. So whats the point telling them about some stupid best match change.
Sold them the shots myself! 6 files, 20 bucks a piece, according to the size they wanted.
-
I would really hate to be a regular buyer trying to find things there.
Just how many buyers does Istock have to lose before it finally dawns on them that they have to do what the buyers want, not the other way around? If anything Istock appear to be hardening in their mentality they are are doing the buyers a favour by allowing them to license images at all.
IMHO Istock are now descending in a tailspin that they have no chance of recovering from without a complete u-turn in their attitude and probably a revision of their pricing structure too. A straw-poll of Diamond level contributors on Istock's 'April Stat's' thread suggests a loss of about 25-30% revenue over the last year and, what's worse, the downward trend didn't even start until after August/Sept. At this rate of decline sales might be down 50% by September 2011. No wonder they're holding off publishing the RC targets!
Staggering how greed can virtually destroy a $1B dot-com business within a few months. Getty destroyed their macro business by refusing to acknowledge changing technologies and now they've screwed their dominance of microstock too.
-
A straw-poll of Diamond level contributors on Istock's 'April Stat's' thread suggests a loss of about 25-30% revenue over the last year and, what's worse, the downward trend didn't even start until after August/Sept. At this rate of decline sales might be down 50% by September 2011. No wonder they're holding off publishing the RC targets!
I don't know if my pattern is typical, but for me the rot really set in on April 20 (with one very good day since then and the rest of them being rubbish). If the averages for those ten days turn out to be what happens throughout May, I will be down around 50% this month compared with last, and April was already down 30% on last year.
For where I'm sitting, a 50% year-on-year drop might look really good. 70% could be closer to the mark.
-
To put it into perspective. I alone, know 2 diamond exclusives who has quit exclusivity and 3 diamond independants who are leaving the ship before its sinking.
Thats just my knowledge, what about all the rest?
They dont care, the IS admin are petrified of loosing their jobs, you know wife, kids and all that, they would say yes to anything right now and their little runarounds, forum-moderators, etc, well they have just faded away, dont dare to open their mouth in case they get smacked on the buttocks.
Me? well I recon they have done me a favour really, I have just sold another 2, Tif-files as a matter of fact, just because they couldnt find them in low-res and over the years I have a personal contact with at least 60 buyers who at one time or another have bought my files.
-
ABDESIGN reports on the stats thread:
After buying thousands of images from this place over the years for the company I work for, we have finally moved on to other stock agencies and I think it shows that other buyers are moving on as well. Sad times here at istock.
-
ABDESIGN reports on the stats thread:
After buying thousands of images from this place over the years for the company I work for, we have finally moved on to other stock agencies and I think it shows that other buyers are moving on as well. Sad times here at istock.
Not surprising. I'm recommending the company I work for move stock shops, as well. After having to spend time on the site as a buyer, I found the experience so frustrating and unsavory that I think it's worth finding a new source for our images.
Time is money, and the way iStock's search works, they clearly don't value that of the buyer on either point. But on time in particular.
-
Spot on:
Posted By KW400:
I think this is what happens when you take a simple concept like selling stock photography at a good price and then, make it as complicated as humanly possible by a large number of price points and a horrible search.
Source:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=328242&page=10 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=328242&page=10)
-
ABDESIGN reports on the stats thread:
After buying thousands of images from this place over the years for the company I work for, we have finally moved on to other stock agencies and I think it shows that other buyers are moving on as well. Sad times here at istock.
Not surprising. I'm recommending the company I work for move stock shops, as well. After having to spend time on the site as a buyer, I found the experience so frustrating and unsavory that I think it's worth finding a new source for our images.
Time is money, and the way iStock's search works, they clearly don't value that of the buyer on either point. But on time in particular.
Couldn't agree more. After having to search on there for a client (would love to get them to switch as well) I finally had to use a different search option because I was getting so irritated with the number of V/A files.
-
BTW, for those of you who do have to search on iStock for work/clients, and who use Firefox or Chrome try Sean's collapse-o-matic greasemonkey script (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297012)that will let you keep the V/A files out of the way as you search. You're looking for IS_search_collectionSections.user.js (http://www.digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_search_collectionSections.user.js)
It's not a solution, but it makes things less painful in the meantime...
-
Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but it seems to explain why buyers are leaving and why sales stats are so bad at IS now.
Two posts from the IS April stats threads:
Lostinbids:
Is it any suprise that sales numbers are down when regualar images can't be seen. For the keyword baby there is only 67 regular (non-exclusive, exclusive and E+) images in the first 1000 search results. The majority is agency and vetta which will not sell as much because of the price.
ABDesign:
Wow, try do a search for landscape and filter by photos only. I only found 23 total images that weren't Agency, Vetta, or Exclusive Plus out of the first 1000 results. That means that only 2% of the search results out of the first 1000 were normal priced images. Unbelievable.
I went on and continued to search the next 1000 results for landscape and found out that only 52 out of the first 2000 results weren't Agency, Vetta, or Exclusive plus. Buyers are surely put off by this.
It certainly would explain why most of us are seeing such hideous drops in sales. :(
-
And presumably they are hard at work trying to pump more and more V and A priced files into the searches to displace the surviving ordinary-priced ones.
-
As a buyer I have NEVER sorted by best match - as it was always skewed towards exclusive content first, keywords second. So the current best match has no meaning to me. I sort first by downloads, which rarely shows any V or A files in the front of the search. And if it is a subject that I search for frequently I sort by file date (to see the newest stuff first).
I will not pay for a Vetta, Agency or even an E+ file. If I want to spend that kind of money I will go to Corbis, Alamy, Estock, AGE or even Getty. IS is microstock and it really pisses me off that there are so many price points and I have to look at camera icons before I can even look at the photo.
However, I wonder how many buyers have actually stopped buying from IS or if they are like me and ONLY buy regular priced images. How many buyers even know about the forums, let alone post in them. I find it hard to fathom that IS would blithely just go about shoving V+A down buyers throats if their attrition rate was more serious than the dozen buyers who have posted displeasure in the forums.
I guess what this long drone on post is about is, how bad can things be at IS if they just keep on keeping on with their move to midstock? I have read all the suppositions from others here but surely Getty/IS must have some kind of marketing research done that makes them think the move to midstock is good.
I am sure someone here will enlighten me, cuz I am too stoopid to see their (IS) logic. Why eff up a good thing?
-
snip
As a buyer I have NEVER sorted by best match - as it was always skewed towards exclusive content first, keywords second. So the current best match has no meaning to me. I sort first by downloads, which rarely shows any V or A files in the front of the search. And if it is a subject that I search for frequently I sort by file date (to see the newest stuff first).
That's exactly how I always search but apparently there must be a lot of buyers that do use the best match search. I can't imagine why...it's not about best match to the best image anymore, but best match to the best price that Getty/IS wants to make from an image.
-
snip
As a buyer I have NEVER sorted by best match - as it was always skewed towards exclusive content first, keywords second. So the current best match has no meaning to me. I sort first by downloads, which rarely shows any V or A files in the front of the search. And if it is a subject that I search for frequently I sort by file date (to see the newest stuff first).
That's exactly how I always search but apparently there must be a lot of buyers that do use the best match search. I can't imagine why...it's not about best match to the best image anymore, but best match to the best price that Getty/IS wants to make from an image.
Which is so frustrating. When I have to search there for clients now, which I so dread, I don't want to use downloads, because, in general, in never want to buy a photo that dozens/hundreds/thousands have downloaded before me. I'm using "File Age", but I'd rather see a mix of older and newer content, not just new stuff. That *used* to be Best Match. But now, it is as described above.
So basically, there is no great way to search at iStock. You have to keep switching around or dive several pages back - thereby missing a lot of images - and it's really annoying.
-
Snip
I guess what this long drone on post is about is, how bad can things be at IS if they just keep on keeping on with their move to midstock? I have read all the suppositions from others here but surely Getty/IS must have some kind of marketing research done that makes them think the move to midstock is good.
I am sure someone here will enlighten me, cuz I am too stoopid to see their (IS) logic. Why eff up a good thing?
----------------------------------------------
This is the $64 dollar question. Why are they doing what they are? We can only guess.
Logically it seems running their business this way produces the biggest profit or they would not do it. Obviously this path has medium and long term consequences if they go too far, which its seems to me they have.
Another possibility is the debt they took on last fall is crushing the company and they need to generate any cash flow they can now to stave off bankruptcy regardless of long term consequences.
An alternative is that they are trying to boost cashflow on the balance sheet getting Getty and/or Istock ready for a sale.
There is also the J. Klein cannibalism theory, if somebody is going to cannibalize your business it might as well be you. Say Getty has concluded that the future of low end micro is subscription based not pay per download, so to avoid shutterstock from eating their business they will eat it first. So they set up Thinkstock with a two year plan to migrate most istock content there. At the same time, Istock is elevated in the Getty portfolio to midstock as a brand, but its hollowed out as its only vetta and agency.
Another alternative is good old hubris. Istock has been amazingly successful despite itself. They got some things right early on and rode the wave for many years in spite of failing again and again at communicating effectively with contributors and buyers and rolling out bug filled features. Maybe they think that since they got it right in the past despite their poor execution and many contributor complaints, that this time they are right again because everyone is telling them they are wrong.
Another is they really are just crazy. ::)
-
Yes! and this is something that SS must start to consider. No doubt their aim is to amalgamate IS, into TS, one of the reasons they are spending a fortune on TS advertising. Dont forget the new Getty contract forces Getty photographers to make their images available through TS.
So when all this dodgy dealings are done, they will come gunning for SS, however I think the SS Admin, are way to clever to just stand by and watch this, they have probably got plenty up their sleeves.
The sad thing is, if all this happens, the market will be ruined, wrecked in fact by just small penny pinching subscriptions. It would mean the end of story for contributors.
-
This is the $64 dollar question. Why are they doing what they are? We can only guess.
Logically it seems running their business this way produces the biggest profit or they would not do it. Obviously this path has medium and long term consequences if they go too far, which its seems to me they have.
Another possibility is the debt they took on last fall is crushing the company and they need to generate any cash flow they can now to stave off bankruptcy regardless of long term consequences.
An alternative is that they are trying to boost cashflow on the balance sheet getting Getty and/or Istock ready for a sale.
There is also the J. Klein cannibalism theory, if somebody is going to cannibalize your business it might as well be you. Say Getty has concluded that the future of low end micro is subscription based not pay per download, so to avoid shutterstock from eating their business they will eat it first. So they set up Thinkstock with a two year plan to migrate most istock content there. At the same time, Istock is elevated in the Getty portfolio to midstock as a brand, but its hollowed out as its only vetta and agency.
Another alternative is good old hubris. Istock has been amazingly successful despite itself. They got some things right early on and rode the wave for many years in spite of failing again and again at communicating effectively with contributors and buyers and rolling out bug filled features. Maybe they think that since they got it right in the past despite their poor execution and many contributor complaints, that this time they are right again because everyone is telling them they are wrong.
Another is they really are just crazy. ::)
The truth probably lies in a mix of all these ideas. The "biggest profit" and "just crazy" theories seem to be strongest though. :-)
One thing that amazes me though is how big companies in general seem to get an idea that "this is the way the market will go" and then blindly follow that idea to the death.
It always looks to me as if someone high up has a pet theory, and can't possibly be wrong.
-
Hi Dave!
Its called tunnel-vision! walking around with blinkers, blindfold. this one-track mind is what finally grounded the SAAB motorcar ( thought their product was so good they were untouchable) meanwhile they just borrowed and bought and ultimately bit the dust.
rings a bell, doesnt it?
-
Hi Dave!
Its called tunnel-vision! walking around with blinkers, blindfold. this one-track mind is what finally grounded the SAAB motorcar ( thought their product was so good they were untouchable) meanwhile they just borrowed and bought and ultimately bit the dust.
rings a bell, doesnt it?
Hi Chris
Exactly. The British motorcycle industry has to be another classic example of this, "They'll buy what we tell them they want" thinking in the 60s and 70s. Henry Ford nearly did the same with the Model T, keeping it in production long after it's looks and technology were outdated because he thought the customers didn't need anything more modern.
The world moves on and woe betide any business that thinks they know better!
How does the other one go "He who knows no history is doomed to relive it"
-
Hi Dave!
Its called tunnel-vision! walking around with blinkers, blindfold. this one-track mind is what finally grounded the SAAB motorcar ( thought their product was so good they were untouchable) meanwhile they just borrowed and bought and ultimately bit the dust.
rings a bell, doesnt it?
Hi Chris
Exactly. The British motorcycle industry has to be another classic example of this, "They'll buy what we tell them they want" thinking in the 60s and 70s. Henry Ford nearly did the same with the Model T, keeping it in production long after it's looks and technology were outdated because he thought the customers didn't need anything more modern.
The world moves on and woe betide any business that thinks they know better!
How does the other one go "He who knows no history is doomed to relive it"
thats a great proverb and so true!
best.
-
The truth probably lies in a mix of all these ideas. The "biggest profit" and "just crazy" theories seem to be strongest though. :-)
I agree. Great theories Sadstock! Very well summed up.
To anyone who thinks that there is a method to all this madness - some clever plan in action - I would have thought the same at one time, but not now. Now I am convinced that Istock is indeed hemorrhaging buyers and TPTB are only interested in short term profits.
-
The truth probably lies in a mix of all these ideas. The "biggest profit" and "just crazy" theories seem to be strongest though. :-)
I agree. Great theories Sadstock! Very well summed up.
To anyone who thinks that there is a method to all this madness - some clever plan in action - I would have thought the same at one time, but not now. Now I am convinced that Istock is indeed hemorrhaging buyers and TPTB are only interested in short term profits.
I agree, there was a time when one tried to trace a plan, a method or something but, no, there isnt, its just greed, the same old worthless greed and quickly.
-
I'm still not convinced that THEY are making less money, but it sure seems to be hurting us, which ultimately is unsustainable (if that word means what I think it means). As they push wholly owned and expensive high %age (for them) content to the front, they might still be making more. Eventually that might bite them, or maybe they will manage to continue to make enough profit to get their bonuses.
-
No, at this moment they are probably drawing evens but thats not the point, wait until a years time! thats when it stars showing in this business.
-
Juanmonino made a good point with this post over at IS (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=328242&messageid=6366878).
It is obvious that they have a plan that will fill eventually IS of vettta, agency and who knows what other collections, it is matter of time. What they are doing is transfering traditional Getty overhere, few years ago, clients runned away from Getty to IS, now Getty is moving to IS to get their customers back. Looks like they have a different plan for nickel and dimes clients, they probably planned to move them to Thinkstock, together with most of the IS regular contributors. This is obvious, common sense, you have to be blind not to see it.
there is only one defense-solution, is to make much better quality stuff and cross your fingers and see if they are included in vetta collection. People with common pictures will eventually be out of the equation here, as more and more niches will be filled with outside collections.
-
^^Certainly seems plausible.
-
... except that now there are other sites to fled, no just TSF. That wasn't the situation at the beggining of IS. These other sites try to compete with IS basically offering lower prices, so this strategy could easily backfire. I think IS is just trying to have a mega site for all budgets and all file types.
-
I am quite shocked that the search results give such extreme preference to expensive images. istock has in effect then become a midstock site.
Getty has many midstock sites - punchstock, jupiterimages, getty itself etc...but istock was always a place for images that sell in high volume.
I love V/A, absolutely fantastic stuff, but they are usually too specific to be sold in high volume.
Instead of encouraging the buyers to leave, why not offer them a good visual solutions, like the one Hillaryfox suggested.
If the main purpose of istock now is to become a showstore for expensive images, this will alienate a lot of buyers who just need normal images for daily webdesign or powerpoint presentations.
As a buyer you don´t want to work with many different agencies, you want one place to fill all your needs, like amazon or ebay. istock has all the images for daily work plus the "luxury sports car" for the special occasion. But to keep your buyers interested respect their time and give them options to find quickly what they want.
If Juanmonino is right, then it would be very sad, because it means istock is actively encouraging the buyers to leave.
I just don´t understand the logic behind this?
-
I am quite shocked that the search results give such extreme preference to expensive images. istock has in effect then become a midstock site.
Getty has many midstock sites - punchstock, jupiterimages, getty itself etc...but istock was always a place for images that sell in high volume.
I love V/A, absolutely fantastic stuff, but they are usually too specific to be sold in high volume.
Instead of encouraging the buyers to leave, why not offer them a good visual solutions, like the one Hillaryfox suggested.
If the main purpose of istock now is to become a showstore for expensive images, this will alienate a lot of buyers who just need normal images for daily webdesign or powerpoint presentations.
As a buyer you don´t want to work with many different agencies, you want one place to fill all your needs, like amazon or ebay. istock has all the images for daily work plus the "luxury sports car" for the special occasion. But to keep your buyers interested respect their time and give them options to find quickly what they want.
If Juanmonino is right, then it would be very sad, because it means istock is actively encouraging the buyers to leave.
I just don´t understand the logic behind this?
I just experienced buyer search frustration looking for a car. Cars.com is straightforward. You can filter and sort however you like. Autotrader.com is a pain. They have several tiers of search results by sponsors, preferred, and then regular listings. So for each search you need to wade through page after page trying to find the search results at the different levels. Not exactly the same as IS, but it's still forcefed search results that waste time and create frustration for the buyer while trying to make more money for the site.
-
Maybe the logic is in the money. Maybe this strategy really works and brings in more money for Getty.
I would have thought that for image buyers to able to sort by price is important, but perhaps I am underestimating the budgets.
-
Maybe the logic is in the money. Maybe this strategy really works and brings in more money for Getty.
I would have thought that for image buyers to able to sort by price is important, but perhaps I am underestimating the budgets.
I think this might be a situation where you're shoring up declining volume with higher prices. In the short term it probably appears to be "fixing" the problem of growth being at much lower levels - as long as you measure only the money, not the sales volume. In the long term though, if the loss of volume is in part though loss of customers as well as fewer downloads from those who stay, and you see that some of the new customers who drifted over from Getty Images for Agency drift away after trying the new site, you may see (too late) the full effect of what appeared to be a good move up front.
The other thing is that we don't know how Getty is measuring performance. If they're looking at something specific, not overall profit, IS management will be trying to meet whatever measurement Getty has set.
I had someone who worked for me years ago tell of his former boss who turned down a profitable acquisition for his division - that even he admitted would be a long term win for the company - because its gross margins were low. The former boss was measured on the division's gross margin which would have declined for a while if he went ahead with the acquisition. Incentives and measuring are great, but you have to be very careful or you get these sorts of horrendously bad things happening for the longer term or overall "good".
-
This just doesn't seem like istock any more. I wonder if someone will start a rival site that's like the old istock? The previous owners might of singed something to stop them doing that but if so many people liked the old istock but can't get on with this one, I wonder if they might end up doing something to get back to the site they loved.
-
This just doesn't seem like istock any more. I wonder if someone will start a rival site that's like the old istock? The previous owners might of singed something to stop them doing that but if so many people liked the old istock but can't get on with this one, I wonder if they might end up doing something to get back to the site they loved.
Too late. I think SS have already 're-invented' microstock ... by doing virtually nothing whilst all around were losing their heads.
Microstock was based on cheap images, all at the same price, selling in large volumes to a grateful public. As far as SS are concerned ... it still is.
-
Maybe the logic is in the money. Maybe this strategy really works and brings in more money for Getty.
They have always been focused on where things are going ultimately - they have a very markets based analysis to what they see as focusing on what will become inevitable (anticipating what will be inevitable). That definitely is not going to make all photographers happy but it is potentially realistic. I think they see image in terms of commodities and markets (the patterns and trends I mean).
They said a while back that subscription is going to be the big part of the strategy (same as the music industry will go but maybe but for slightly different reasons). I think they are probably anticipating the, more or less, end of print and a world in which blogs and magazines merge. I would guess that they believe that they know where the market is going. Whether or not everyone goes with them. It is very possible that they anticipate a world of posh stock for special projects and anything else depends upon keeping your subscription up to date.
For the most part this is commercial stock we are talking about here. Not contemporary reportage or gallery art. It is, ultimately, business. People need to be realistic or even to invent their own alternative niche models if that works for them.
I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of this by the way. But there is a sort of inevitability about it all.
-
Microstock was based on cheap images, all at the same price, selling in large volumes to a grateful public. As far as Shutterstock are concerned ... it still is.
Shutterstock was about subscriptions. It seem likely that this where much of the business will be. Lots of photographers are going to have a tough time liking that - but even if they try to invent alternative models they are going to have to realise that for lots of image consumers subscription is going to be a very attractive model.
-
" I think they see image in terms of commodities and markets (the patterns and trends I mean)."
I absolutely and totally hope the approach is completely market based!
But sometimes companies come up with a plan what the customers "should" do and only when it gets really painful and the damage is done, will they refocus. Just like Getty missed the original change that came with the internet and had to buy istock to keep up with the times.
The internet demands huge amounts of daily changing images. Millions of new buyers are coming into the stock market because more countries have economies that are recovering or their countries are moving up economically (China,India). However, I doubt that these very, very large markets can be reached with images where the lowest price is 55 Dollars. Same for daily web use.
Shutterstock has existed for a long time and maybe Thinkstock will bite into it´s market share, but most agencies are offering pay as you go models, which is probably the easiest way to reach a large number of buyers.
As a contributor I have fully embraced the volume model. My studio and work are designed to produce generic images with a wide appeal, not artistic photography.
If istock has changed it´s direction towards midstock/less generic/expensive then I will have to change my business plan. Of course I can do that, but I will need to find a new niche and new buyers.
Back to the camera...
-
Here's a piece from Forbes (http://blogs.forbes.com/adamhartung/2011/05/03/why-not-all-earnings-are-equal-and-microsoft-has-the-wal-mart-disease/) that may apply. It's about Microsoft and Apple and why, despite similar earnings and profit, the market thinks Apple's worth a whole lot more as an investment. In brief, the idea is that once you stop growing, you start taking actions that shore up your balance sheet but don't do anything for the company's long term prospects. Sound familiar?
-
Getty missed the original change that came with the internet and had to buy istock to keep up with the times.
I think that this is how the story gets told but I do not believe it is accurate. They had always been buying the best stuff since the 90s.
The problems which they had run into were different. The problems were absolutely related to being a public company at at time when answering to stock holders expectations had become an hinderance to their focus on the future and also a big PITA. So much stuff was changing and looking over their shoulder to see what CNBC was saying might not have been the best way forward.
I'm not arguing the rights or wrongs of this and there may not be any. On the one hand great photographers make fantastic images. On the other hand there are markets. It's two things which sometimes sit awkwardly.
-
@bunhill
That is very interesting. It would be very reassuring actually if the reason they didn´t adapt sooner was because of short term shareholder influences, not a lack of market vision.
@disorderly
That is a very nice comparison. Although istock does continue to innovate/add new markets (editorial, Agency...)
I am not against V/A at all, just very worried about growth and losing buyers. They won´t go to Thinkstock, they will go elsewhere. Here in Germany Fotolia seems to be the market leader. At least from my own personal impressions when looking at websites.
For myself, the best I can do is somehow find time to shoot. The drop in my portfolio is my own fault, not istocks. But with all the news and the V/A dominance of searches I wonder if I should try so hard to find time for it. If even Sean can´t increase his income with 2000 new files (and probably lots of Vettas), what can I do?
I will not quit exclusivity, but maybe look at other things I can do with the studio.
-
The problems which they had run into were different. The problems were absolutely related to being a public company at at time when answering to stock holders expectations had become an hinderance to their focus on the future and also a big PITA. So much stuff was changing and looking over their shoulder to see what CNBC was saying might not have been the best way forward.
Huh? How do all the other thousands of publically quoted companies manage then? If you don't like answering to shareholders then give them their money back and take it private again. That's what Branson did for example.
What you fail to accept is that Getty have a lot of form over recent years in screwing up businesses (including their own). The reason they are now private is because the shareholders opted to sell out before the Getty management lost any more of their money for them. Getty simply refused to recognise changing times, technologies or markets until too late and insisted on doing things in the same old way that had once been successful. They are now applying their 'methods' to Istock too with what looks like disastrous consequences.
-
Here's a piece from Forbes ([url]http://blogs.forbes.com/adamhartung/2011/05/03/why-not-all-earnings-are-equal-and-microsoft-has-the-wal-mart-disease/[/url]) that may apply. It's about Microsoft and Apple and why, despite similar earnings and profit, the market thinks Apple's worth a whole lot more as an investment. In brief, the idea is that once you stop growing, you start taking actions that shore up your balance sheet but don't do anything for the company's long term prospects. Sound familiar?
Cracking observation Disorderly!
-
I am not failing to accept anything Gostwyck. I am not seeing this as a right or wrong thing. I don't have a vested interest and this is not team sports. I am not a Getty fan. Nor am I an un-fan. They seem to approach stock how other people approach financial markets. That is definitely interesting.
Getty was taken private. It did not fail. It simply failed to meet unrealistic expectations at a certain point. Go back and look at the reports from that time for clarification. Lots of good earners went private about that time.
I am neither supporting nor attacking anything. I am basically neutral but interested.
-
Getty was taken private. It did not fail. It simply failed to meet unrealistic expectations at a certain point. Go back and look at the reports from that time for clarification. Lots of good earners went private about that time.
Of course Getty 'failed'. If I remember correctly the stock value went from about 90c to barely above 20c in little more than a year. That's the value the market placed on Getty not just their shareholders. When H&F popped up and offered a significant premium on the share price the shareholders grabbed it __ because their other option was to lose yet more money.
Being bought out on the cheap when the share price has fallen to the floor is most definitely 'failure'. The only way you can fail more than that is to so destroy a business that no-one will buy it at all.
-
@bunhill
That is very interesting. It would be very reassuring actually if the reason they didn´t adapt sooner was because of short term shareholder influences, not a lack of market vision.
@disorderly
That is a very nice comparison. Although istock does continue to innovate/add new markets (editorial, Agency...)
I am not against V/A at all, just very worried about growth and losing buyers. They won´t go to Thinkstock, they will go elsewhere. Here in Germany Fotolia seems to be the market leader. At least from my own personal impressions when looking at websites.
For myself, the best I can do is somehow find time to shoot. The drop in my portfolio is my own fault, not istocks. But with all the news and the V/A dominance of searches I wonder if I should try so hard to find time for it. If even Sean can´t increase his income with 2000 new files (and probably lots of Vettas), what can I do?
I will not quit exclusivity, but maybe look at other things I can do with the studio.
I'm not so sure they are continuing to innovate. hasn't editorial been available at other stock site for awhile now? Isn't Agency just a move of Getty agency work to iStock? and Vetta.. that may be innovative, but I think artistic type photos like Vetta have been available at Getty and other agencies for awhile now. Adding new categories and price points, they have done, yes. But I dont think I'd call them innovative. It seems to be slipping into desperation mode to save what they had. I think "innovation" left with Bruce.
-
This just doesn't seem like istock any more. I wonder if someone will start a rival site that's like the old istock? The previous owners might of singed something to stop them doing that but if so many people liked the old istock but can't get on with this one, I wonder if they might end up doing something to get back to the site they loved.
Too late. I think Shutterstock have already 're-invented' microstock ... by doing virtually nothing whilst all around were losing their heads.
Microstock was based on cheap images, all at the same price, selling in large volumes to a grateful public. As far as Shutterstock are concerned ... it still is.
And 123RF and Stockfresh. They seem to be maintaining the old model for the moment. Dreamstime is drifting away as well.
-
I'm not so sure they are continuing to innovate. hasn't editorial been available at other stock site for awhile now? Isn't Agency just a move of Getty agency work to iStock? and Vetta.. that may be innovative, but I think artistic type photos like Vetta have been available at Getty and other agencies for awhile now. Adding new categories and price points, they have done, yes. But I dont think I'd call them innovative. It seems to be slipping into desperation mode to save what they had. I think "innovation" left with Bruce.
Exactly. What's innovative about mid-stock? It's a business plan that has been tried, and failed several times before ...*cough* iStockPro *cough* ...
-
...Microstock was based on cheap images, all at the same price, selling in large volumes to a grateful public. As far as Shutterstock are concerned ... it still is.
And 123RF and Stockfresh. They seem to be maintaining the old model for the moment. Dreamstime is drifting away as well.
Where are you shopping these days (out of curiosity)? I applied to Stockfresh (which feels a lot like StockXpert did, unsurprisingly) as I thought it had some potential (even though it's early days). What do you like about 123rf as a buyer?
-
...Microstock was based on cheap images, all at the same price, selling in large volumes to a grateful public. As far as Shutterstock are concerned ... it still is.
And 123RF and Stockfresh. They seem to be maintaining the old model for the moment. Dreamstime is drifting away as well.
Where are you shopping these days (out of curiosity)? I applied to Stockfresh (which feels a lot like StockXpert did, unsurprisingly) as I thought it had some potential (even though it's early days). What do you like about 123rf as a buyer?
Simple pricing structure - 1, 2, 3 4, 5 and some pricier options for TIFFs and really huge files (which don't bother me). They do have a premium collection, but it is very clearly marked and you can exclude it. Credits at the lowest package are $1 = 1 credit and they go down from there. Unless I'm mistaken, it looks like contributors get a 50% royalty rate. Quality of photos looks to be the same as at the other sites. Search can return some irrelevant results sometimes, but I'll live with it.
-
Of course Getty 'failed'. If I remember correctly the stock value went from about 90c to barely above 20c in little more than a year. That's the value the market placed on Getty not just their shareholders.
The 2008 privatization valued the stock at $34. It had been trading at appx $24 and went to over $31 as the deal was announced. That's dollar$ not cents ! The previous year (2007) Getty had announced profits of $33 million up 43%. Profits were increasing but the stock price was falling. I've done the Googling :)
The stock had been taking a hammering on the markets because the company was very much in the process of re structuring and because the business was changing yet again - the jobs losses etc. That affected profits growth expectations (unrealistic) and sentiment.
Sometimes markets over value a stock. Analysts had been saying that the stock was over valued based on the P/E ratio back to 2005 at least etc - also noting that the price of pictures was falling and that this threatened the business. Not many investors want to hold stock if the short term outlook is less than exciting. If you look at it like that then the slide in the stock price would have represented a re adjustment rather than a failure. But it is very difficult for a business to operate under that sort of intense stockholder scrutiny. Lots of businesses went private at about that time and not because they were failing. It was also a time when private equity was very much in the business of buying companies which seemed to be undervalued. Though the business of pictures was completely and dramatically changing. As it is again today.
I'm not shilling for Getty here. But I think it is a much more interesting and subtle picture than is sometimes represented. I don't think it serves anyone well if we trade in inaccurate or hazy recollections.
-
Another buyer on the verge of bailing:
what! I am up to my eyeballs in projects and I have to waste my valuable time sifting thru all of these Vetta and Agency images. My customers will not pay me for this wasted time. It seems that it has gotten REALLY BAD this week and it is REALLY pissing me off. I was forced to charge a customer for a 150 credit image recently because I didn't see that it was an Agency image. We didn't have time to find a different image, so it made me look like an idiot. I realize that you need to offer more professional and more expensive images, but PLEASE let me exclude them from my searches. If this doesn't get fixed SOON, I will take my business elsewhere!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=292112&page=2#post6369518 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=292112&page=2#post6369518)
-
Here in Germany Fotolia seems to be the market leader. At least from my own personal impressions when looking at websites.
Yes, Germany is a strong market for Fotolia. Back when they published buyers' data, over 50% of my FT sales were from Germany - and the rest mainly from the UK and France.
-
I was forced to charge a customer for a 150 credit image recently because I didn't see that it was an Agency image.
This has to be music to the ears of people at IS. It tells them this plan is working exactly as intended.
-
I was forced to charge a customer for a 150 credit image recently because I didn't see that it was an Agency image.
This has to be music to the ears of people at IS. It tells them this plan is working exactly as intended.
Very short sighted though. I doubt she, or most others, will make that mistake again.
-
I was forced to charge a customer for a 150 credit image recently because I didn't see that it was an Agency image.
This has to be music to the ears of people at IS. It tells them this plan is working exactly as intended.
Very short sighted though. I doubt she, or most others, will make that mistake again.
I have to wonder if that is how many (most?) Agency (and Vetta?) pics are getting sales. People don't shop at microstock *expecting* to see those kinds of prices.
-
I was forced to charge a customer for a 150 credit image recently because I didn't see that it was an Agency image.
This has to be music to the ears of people at IS. It tells them this plan is working exactly as intended.
Very short sighted though. I doubt she, or most others, will make that mistake again.
I have to wonder if that is how many (most?) Agency (and Vetta?) pics are getting sales. People don't shop at microstock *expecting* to see those kinds of prices.
Well istock does have a nice return policy so in some cases, when it is not a last minute "gotta have it now and use it immediately" thing, buyers can fill out the destruction document and get their money/credits back.
-
Well istock does have a nice return policy so in some cases, when it is not a last minute "gotta have it now and use it immediately" thing, buyers can fill out the destruction document and get their money/credits back.
Possibly, but I bet most buyers don't realize they can do that and are just resigned to the fact that the prices are more expensive than they thought. I recently had a client send me some photos from iStock, clearly not realizing there are various collections, and their comment was, "iStock is really expensive!". I also had another client who I had to instruct on the different price levels and to avoid the blue and gold cameras and the crown with the '+', especially since they will be buying multiple high res images. If I didn't tell them, they would not have known.
-
Here's another one. "Look Mum, no Hans" you might say.
"One things is sure, I often bought from istock photo, but now I just can't afford with the high Vetta prices, so will shope at other websites. What's silly, is that some of the photos that where a while ago at low prices are now 10x more, you're joking or ?
bye istockphoto,
Hans"
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=292112&page=2 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=292112&page=2)
-
None of this is conclusive. Personal accounts of shockingly bad days at iStock, including mine, are not conclusive either. Alexa traffic data is not conclusive. The only way to establish buyer behaviour reliably enough is with market research, and this can be done by one person. Call 10 design and ad agencies from large to small and read this:
"Hello, my name is Joe Bloggs and I'm calling on behalf of a group of iStockphoto contributors to establish current buyer trends. I have three questions for you that won't take more than sixty seconds of your time. Firstly, are you currently spending more with iStock than you did last year, or are you spending less? Secondly, are you spending more on stock photography generally now than last year, or less? Thirdly, in the foreseeable future, will you be spending more with iStock or less? Thank you for your time."
It helps if this done by someone with experience of market research, so they can answer questions if a conversation develops. This matters if you have to explain some legal aspects, such as their answers being confidential, no data being shared, data used in aggregate only, etc.
Unfortunately, I can't do it myself - if circumstances were different, I would. But seriously, we're at such a worrying stage of things at iStock now, we need concrete data. Someone should do this. Or better yet, team up with one or two friends, have a market research 'lypse. Just do it. And report back here. Please! :)
EDIT: If you're minded to do this but lack the confidence, start a new thread and I and others will help you iron out your text, answers to questions that might come up.
-
Call 10 design and ad agencies from large to small and read this:
Oh dear.
-
Of course Getty 'failed'. If I remember correctly the stock value went from about 90c to barely above 20c in little more than a year. That's the value the market placed on Getty not just their shareholders.
The 2008 privatization valued the stock at $34. It had been trading at appx $24 and went to over $31 as the deal was announced. That's dollar$ not cents ! The previous year (2007) Getty had announced profits of $33 million up 43%. Profits were increasing but the stock price was falling. I've done the Googling :)
The stock had been taking a hammering on the markets because the company was very much in the process of re structuring and because the business was changing yet again - the jobs losses etc. That affected profits growth expectations (unrealistic) and sentiment.
Sometimes markets over value a stock. Analysts had been saying that the stock was over valued based on the P/E ratio back to 2005 at least etc - also noting that the price of pictures was falling and that this threatened the business. Not many investors want to hold stock if the short term outlook is less than exciting. If you look at it like that then the slide in the stock price would have represented a re adjustment rather than a failure. But it is very difficult for a business to operate under that sort of intense stockholder scrutiny. Lots of businesses went private at about that time and not because they were failing. It was also a time when private equity was very much in the business of buying companies which seemed to be undervalued. Though the business of pictures was completely and dramatically changing. As it is again today.
I'm not shilling for Getty here. But I think it is a much more interesting and subtle picture than is sometimes represented. I don't think it serves anyone well if we trade in inaccurate or hazy recollections.
At the time, I was a pretty big holder of getty stock, so i remember very well what the problem was. Getty was making it's earnings, but the percentage of earnings from royalty free was increasing dramatically. The analysts rightly could see that the RM cash cow was dying. Getty's stock was in the 90's at the high point as I recall, but the growth in profits was slipping, and they had no convincing plan to turn that around. They still don't, they're just lurching from one fiasco to the next. Buying Istock could never make up the profit lost from RM, especially with the high prices paid for acquisitions whose value dropped by the day. ( I'm talking here about tony Stone, Photodisc, etc- legacy RM and RF models that Istock killed). They were and are a victim of technology. Now , of course, Istock and it's contributors are in the process of learning that the world changes whether you like it or not. As for being owned by shareholders, it's an article of faith that shareholders have short term expectations, but in the long run, publicly held companies fare much better than privately held ones, where the private owners are not really owners, just short term opportunists. Corbis is an example of a privately held company run for the long term. Getty is an example of the opposite.
-
And 123RF and Stockfresh. They seem to be maintaining the old model for the moment. Dreamstime is drifting away as well.
I hope Peter and the rest of the SF team realize the opportunity they have here. istock and others are drifting quickly away from the business model that drew people to microstock in the first place: affordable, common-sense priced images, sold under a simple credit system where a credit actually equals $1. Not very many companies are adhering to that model any more, and I'm sure it wasn't the buyers requesting these expensive collections, varying pricing models, and expensive credits. Ultimately if buyers realize that they can get back to the old, simple, more affordable systems by moving their business to other companies, for the first time in a long time the door may be wide open for someone to come in and take the popularity crown from istock.
We've been saying for years that there's not much hope for any new microstock companies to succeed. And that was true while istock had such a firm grasp on the market. Today it's a different story, though. I don't think istock is the market leader anymore, and I think there is a window of opportunity currently open for companies like SF to take some of the market share away from istock.
If they market themselves right. They can't come out with the same dull magazine ads and online campaigns that everyone else is doing. They need to just go for the gut. Come right out and say it, that they're a microstock company like microstock companies were 5 years ago, with simple pricing, excellent images, and no B.S. They're not istock, and for good reason. People will respond to that, especially these frustrated and disillusioned istock buyers.
-
istock and others are drifting quickly away from the business model that drew people to microstock in the first place: affordable, common-sense priced images, sold under a simple credit system where a credit actually equals $1. Not very many companies are adhering to that model any more, and I'm sure it wasn't the buyers requesting these expensive collections, varying pricing models, and expensive credits. Ultimately if buyers realize that they can get back to the old, simple, more affordable systems by moving their business to other companies, for the first time in a long time the door may be wide open for someone to come in and take the popularity crown from istock.
I'd agree entirely. SS are doing incredibly well by simply not being greedy and largely sticking to the proven basic business model. I also think that the time is ripe for a new entrant or two.
-
The problem seems to be that buyers stick to one or two sites and they really don't like moving over to the newer ones. It might help if we all spread the word about sites like Stockfresh and Graphic Leftovers on twitter and facebook etc. I think we should also do as much as we can to highlight that we aren't happy with the commission cuts and other shenanigans that have spoilt our relationship with several of the older sites.
-
this just in...another buyer --
Quote from designcentric at http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329630&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329630&page=1)
Since Getty purchased iStock and has steadily been increasing the prices of the photos I've pretty much jumped ship. It's funny what happens when corporate greed gets inserted into a good community concept—it kills it. Take notice Getty Corp, I used to spend thousands of dollars buying photos, now it's been reduced to less than hundreds. Don't assume your users are simply dumb frogs that can be boiled if you turn up the heat slowly. Everyone notices and I've almost stopped using your product.
The Getty management team needs to be ejected.
-
I think that when customers say Istock is greedy, they are also saying we, photographers, are greedy as well. Very few of them show concern for what commision we get; most of them only mind the price they have to pay. And there are different kinds of clients. Well, I prefer to be "greedy", sell my files cheap but no so cheap at the price of selling less. Consider that I would need about 688 subscription sales (at average of 0.30) to match what I've done until now today just with Vetta and Agency files (all larger sizes, all 20% discounted).
-
I think that when customer say Istock is greedy, they are also saying we, photographers, are greedy as well. Very few of them show concern for what commision we get; most of them only mind the price they have to pay. And there are different kinds of clients. Well, I prefer to be "greedy", sell my files cheap but no so cheap at the price of selling less. Consider that I would need about 688 subscription sales (at average of 0.30) to match what I've done until now today just with Vetta and Agency files (all larger sizes, all 20% discounted).
I don't think most customers distinguish between photographer and the company (istock in this case). They see the product, it's sold by istock, istock charges too much for it. period. they don't go beyond that and think about the fact that there's another party in all this and that's the photographer who gets their small cut of that sales price.
-
Another one here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329638&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329638&page=1)
"I would like iStockPhoto's website to inform me if I have already purchased a photo, even 2 years ago. I have started buying elsewhere since it is too easy to buy the same photos again and waste money. I have too many purchased photos to go through everytime I make a new purchase----so I am taking business elsehwhere until this is fixed and your site is more user-friendly."
That's a slightly odd one. Do the other agencies always tell people if they've bought an image before? Even Amazon doesn't do that!
Later: I see SuperSean has replied with a Greasemonkey script which does that. I can only echo Peregrina: where does he get the time to even learn how to do that stuff far less actually do it.
-
It's hardly a bug or a con-trick, is it? If you can't be bothered to check what you've got on file, then I don't see why it is iStock's job to do that for you.
-
Even Amazon doesn't do that!
Yes it does. Try buying something you've bought previously (when logged in) and it should flash up a yellow warning banner.
-
Another one here: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329638&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329638&page=1[/url])
"I would like iStockPhoto's website to inform me if I have already purchased a photo, even 2 years ago. I have started buying elsewhere since it is too easy to buy the same photos again and waste money. I have too many purchased photos to go through everytime I make a new purchase----so I am taking business elsehwhere until this is fixed and your site is more user-friendly."
That's a slightly odd one. Do the other agencies always tell people if they've bought an image before? Even Amazon doesn't do that!
Later: I see SuperSean has replied with a Greasemonkey script which does that. I can only echo Peregrina: where does he get the time to even learn how to do that stuff far less actually do it.
actually Amazon does tell me -- check this out on something I bought in 1998!
-
It's hardly a bug or a con-trick, is it? If you can't be bothered to check what you've got on file, then I don't see why it is iStock's job to do that for you.
true, but excellent customer service. Which is why Amazon is still on top and iStock is slipping - fast.
-
Which is why Amazon is still on top and iStock is slipping - fast.
True. I am staggered at just how quickly they are screwing Istock up. They had a virtual stranglehold over a mouth-wateringly profitable industry ... and now they haven't.
-
It's hardly a bug or a con-trick, is it? If you can't be bothered to check what you've got on file, then I don't see why it is iStock's job to do that for you.
true, but excellent customer service. Which is why Amazon is still on top and iStock is slipping - fast.
Ah - Amazon UK doesn't do it. I accidentally bought something I'd previously bought a couple of years ago, and I just checked just now with something I bought last year, and there was no warning.
-
Ah - Amazon UK doesn't do it. I accidentally bought something I'd previously bought a couple of years ago, and I just checked just now with something I bought last year, and there was no warning.
Yes it does. It has to be the identical product though.
-
Ah - Amazon UK doesn't do it. I accidentally bought something I'd previously bought a couple of years ago, and I just checked just now with something I bought last year, and there was no warning.
Yes it does. It has to be the identical product though.
and make sure you're logged in.
-
Ah - Amazon UK doesn't do it. I accidentally bought something I'd previously bought a couple of years ago, and I just checked just now with something I bought last year, and there was no warning.
Yes it does. It has to be the identical product though.
and make sure you're logged in.
I'll take your word for it, though I've now tried a few without success.
However, which other micros do this?
-
It's hardly a bug or a con-trick, is it? If you can't be bothered to check what you've got on file, then I don't see why it is iStock's job to do that for you.
true, but excellent customer service. Which is why Amazon is still on top and iStock is slipping - fast.
Another (probably more important) factor is that Amazon's prices are very good and its best match seems to sort by closest subject rather than highest price first.
Anyone who gets upset just over not being told they've bought something earlier clearly hasn't been staying in touch with iStock's priorities recently. An agency/vetta filter would be much more valuable to customers than a "bought previously" warning.
-
Ah - Amazon UK doesn't do it. I accidentally bought something I'd previously bought a couple of years ago, and I just checked just now with something I bought last year, and there was no warning.
Yes it does. It has to be the identical product though.
and make sure you're logged in.
I'll take your word for it, though I've now tried a few without success.
However, which other micros do this?
If you go to download an already downloaded image on Shutterstock it shows a dialog box that you are downloading under a previous license and you can download it again (if you want) without it coming off your daily total. This feature is great as sometimes I need a larger size than a colleague downloaded previously or I have accidentally deleted an image. We have four designers and this feature also let's us know if someone else in the office already bought it.
Thinkstock does the same thing.
I can't speak to the other micro sites.
As to the prices at IS, got no problem with Vetta or Agency, I just take issue with not having the ability to exclude them in my searches. I really think this is what sticks in the buyers craw, having them shoved down our throats.
-
Istock were the No.1 microstock site. I think their biggest mistake has been to move away from microstock. The collections that they have put on the first pages of their search are midstock, so now they're the No.1 midstock site but that looks like a much less lucrative market.
They might still have a chance to fix this but it's hard to see them doing a big u-turn now. Perhaps we're all wrong and they have the best strategy to increase their profits but loosing loyal buyers to their rivals looks really risky and they are vulnerable to the lower cost sites. Istock severely damaged Getty with microstock and it looks like istock now has the same problem. They might think all their buyers that still want microstock prices will go to thinkstock but it's looking like they prefer SS.
Perhaps the biggest surprise for me is how loyal contributors and buyers have been to istock. They are having to work really hard to lose their market dominance. I thought more contributors wouldn't accept the lowest commissions being cut and I thought more buyers would of moved to lower priced sites by now.
-
Here's another. Same old story;
"I appreciate all the input, I understand that istockphoto needs to make money but it seems like in the past year it has gotten absurd. Much higher pricing and difficult search options have cause me to not only search istockphoto but as well as other stock art options, where as before I would just go to this site for all my stock."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1)
-
I wonder if that thread is going to get the "Sorry. Good luck" lock.
-
Say good-bye to jerryleeg:
I've been using istock extensively for years and when the last of my credits run out, I'm going to have to move on. With no way to sort by price and no improvements to the search functionality, trying to find a suitable image at a price I or my clients would be willing to pay has become such a time consuming and frustrating chore. Thankfully, not all of istock's competitors have chosen greed over usability.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1)
-
Say good-bye to jerryleeg:
I've been using istock extensively for years and when the last of my credits run out, I'm going to have to move on. With no way to sort by price and no improvements to the search functionality, trying to find a suitable image at a price I or my clients would be willing to pay has become such a time consuming and frustrating chore. Thankfully, not all of istock's competitors have chosen greed over usability.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1[/url])
Not goodbye, hello jerry, welcome to ShutterStock, Dreamstime, Fotolia...wherever you end up :)
-
Say good-bye to jerryleeg:
I've been using istock extensively for years and when the last of my credits run out, I'm going to have to move on. With no way to sort by price and no improvements to the search functionality, trying to find a suitable image at a price I or my clients would be willing to pay has become such a time consuming and frustrating chore. Thankfully, not all of istock's competitors have chosen greed over usability.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1[/url])
This sort of thing is 'unsustainable'. At what point will Istock actually realise it and attempt to turn the ship around? The 'How was your May' reports should make interesting reading on the Istock forum ... for SS anyway.
Message from Jon Oringer - "Return home Agent Thompson. Mission complete"
-
Message from Jon Oringer - "Return home Agent Thompson. Mission complete"
LOL! ;D
-
Say good-bye to jerryleeg:
I've been using istock extensively for years and when the last of my credits run out, I'm going to have to move on. With no way to sort by price and no improvements to the search functionality, trying to find a suitable image at a price I or my clients would be willing to pay has become such a time consuming and frustrating chore. Thankfully, not all of istock's competitors have chosen greed over usability.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1[/url])
This sort of thing is 'unsustainable'. At what point will Istock actually realise it and attempt to turn the ship around? The 'How was your May' reports should make interesting reading on the Istock forum ... for Shutterstock anyway.
Message from Jon Oringer - "Return home Agent Thompson. Mission complete"
I fear it may well end up being "too little too late" by the time they decide to turn the ship around they will already be crashing into that large part of the iceberg that they refuse to acknowledge existence of.
-
None of us really know if they are replacing the income lost by buyers leaving with the extra money that people are paying for the premium collection images. They would of known that the higher prices would be too much for a proportion of their buyers and they don't seem concerned about it. Then there's the commission cut, that might offset some loss from buyers leaving. They might find it harder if contributors stopped uploading new images or removed their portfolios but that hasn't happened on a big scale.
I think they would be forced to change direction if enough buyers and contributors stopped using the site but it looks like the numbers are too small to be significant. The monthly earnings thread is difficult to asses because one big contributor that has a good month could contract 50 small contributors that complain in that thread. I think we need someone inside Getty/istock to spill the beans.
-
None of us really know if they are replacing the income lost by buyers leaving with the extra money that people are paying for the premium collection images.
There are a few indicators. They reduced the RC targets at the end of last year presumably because sales were less than they projected (just 3 months earlier).
Also, in the latest best match shuffle, Vetta/Agency images are significantly less dominant suggesting that things weren't quite working out how they had hoped.
The introduction of P+ looks like a knee-jerk reaction to shore up falling revenues and to save the embarrassment of having to reduce RC targets yet further.
Then there's everyone's statistics ... Let's see how many Diamond level contributors report increases in revenue in May, particularly over May 2010. (Btw, income at SS looks like being up about 40% over the same period without any price increases to help. Coincidence?).
-
Just found another one from June 8:
Absolutely give us a filter. I have many clients who will not pay for images at this level, nor will they pay me for the time I spend sifting through 100s of Vett pics to get one that is in their budget. I am effectively excluded from iStockphoto after years of use. Thanks a million- not. What a joke.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=292112&page=2 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=292112&page=2)
-
This one too, from the same thread. Ouch.
For my one-off project, Vetta were the only photos that met my criteria. However, I did not buy because of the pricing. 30 credits would be just fine, but I can buy only 26 ($39.50) or 38 (26 + 12 for $58) or 50 ($75).
Every Vetta photo seemed to start at 30 credits, so why isn't there a 30-credit option?
I got the feeling that I was being manipulated into buying more credits than I needed and more than I would likely use, which pissed me off. So I didn't buy anything.
iStock try to manipulate buyers? Noooo. ::)
-
And another says goodbye:
One things is sure, I often bought from istock photo, but now I just can't afford with the high Vetta prices, so will shope at other websites. What's silly, is that some of the photos that where a while ago at low prices are now 10x more, you're joking or ?
bye istockphoto,
Hans
-
What continues to be disturbing is the silence from Istock....almost admitting they could care less about bailing buyers. Very strange.
-
What continues to be disturbing is the silence from Istock....almost admitting they could care less about bailing buyers. Very strange.
Looks more to me as though they couldn't care less.
I suspect they have got target buyers, with larger budgets.
If I go into Debenham's (or Macy's) with an own-brand budget, how much would the designer departments care if I said, "Yours are the only clothes that I like, but I can't afford them"?
The weird thing is that they (iStock, not Debenham's or Macy's) seem to be hiking up the prices to squeeze out small buyers, then offering the big buyers huge, unadvertised discounts.
-
^^Very well looks like that doesn't it?
-
What continues to be disturbing is the silence from Istock....almost admitting they could care less about bailing buyers. Very strange.
Looks more to me as though they couldn't care less.
I suspect they have got target buyers, with larger budgets.
If I go into Debenham's (or Macy's) with an own-brand budget, how much would the designer departments care if I said, "Yours are the only clothes that I like, but I can't afford them"?
The weird thing is that they (iStock, not Debenham's or Macy's) seem to be hiking up the prices to squeeze out small buyers, then offering the big buyers huge, unadvertised discounts.
It's a really silly - and dare I say it, unsustainable - strategy, IMO. In essence they are putting all their eggs in this big-buyer basket. A smarter strategy would be to keep the smaller buyers happy while still courting the big buyers. Sure, if a small buyer leaves they won't feel the impact (until enough of them do), but if a big buyer leaves it will immediately make a much bigger dent in their bottom line. And we all know how loyal big corporations are, so that scenario can happen at any time if someone offers them a better deal somewhere else.
For my own business, I like the small budget customers as well as the bigger budget projects. It keeps the income stream a lot more consistent than just relying on the bigger buyer (who may only make a purchase only once or twice a year).
-
We all know a simple filter to allow buyers to exclude the expensive collections would solve most of the problem and retain smaller buyers. The only possible reason I can imagine for not providing this service is greed. Force buyers into buying the most expensive offerings when a cheaper one will do the trick. So shortsighted!
-
Force Trick buyers into buying the most expensive offerings when a cheaper one will do the trick. So shortsighted!
-
Well I'm no rocket scientist but isn't the strategy for car manufacturers to attract the broadest buyer base possible by targeting their range of cars to varying demographics? They don't crap on the "small buyers" and just target the heavy spend ones...mostly anyhow. But even Mercedes and BMW have price points that span the breadth of consumer spending behavior. I can't imagine that IS would isolate themselves like this unless they choose to squeeze the juice of life out of their business and close the doors. Just sayin.
-
Well I'm no rocket scientist but isn't the strategy for car manufacturers to attract the broadest buyer base possible by targeting their range of cars to varying demographics? They don't crap on the "small buyers" and just target the heavy spend ones...mostly anyhow. But even Mercedes and BMW have price points that span the breadth of consumer spending behavior. I can't imagine that IS would isolate themselves like this unless they choose to squeeze the juice of life out of their business and close the doors. Just sayin.
They want the plebs to go to Thinkstock, but of course the subscription model doesn't suit everyone.
Plus many pictures in the DollarBin are actually excellent quality, just fell foul of the best match at some point. But it's not easy to find the Dollar Bin if you're a newbie.
But 'spreading your offerings to different market sectors isn't used in all industries. Some target high spend users only, some budget buyers only.
My issue is that by not telling us, the contributors, what the Plan is (probably for business reasons, as was suggested the last time I mentioned this) it's not allowing us to make medium-term plans accordingly. E.g if the Plan is to dump all lower sellers, or all work from lower selling contributors onto Thinkstock, which I suspect, I'd be shooting/submitting more for Alamy.
-
Well I'm no rocket scientist but isn't the strategy for car manufacturers to attract the broadest buyer base possible by targeting their range of cars to varying demographics? They don't crap on the "small buyers" and just target the heavy spend ones...mostly anyhow. But even Mercedes and BMW have price points that span the breadth of consumer spending behavior. I can't imagine that IS would isolate themselves like this unless they choose to squeeze the juice of life out of their business and close the doors. Just sayin.
They want the plebs to go to Thinkstock, but of course the subscription model doesn't suit everyone.
Plus many pictures in the DollarBin are actually excellent quality, just fell foul of the best match at some point. But it's not easy to find the Dollar Bin if you're a newbie.
But 'spreading your offerings to different market sectors isn't used in all industries. Some target high spend users only, some budget buyers only.
My issue is that by not telling us, the contributors, what the Plan is (probably for business reasons, as was suggested the last time I mentioned this) it's not allowing us to make medium-term plans accordingly. E.g if the Plan is to dump all lower sellers, or all work from lower selling contributors onto Thinkstock, which I suspect, I'd be shooting/submitting more for Alamy.
Yes, indeed there are products/services targeted to specific demographics and price points. I guess I am confused a tad because isn't Getty supposed to be the "premium" high price point collection and Istock the Fords and Yugo's of the world? I too wish I knew more about their medium term intent (even as a non) but their forum silence tells me we'll never know. I feel for the exclusives though and Joan is a perfect example of the expected behaviors that are forthcoming (I believe, anyway).
-
High-priced prize collections, hey?? well maybe back in the dark ages. Today, browsing the GI site, well its almost impossible to find one single image, RM or RF, that the big four Micros can not match.
-
High-priced prize collections, hey?? well maybe back in the dark ages. Today, browsing the GI site, well its almost impossible to find one single image, RM or RF, that the big four Micros can not match.
Well, I wasn't speaking about quality, just the perception of quality based on the brand. But I agree with you on that one for sure.
-
I have read numerous and well justified gripes about the search engine. Both customers and contributors have serious heartache about it.
If you look at the html source of an image detail page, there is sufficient information in it to power a search engine. An independent search engine could be built by some enterprising person or group.
I'm surprised with all the internet savvy entrepreneurs out there, nobody has indexed iStockphoto's detailed pages and provided a search engine that works the way the user wants it to. (Or, if they have, people are not aware of it)
One would hope iStockphoto would realize this is GOOD for them, and let it be.
-
Had a chuckle at the title.So contributors are having less sales and assume that's because the buyers are leaving..What bollocks !
More contributors ,more choice of content =Less sales.Simple.
-
Had a chuckle at the title.So contributors are having less sales and assume that's because the buyers are leaving..What bollocks !
More contributors ,more choice of content =Less sales.Simple.
The title is a fact. The best match changes are a fact. Adding best match hierarchies (Agency, Vetta, E+, E) also is a fact. While your example is a fundamental truth (supply and demand), to claim that this is the sole cause of an essentially over night drop in sales for many contributors (not just a few) isn't accurate. Also, here's some free education: Demand and the number of buyers isn't mutually exclusive, so when buyers bail so does demand.
-
Had a chuckle at the title.So contributors are having less sales and assume that's because the buyers are leaving..What bollocks !
More contributors ,more choice of content =Less sales.Simple.
Hi Shanks! blimey, fancy bumping into you here, where have you been all these years?
-
Had a chuckle at the title.So contributors are having less sales and assume that's because the buyers are leaving..What bollocks !
More contributors ,more choice of content =Less sales.Simple.
So why hasn't the same happened with SS? I'm sure the demise of istock is exaggerated here but it sure looks like buyers are going to other sites.
-
Had a chuckle at the title.So contributors are having less sales and assume that's because the buyers are leaving..What bollocks !
More contributors ,more choice of content =Less sales.Simple.
Hi Shanks! blimey, fancy bumping into you here, where have you been all these years?
He was last here when he was banned on the iStock forums for a while - has that happened again?
-
Since attending the London 'lypse The Shankster has become noticeably more loved-up with the istock supremo's, he is now noticeably more pro-istock nowadays, and has probably been 'turned' and has now been sent to spy on us.
-
Had a chuckle at the title.So contributors are having less sales and assume that's because the buyers are leaving..What bollocks !
More contributors ,more choice of content =Less sales.Simple.
You can think whatever you like.
Take a look at Alexa to see that visitors are falling.
Of course, Alexa only maps a certain group of visitors, but still, for years that graph was always on a generally upward slant, with the obvious summer and holidays slumps.
Someone else here posted a graph from another tracking source a couple of months ago, and it also showed a downward trend, while the other micros were showing an upward trend.
Have to say that the immediate past two weeks have been quite good 'for me' on iStock, relative to the past nine months. I guess it's the storm before the lull.
-
What makes me chuckle is this cheerleader mocks the thread title, but fails to mention the plethora of postings from buyers throughout the thread who announce their intentions to leave. I guess they don't fit in with his "simple" hypothesis.
-
"More contributors ,more choice of content =Less sales.Simple."
The answer to that is: more growth. More customers.
My sales on the partner program keep growing...why not on istock??
(Sean, I hear you... - but I believe it is the advertising of the partner sites that is creating the growth, not my content)
istock is selling digital content around the globe, the world is their oyster and Getty has offices all over. But they have to advertise istock to bring in new customers.
I used to see a lot more istock ads while crawling the net. Now I just see fotolia, the green apples of Veer and especially in Germany Corbis. They have a very active campaign with a cute robot. I have seen thinkstock, but I don´t even know what the current istock campaign looks like. As an istock exclusive shouldn´t this be something I can still remember in my dreams?
And of course I also wonder how many customers we are losing because they cannot filter by price like on Veer. When the price range was similar it wasn´t necessary, but with the huge differences between agency and the normal collection it is. I know they said they are working on it and I believe them.
I just hope the filter is ready soon and that there will be a massive istock advertising campaign in Autumn.
Would be nice to see Alexa stats were istock is leading again.
-
All advertising is spent on TS and new contracts are being issued and signed for RM material to go into TS. One would have to be a complete fool, not to realize whats happening and whats going to happen in the future. There can be only one! so they imagine anyway.
What a waste.
-
Had a chuckle at the title.So contributors are having less sales and assume that's because the buyers are leaving..What bollocks !
More contributors ,more choice of content =Less sales.Simple.
So why hasn't the same happened with Shutterstock? I'm sure the demise of istock is exaggerated here but it sure looks like buyers are going to other sites.
Istock's loss is Shutterstock's gain (http://www.microstockposts.com/istocks-loss-is-shutterstocks-gain/)
-
If you read down to the comments, you'd find this which does give some additional perspective......
\ istockphoto and shutterstock.com (which i use both for buying and selling) are like comparing apples to bananas. shutterstock.com has some of the WORST quality files along with search functionality. We get way more downloads on shutterstock BUT way more income from less downloads/files on iStock. Shutterstock accepts all our files (bar a few) and iStock only accepts a small selection. Quality vs quantity are the obvious synergies between these 2 companies(shutterstock the later). I really don’t see any value in comparing them, other than they are selling a product in a similar category. In the same way Audi and Lada sell cars ( i’d drive an Audi if i could afford it – customers will do the same). If you are a quality / pro producer of content and want a good volume of sales – iStock is your market place. If you are an amateur producer of content chances are you will get most of your files accepted to shutterstock. Hope this helps – JasV
-
Shutterstock used to take anything a long time ago but now it seems to be harder to get images accepted there than it is on iStock.
In addition, up to 18 months ago it was true that the earnings from iStock were always more than from SS but since then the situation has reversed dramatically. Now iS only brings in 60% of what SS produces.
-
If you read down to the comments, you'd find this which does give some additional perspective......
\ istockphoto and shutterstock.com (which i use both for buying and selling) are like comparing apples to bananas. shutterstock.com has some of the WORST quality files along with search functionality. We get way more downloads on shutterstock BUT way more income from less downloads/files on iStock. Shutterstock accepts all our files (bar a few) and iStock only accepts a small selection. Quality vs quantity are the obvious synergies between these 2 companies(shutterstock the later). I really don’t see any value in comparing them, other than they are selling a product in a similar category. In the same way Audi and Lada sell cars ( i’d drive an Audi if i could afford it – customers will do the same). If you are a quality / pro producer of content and want a good volume of sales – iStock is your market place. If you are an amateur producer of content chances are you will get most of your files accepted to shutterstock. Hope this helps – JasV
If that is the case, then I guess Ladas win hands down.
-
Shutterstock used to take anything a long time ago but now it seems to be harder to get images accepted there than it is on iStock.
In addition, up to 18 months ago it was true that the earnings from iStock were always more than from Shutterstock but since then the situation has reversed dramatically. Now iS only brings in 60% of what Shutterstock produces.
Very true!! it was a long time ago SS, accepted everything, their QC today is second to none. I seems to me a lot of this is wishful thinking from die-hard-exclusives and no matter what IS does, in comes the wooyay brigade.
Besides, Getty today isnt all that much, people overestimate them, gives them far too much credit for nothing, their RM, is virtually falling apart, photographers are leaving, theyve lost all their photographers who at one time was the foundation of the Getty sphere and ofcourse they also controle IS, which they so far have done an extremely poor job of doing.
Had the IS Admin been allowed to run things on their own, we wouldnt have seen anything of the shambles we are experiencing right now.
-
Shutterstock is much more selective than istock now. I think they tightened up about 18 months ago and then moved the bar much higher than istock a few months ago. And istock has always accepted low quality stock images. There's millions of non-selling images on the istock site. There are many top microstcok contributors that don't use istock or only have a small proportion of their images there. The restrictive upload limit and tedious upload procedure together with the lowest commission in the industry puts people off. The search should put all the lower quality images at the end, so there really shouldn't be much of a problem for buyers on either site.
-
Shutterstock used to take anything a long time ago but now it seems to be harder to get images accepted there than it is on iStock.
In addition, up to 18 months ago it was true that the earnings from iStock were always more than from Shutterstock but since then the situation has reversed dramatically. Now iS only brings in 60% of what Shutterstock produces.
On Friday, my Shutterstock earnings were more than my iStock earnings for the day - and I only have a portion of my porfolio on Shutterstock at this point. And this is almost completely a result of things being really slack for me at iStock lately with the various best match ups and downs.
I would have said at one time that Shutterstock was very loose with acceptance standards, but they have certainly changed. They claim LCV on things that in my case I know have sold (because I have a track record at iStock over the last 3 years to demonstrate saleability), but other than that, I'd say they're pretty good at picking images.
-
If that is the case, then I guess Ladas win hands down.
Of course, we all know we'd choose a Lada over an Audi anytime. No contest.
-
If that is the case, then I guess Ladas win hands down.
Of course, we all know we'd choose a Lada over an Audi anytime. No contest.
It's not a question of what we choose, it's a question of what buyers are choosing. Istock is no Audi, as it sells so much of the same as what ss and the others have. The same only they price it like luxury cars. You can't find Audis in one showroom and then go to another showroom and find it at half the price.
-
Audi????? whats so special about another kraut car, me: I drive Range-Rover, exclusivity my lads, eclusivity!
-
Some time ago someone on these forums said that vlad_the_imp was clueless. I don't think he is clueless, I just think he's Lobo.
Wave to Lobo, everyone. He's got the keys, but can't lock a thing. Shame!
-
lobo has an account on MSG, but he's pieman. I have no idea who Vlad is, but I'd be surprised if lobo was operating two accounts here.
-
lobo has an account on MSG, but he's pieman. I have no idea who Vlad is, but I'd be surprised if lobo was operating two accounts here.
Agreed; but wouldn't it be hilarious/ironic if so? ;D
-
lobo has an account on MSG, but he's pieman. I have no idea who Vlad is, but I'd be surprised if lobo was operating two accounts here.
Agreed; but wouldn't it be hilarious/ironic if so? ;D
I trust Leaf would "out" him if he was doing that. And send him a stiff PM.
-
I have to agree with JasV - quoted here by Vlad the Impaler.
Quality is very important.
So is variety, choice.
And a relevant search engine.
And in some cases, prices.
This is why Shutterstock, not IStock, is the market leader.
Because of quality, diversity and the search engine.
Please note - quality comes first.
Let's make this clear: files at Shutterstock are as good, or, at times, a lot better than what IStock has on offer. And there's a lot more of them.
The idea that Shutterstock accepts 'the worst' and it's suitable for 'amateur producers of content chances' is an insult to SS submitters, and absolutely not true.
It's a myth (might have been true a long time ago) that needs to be put to rest, once and for all.
I would strongly advise JasV (whoever he is), to perform a few searches, on any subject, at IS and SS. There's a very good chance that the 'Audi' file he's so fond of, will be found on SS, rather than IS.
Faster and at a reasonable price.
There are many reasons why buyers leave IStock and move to SS. The quality of the collection plays a very important role. And it's there, on SS, undeniable.
-
I have to agree with JasV - quoted here by Vlad the Impaler.
Quality is very important.
So is variety, choice.
And a relevant search engine.
And in some cases, prices.
This is why Shutterstock, not IStock, is the market leader.
Because of quality, diversity and the search engine.
Please note - quality comes first.
Let's make this clear: files at Shutterstock are as good, or, at times, a lot better than what IStock has on offer. And there's a lot more of them.
The idea that Shutterstock accepts 'the worst' and it's suitable for 'amateur producers of content chances' is an insult to Shutterstock submitters, and absolutely not true.
It's a myth (might have been true a long time ago) that needs to be put to rest, once and for all.
I would strongly advise JasV (whoever he is), to perform a few searches, on any subject, at IS and Shutterstock. There's a very good chance that the 'Audi' file he's so fond of, will be found on Shutterstock, rather than IS.
Faster and at a reasonable price.
There are many reasons why buyers leave IStock and move to Shutterstock. The quality of the collection plays a very important role. And it's there, on Shutterstock, undeniable.
I'm afraid I disagree on most if not all these points.
When I started submitting, I was very unsure of the quality of my work, but went ahead and submitted to all the sites. All except one, iStock, accepted my stuff right out of the gate, and it started selling very well.
Even with great sales at all the sites, I continued to try to submit to iStock and was repeatedly turned down due to the quality of my work. And frankly, in many of those rejections, I believe they were justified. Still, however, the work continued to sell well on the other sites, and I finally got in to iStock, though they accept a minority of my submissions while Shutterstock takes 100%. It's clear to me that the quality threshold of iStock is set higher than all the others.
Don't get me wrong, I love Shutterstock. It's my best earner. And I feel I do good work, but not so much on a technical level, but rather I think I'm figuring out some unique needs that other contributors aren't meeting.
So from my perspective, this is what it takes for a collection of images to meet a user's needs:
- Uniqueness (this could be why iStock is starting to flounder... it is keeping out a lot of images that buyers actually want, so they go elsewhere where the selection is wider)
- Best communicates the intended message (this is why so many contributors are reporting falling sales... their images "say" nothing unique. You will continue to sink as the number of images just like yours increases, if you do nothing to set yourself apart in some way... make your images jump out and catch a buyer's attention by making it tell a story and scream a message. This will trump technical quality every time.)
- Technical quality (not as important as you think... see above.)
- Price (if a buyer finds the perfect image, he/she won't care if it's $1 or $10.)
-
Had a chuckle at the title.So contributors are having less sales and assume that's because the buyers are leaving..What bollocks !
More contributors ,more choice of content =Less sales.Simple.
Actually, you should have read more than the title. You would have seen that the assumption buyers are leaving is based, not merely on declining contributor sales, but on the numerous and growing numbers of buyers who are posting in the forums that they ARE leaving Istock.
Many of those postings are linked in this thread. I realize that at 52 pages and growing, you can't go through the whole thread, but a brief scan of the first few pages would have given you the gist of what it's about.
-
Hi Stockmarketer, :)
'The quality threshold of IStock is set higher than all the other sites' - you say, and I have to agree.
Absolutely true.
Except there's a catch.
It only applies to independent files.
There is plenty of crap on IStock, and by plenty I mean thousands and thousands of images. The vast majority of those questionable files come from exclusive contributors.
Not only newbies, bronze level, but also golds and diamonds. Thousands of images.
Submitted today, to SS, or Fotolia or even Dreamstime those files would not eveb come close to acceptance. Guaranteed.
There is a difference between the way IStock reviews independent versus exclusive files.
And it's understandable.
And I still stand by my point - perform any search, on IS and SS. Compare quality. Equal results, or even, at times, better on SS.
Plus, a lot more variety and a faster search.
Not to mention prices.
All in all, a better experience. Designers are not stupid. They know what to go for.
-
^ Really?
Try "Highland Games Scotland", which I choose because it happens to be a niche of mine.
iStock gives 73 results, almost all relevant as far as I can tell.
Shutterstock gives 79 results, but most seem to be taken in Ventura CA. Yes, they're still Highland Games, but not in Scotland. They are also mostly editorial, whie only 6 of the IS ones are. And some of the others, although they may be in Scotland, aren't Highland Games either.
Shutterstock relevancy very poor. Quality wise, I can't say. A couple I like.
And if you leave out Scotland, it's even worse.
-
Just posted today:
Just another voice asking that iStock make it possible to filter on some type of price measure. I LOVE iStock and try to use it exclusively, but I'm already starting to use other sites just because I can't afford to spend a lot of time finding images only to find they are Vetta and consequently not usable for me at that price. Very frustrating to spend a lot time pulling together a lightbox and then having to go through manually one by one and eliminate the high priced images. I'm hanging in there, but it won't be for much longer.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330636&page=3 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330636&page=3)
-
^ Really?
Try "Highland Games Scotland", which I choose because it happens to be a niche of mine.
iStock gives 73 results, almost all relevant as far as I can tell.
Shutterstock gives 79 results, but most seem to be taken in Ventura CA. Yes, they're still Highland Games, but not in Scotland. They are also mostly editorial, whie only 6 of the IS ones are. And some of the others, although they may be in Scotland, aren't Highland Games either.
Shutterstock relevancy very poor. Quality wise, I can't say. A couple I like.
And if you leave out Scotland, it's even worse.
You're talking about relevance, and in iStock I would bet it is impossible to tell the difference between "Scotland" "Highland Games" and "Scottish" "Highland Games" because of the ridiculous squeeze in the search, which destroys any attempt to be specific or accurate. Istock can't distinguish between and adjective and a noun - and that applies to pretty much everything.
Try Scottish Highland Games California, and I expect SS will come out with the more relevant return.
-
Hi Gannet77,
you're giving me a niche search. I don't expect many designers to use it, but so be it.
I tried the following searches : 'Highland Games Scotland', 'Scottish Highland Games' and 'Scottish Highland Games California'.
On both sites.
Results :
Quality wise - equal if not slightly better on Shutterstock
Relevancy - equal (with some Vetta images of 'Fly Fishing' and 'Mountain Bikers' tossed in on IStock for good measure)
Not to mention that 'Scottish Highland Games California' gives zero results on IStock and 21 on Shutterstock.
All in all, even on this niche search, including editorial, Shutterstock offers a better choice.
So yes, Gannet, really.
PS Ah, and by the way. I like Dreamstime a lot and went and searched for 'Highland Games Scotland'. 117 beautiful images. On this particular search Dreamstime might just come up on top. The main reason buyers leave IStock is because they can find same, or better quality images on the other sites. At affordable prices and using a faster, more user-friendly search engine.
-
well.. sales at istock seems to be getting slower by month. I'm amazed that my fotolia is cathing up with istock. there comes a point when it's not worthy to upload there anymore.
-
what about promoting a website like stockfresh. . Untill now it is a very slow process and I don't know if it will pick up one day. But I like what they say
"Being photographers ourselves, we are passionate about what we do. We take pride in the fact that we give back as much to the community as it is possible. Our current minimum royalty rate is 50% which can go up to 62.5% because discounts are always on us!
We believe in fair compensation and fair pricing. We believe that creativity and excellence should be rewarded properly. We believe in quality over quantity. If you believe in the same ideas, join us and spread the word. "
-
Yeah, well, iStock and Fotolia used to say all the right things, too, when they wanted to lure people in. Once their collections got big enough, their attitudes changed.
Promoting marginal agencies in a crowded market just means more and more work for little or no return. It's better to promote SS and DT, which at least have good earnings potential and a non-abusive attitude to contributors.
-
Damned right! by all means promote smaller agencies but its time consuming and at the moment hardly any return at all. I send webb-designers, etc, to SS and DT, all the time, even Agency people for bigger stuff. It pays off!
-
what about promoting a website like stockfresh. . Untill now it is a very slow process and I don't know if it will pick up one day. But I like what they say
... and you are .... ?
-
what about promoting a website like stockfresh. . Untill now it is a very slow process and I don't know if it will pick up one day. But I like what they say
... and you are .... ?
a contributor in microstock , contribution only to the 4 big and stockfresh
-
Had a chuckle at the title.So contributors are having less sales and assume that's because the buyers are leaving..What bollocks !
More contributors ,more choice of content =Less sales.Simple.
Hi Shanks! blimey, fancy bumping into you here, where have you been all these years?
He was last here when he was banned on the iStock forums for a while - has that happened again?
Sure has... ::).I'm now enjoying my 6th holiday from the forum.
-
Had a chuckle at the title.So contributors are having less sales and assume that's because the buyers are leaving..What bollocks !
More contributors ,more choice of content =Less sales.Simple.
Hi Shanks! blimey, fancy bumping into you here, where have you been all these years?
He was last here when he was banned on the iStock forums for a while - has that happened again?
Sure has... ::).I'm now enjoying my 6th holiday from the forum.
*! not again. Well, Shankster boy sure has a behaviour problem :D
-
Had a chuckle at the title.So contributors are having less sales and assume that's because the buyers are leaving..What bollocks !
More contributors ,more choice of content =Less sales.Simple.
Hi Shanks! blimey, fancy bumping into you here, where have you been all these years?
He was last here when he was banned on the iStock forums for a while - has that happened again?
Sure has... ::).I'm now enjoying my 6th holiday from the forum.
For what?! You've been such a cheerleader lately?
-
I'm now enjoying my 6th holiday from the forum.
back
Welcome ^ to the Happy Land. ;) ;D
-
Had a chuckle at the title.So contributors are having less sales and assume that's because the buyers are leaving..What bollocks !
More contributors ,more choice of content =Less sales.Simple.
Hi Shanks! blimey, fancy bumping into you here, where have you been all these years?
He was last here when he was banned on the iStock forums for a while - has that happened again?
Sure has... ::).I'm now enjoying my 6th holiday from the forum.
For what?! You've been such a cheerleader lately?
Yes. Please tell us why. You have been a staunch supporter of the PP (thank you) and have been gracious as of late IMO. What did you say?
-
He told LOBO (Pieman) to go eat a cow pie.
-
He told LOBO (Pieman) to go eat a cow pie.
If this is true, can you post a link (if it's still there)? I would love to read LOBOs reply as I am sure he could not resist spewing something. He is so snotty sometimes, I would like to say the same thing but I don't have the cahones.
-
ahaha no way!?
-
I opened a thread in the off topic titled.....Shutterstock.They had frigging heart attack ;D
-
I opened a thread in the off topic titled.....Shutterstock.They had frigging heart attack ;D
LOL!!! ;D ;D ;D hahaha, my stomach is hurting hahaha!!
-
Sure has... ::).I'm now enjoying my 6th holiday from the forum.
Forget about a holiday, you might as well retire mate. ;) ;D
-
Sure has... ::).I'm now enjoying my 6th holiday from the forum.
Forget about a holiday, you might as well retire mate. ;) ;D
6 holidays! :o Must just about be a record!
-
I opened a thread in the off topic titled.....Shutterstock.They had frigging heart attack ;D
Brilliant! It reminds me of Kazantzakis's story about a Greek rebel who carried a live pig into a mosque during the Ottoman period on Crete.
-
I opened a thread in the off topic titled.....Shutterstock.They had frigging heart attack ;D
LOL!!! ;D ;D ;D hahaha, my stomach is hurting hahaha!!
Thats the best Ive heard for a long, long time ;D ;D ;D
-
Seems like iStock still don't realise the implications of being a 24x7 company.
Buyer:
I came back today to see if this bug has been fixed before I make my purchase with one of your competitors. I cannot wait any longer to complete my current projects.
I thought that you guys were a bigger operation than this. The type of operation that would calculate how much revenue you are losing and realize that it is cheaper to call in one of your tech and pay them overtime to get this problem fixed immediately (Couldn't one of your techs even fix this from the comfort of their own home?)
Lobo (in polite mode)
Sorry, they can't. It will be a Monday fix.
I guess paying weekend rates would eat into profitability.
The real question is, how come, yet again, did something that was working well get broken?
-
What was the bug the customer was referring to?
-
What was the bug the customer was referring to?
If you try to zoom in on an image, you get a white blank space where the zoomed image should be.
-
Was that the locked post about lousy customer service? I tied to open it to see what the gripe was and it just tossed me back to the main forum menu. Went back to the Help forum and the entire post was deleted.
-
It's still there
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=331150&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=331150&page=1)
The thing that gets me is that the zoom has been like this for three days.
-
What was the bug the customer was referring to?
If you try to zoom in on an image, you get a white blank space where the zoomed image should be.
Oh, right. I noticed that the other day. I guess since stuff breaks periodically, I didn't even think twice. LOL
-
Was that the locked post about lousy customer service? I tied to open it to see what the gripe was and it just tossed me back to the main forum menu. Went back to the Help forum and the entire post was deleted.
Nope, that one was actually from a contributor complaining that he couldn't get a pay-out because of the Canadian postal strike, but couldn't find how to get his money via one of the other methods.
I was also curious about the post being deleted. You'd think if there was a workaround, it should be shared. Or if the OP was wrong, I'm sure they could have pointed out the error.
It may have been because there's a longstanding thread about the issue at:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330800&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330800&page=1)
but in tht case, they usually lock the thread with an appropriate link rather than 'disappearing' the post. They could even have changed the title to something more appropriate, as it had nothing to do with customer service.
-
what about promoting a website like stockfresh. . Untill now it is a very slow process and I don't know if it will pick up one day. But I like what they say
"Being photographers ourselves, we are passionate about what we do. We take pride in the fact that we give back as much to the community as it is possible. Our current minimum royalty rate is 50% which can go up to 62.5% because discounts are always on us!
We believe in fair compensation and fair pricing. We believe that creativity and excellence should be rewarded properly. We believe in quality over quantity. If you believe in the same ideas, join us and spread the word. "
stockfresh sucks. period
-
what about promoting a website like stockfresh. . Untill now it is a very slow process and I don't know if it will pick up one day. But I like what they say
"Being photographers ourselves, we are passionate about what we do. We take pride in the fact that we give back as much to the community as it is possible. Our current minimum royalty rate is 50% which can go up to 62.5% because discounts are always on us!
We believe in fair compensation and fair pricing. We believe that creativity and excellence should be rewarded properly. We believe in quality over quantity. If you believe in the same ideas, join us and spread the word. "
stockfresh sucks. period
It's slow at the moment, but it does not suck.
-
It's still there
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=331150&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=331150&page=1[/url])
The thing that gets me is that the zoom has been like this for three days.
"You could also just buy it and ask for a refund if you don't like it. Enough other people already do it." :D
-
It's still there
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=331150&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=331150&page=1[/url])
The thing that gets me is that the zoom has been like this for three days.
Ah, but it will be "a Monday fix". Of course, that says nothing about which Monday ;)
-
It's still there
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=331150&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=331150&page=1[/url])
The thing that gets me is that the zoom has been like this for three days.
"You could also just buy it and ask for a refund if you don't like it. Enough other people already do it." :D
I thought that was the obvious answer too, and wondered why no-one had suggested it.
-
To be fair, if it's a whole bunch of photos that would be a real PITA.
-
To be fair, if it's a whole bunch of photos that would be a real PITA.
And then you've got a big pile of iStock credits so you are forced to remain a customer there - or do they refund credits, too? I've never heard any suggestion that they do.
-
To be fair, if it's a whole bunch of photos that would be a real PITA.
OTOH, it also showed a great lack of confidence in the iStock inspection standards.
-
stockfresh sucks. period
It's slow at the moment, but it does not suck.
[/quote]
this site rejects 50% of more on what i got , i don't want to be promoting another IS wannabe. they don't even have a single sale for me. it's a complete waste of bandwidth uploading there. even the slowest agency is doing better than them
-
^^^No problems with rejections for me and they do have some sales. It can't just be me getting some sales there, as they are doing OK for a relatively new site in the poll results here. Definitely not an istock wannabe, unless istock has suddenly started paying non-exclusives 50% commission :)
-
^^^No problems with rejections for me and they do have some sales. It can't just be me getting some sales there, as they are doing OK for a relatively new site in the poll results here. Definitely not an istock wannabe, unless istock has suddenly started paying non-exclusives 50% commission :)
Hence we should encourage sites that pay us our worth. It's detrimental to us all in the long run if we don't. I know IS is a money maker, but more so for them than us, no matter how successful we are as microstockers. 15% commission on IS, $4 EL's on ft, just how low can it go, has it hit the bottom yet? If it has, what's the next step for them to squeeze more out of us, to make their shareholders smiles even wider. Charge to submit? And because people will still be earning dollars from them, there would be people who would pay, possibly enough people. Coming soon to a microstock site near you. ;)
-
^^^No problems with rejections for me and they do have some sales. It can't just be me getting some sales there, as they are doing OK for a relatively new site in the poll results here. Definitely not an istock wannabe, unless istock has suddenly started paying non-exclusives 50% commission :)
Hence we should encourage sites that pay us our worth. It's detrimental to us all in the long run if we don't. I know IS is a money maker, but more so for them than us, no matter how successful we are as microstockers. 15% commission on IS, $4 EL's on ft, just how low can it go, has it hit the bottom yet? If it has, what's the next step for them to squeeze more out of us, to make their shareholders smiles even wider. Charge to submit? And because people will still be earning dollars from them, there would be people who would pay, possibly enough people. Coming soon to a microstock site near you. ;)
That wouldn't surprise me at all. I can totally see that happening.
-
Charge to submit? And because people will still be earning dollars from them, there would be people who would pay, possibly enough people. Coming soon to a microstock site near you. ;)
Well, since Getty already has a program that does that, and people are foolish enough to submit it won't be long now...
-
Shutterstock is much more selective than istock now. I think they tightened up about 18 months ago and then moved the bar much higher than istock a few months ago. And istock has always accepted low quality stock images. There's millions of non-selling images on the istock site. There are many top microstcok contributors that don't use istock or only have a small proportion of their images there. The restrictive upload limit and tedious upload procedure together with the lowest commission in the industry puts people off. The search should put all the lower quality images at the end, so there really shouldn't be much of a problem for buyers on either site.
I would really encourage everyone to talk to a large number of SS submitters you respect, you might find that their experience regarding reviews at SS vary's wildly and the inequity between reviews makes no sense at all when taking into account the quality of their work. If SS wants to stay competitive they need to address this serious issue because I know a number of submitters who are so fed up that they have quit submitting.
-
I work alot with a Fortune 500 company who's employees depend on weekly advertising campaigns to promote their services. The advertising departments across the globe use Istock almost exclusively. Over the last two months more and more managers company wide are encouraging the desktop publishers to use more cost effective microstock companies. They have absolutely noticed the changes at Istock and the shift to promote a more costly product at the expense of time and money to the company.
-
I work alot with a Fortune 500 company who's employees depend on weekly advertising campaigns to promote their services. The advertising departments across the globe use Istock almost exclusively. Over the last two months more and more managers company wide are encouraging the desktop publishers to use more cost effective microstock companies. They have absolutely noticed the changes at Istock and the shift to promote a more costly product at the expense of time and money to the company.
It might be worth pointing them in the direction of the price slider.
-
I work alot with a Fortune 500 company who's employees depend on weekly advertising campaigns to promote their services. The advertising departments across the globe use Istock almost exclusively. Over the last two months more and more managers company wide are encouraging the desktop publishers to use more cost effective microstock companies. They have absolutely noticed the changes at Istock and the shift to promote a more costly product at the expense of time and money to the company.
It might be worth pointing them in the direction of the price slider.
Sue I posted my viewpoint in this thread quoted below in September and my views regarding IS have not changed much. The last time I purchased an image at IS they had not implemented the slider; which after checking it out does address some cost containment problems. However I think alot of the managers I talked to had a problem with the option to choose images at a more costly level at Istock vs in the past the cost options were more contained and controllable for the company, which has many buyers localized to regions within it. They do not want to spend resources confirming that employee's are using the mandated low cost images. In any case I recommended other options.
I have worked in the advertising industry for years and our clients are mainly medium to small local businesses and a few large local corporations. I became a submitter in early 2004 and thought seriously about quitting my job to develop a port large enough to live on.
I decided against it because I was afraid that it would end this way. I worried about the # of images flooding the market to the extent our work would be devalued. The writing was on the wall as you started seeing photographers who used to make decent money producing stock start offering workshops and frequenting micro forums to scare up customers simply because the money they made teaching others to produce stock is better than the money they made producing stock content themselves.
The end result has been many more submitters with LCV work burying images that we as buyers actually need for our projects. Those submitters would never have made the cut if they had not been coached and most will never produce the type of work that most agencies and their clients need.
Besides being a buyer of images I know many submitters who have worked long and hard to provide a good living for themselves and I do not take the moves that IS has made lightly! I think IS has forgotten that a great many buyers are also submitters and that as creative's we have respect and empathy for each other.
Micro does need to make changes, however I will not be supporting IS any longer. Even before this move we have been buying content more and more from sites who support photographers, graphic artists, video & audio producers.
With this move I have discussed this with my co workers and we have decided to no longer buy our content from IS.
I don't see things improving any day soon unless sites make moves to reduce LCV work, improve search engines and also raise prices for the end product. That is hard right now because advertising in general has dropped because of the global recession.
I will encourage other buyers to examine how IS has treated its content providers and I will encourage them to seek other options. Our company will no longer be buying IS content!
-
I work alot with a Fortune 500 company who's employees depend on weekly advertising campaigns to promote their services. The advertising departments across the globe use Istock almost exclusively. Over the last two months more and more managers company wide are encouraging the desktop publishers to use more cost effective microstock companies. They have absolutely noticed the changes at Istock and the shift to promote a more costly product at the expense of time and money to the company.
It might be worth pointing them in the direction of the price slider.
Sue I posted my viewpoint in this thread quoted below in September and my views regarding IS have not changed much. The last time I purchased an image at IS they had not implemented the slider; which after checking it out does address some cost containment problems. However I think alot of the managers I talked to had a problem with the option to choose images at a more costly level at Istock vs in the past the cost options were more contained and controllable for the company, which has many buyers localized to regions within it. They do not want to spend resources confirming that employee's are using the mandated low cost images. In any case I recommended other options.
[snip]
I think theres a bit of a dichotomy between, "Even before this move we have been buying content more and more from sites who support photographers, graphic artists, video & audio producers.", which would imply that you're buying macro/RM files for your "our clients are mainly medium to small local businesses "
and
"I work a lot with a Fortune 500 company ... where more managers company wide are encouraging the desktop publishers to use more cost effective microstock companies"
Didn't take you long to stop supporting the content suppliers.
Pity, but ultimately it's your call.
SEem
-
Sure, they'll 'support' them as long as it's a bargain, lol...
Personally, I think the price slider is great, and I'd like all the buyers back at IS to try it out.
-
I thought the topic was the buyers and Istock
I will explain my experience.
Anyone who has worked at an advertising agency or similar businesses know how this works. I am a freelance graphic designer for four years. Before I worked at different agencies for 14 years. And while working at an agency I wanted was effectiveness effectiveness effectiveness.
The price was based on the project and the client. Clearly, the higher quality, much better. But usually start looking images at eight o'clock, sleepy and wanted to go home and do not want to have a thousand chances or waste time. Sure, it's best to work with time, quietly, sipping coffee and listening to Bach. But few days I worked so ... You had the head behind the ear and the clock hand. And the customer on the phone ...
What you want is to put three words in the search box, choose the search mode and you're done. Do not waste time guessing prices, types of photos, Vetta, Photo + ... buf!!
Many years ago I worked with Corbis and Getty original. In recent years the agencies worked with Shutter and Istock, depending on the needs of customers. Honestly, now with Istock never work, except in some very very specific occasions. The plus they may have some images from Istock, will get a good photo retoucher, which exist in all the advertising agencies ... In Shutter there are also very good pictures.
Istock I think is in the definition. Do not know what they want to be. And I do not know what you want is the best way to be nothing.
That's my opinion ...
-
I work alot with a Fortune 500 company who's employees depend on weekly advertising campaigns to promote their services. The advertising departments across the globe use Istock almost exclusively. Over the last two months more and more managers company wide are encouraging the desktop publishers to use more cost effective microstock companies. They have absolutely noticed the changes at Istock and the shift to promote a more costly product at the expense of time and money to the company.
It might be worth pointing them in the direction of the price slider.
Sue I posted my viewpoint in this thread quoted below in September and my views regarding IS have not changed much. The last time I purchased an image at IS they had not implemented the slider; which after checking it out does address some cost containment problems. However I think alot of the managers I talked to had a problem with the option to choose images at a more costly level at Istock vs in the past the cost options were more contained and controllable for the company, which has many buyers localized to regions within it. They do not want to spend resources confirming that employee's are using the mandated low cost images. In any case I recommended other options.
[snip]
I think theres a bit of a dichotomy between, "Even before this move we have been buying content more and more from sites who support photographers, graphic artists, video & audio producers.", which would imply that you're buying macro/RM files for your "our clients are mainly medium to small local businesses "
and
"I work a lot with a Fortune 500 company ... where more managers company wide are encouraging the desktop publishers to use more cost effective microstock companies"
Didn't take you long to stop supporting the content suppliers.
Pity, but ultimately it's your call.
SEem
I think you are jumping to some rather speedy and inaccurate conclusions. Are you judging me for being honest or because I choose not to support IS. I/we still buy content both macro and micro, however we choose to buy it from companies other than IS.
And please do not confuse my own viewpoints with that of the managers from another company who also choose to stop doing business with IS for entirely different reasons than our own.
-
I thought the topic was the buyers and Istock
I will explain my experience.
Anyone who has worked at an advertising agency or similar businesses know how this works. I am a freelance graphic designer for four years. Before I worked at different agencies for 14 years. And while working at an agency I wanted was effectiveness effectiveness effectiveness.
The price was based on the project and the client. Clearly, the higher quality, much better. But usually start looking images at eight o'clock, sleepy and wanted to go home and do not want to have a thousand chances or waste time. Sure, it's best to work with time, quietly, sipping coffee and listening to Bach. But few days I worked so ... You had the head behind the ear and the clock hand. And the customer on the phone ...
What you want is to put three words in the search box, choose the search mode and you're done. Do not waste time guessing prices, types of photos, Vetta, Photo + ... buf!!
Many years ago I worked with Corbis and Getty original. In recent years the agencies worked with Shutter and Istock, depending on the needs of customers. Honestly, now with Istock never work, except in some very very specific occasions. The plus they may have some images from Istock, will get a good photo retoucher, which exist in all the advertising agencies ... In Shutter there are also very good pictures.
Istock I think is in the definition. Do not know what they want to be. And I do not know what you want is the best way to be nothing.
That's my opinion ...
Thanks for posting Toni. Wish more buyers would take the time to post their experiences :)
-
I thought the topic was the buyers and Istock
I will explain my experience.
Anyone who has worked at an advertising agency or similar businesses know how this works. I am a freelance graphic designer for four years. Before I worked at different agencies for 14 years. And while working at an agency I wanted was effectiveness effectiveness effectiveness.
The price was based on the project and the client. Clearly, the higher quality, much better. But usually start looking images at eight o'clock, sleepy and wanted to go home and do not want to have a thousand chances or waste time. Sure, it's best to work with time, quietly, sipping coffee and listening to Bach. But few days I worked so ... You had the head behind the ear and the clock hand. And the customer on the phone ...
What you want is to put three words in the search box, choose the search mode and you're done. Do not waste time guessing prices, types of photos, Vetta, Photo + ... buf!!
Many years ago I worked with Corbis and Getty original. In recent years the agencies worked with Shutter and Istock, depending on the needs of customers. Honestly, now with Istock never work, except in some very very specific occasions. The plus they may have some images from Istock, will get a good photo retoucher, which exist in all the advertising agencies ... In Shutter there are also very good pictures.
Istock I think is in the definition. Do not know what they want to be. And I do not know what you want is the best way to be nothing.
That's my opinion ...
Exellent post!!
Been working with ad-agencies for over 20 years as a freelance photographer and Ive been trying to explain this for years, that ad-people, buyers, etc, simply DONT have the time to sit there wading through page after page of irrelevant material, this and that.'
Then comes the IS exclusive noobs brigade saying they only have small buyers.
Finally IS comes up with this price-slider? which at the moment is being perceived by buyers as a quality-slider?
Im however very happy to see that ultimately buyers are saying its better or equal quality at dot-1 as dot-4.
BTW. You will find identical shots of same quality at SS and DT and FT. so its really no big deal today.
-
Thanks for posting Toni. Wish more buyers would take the time to post their experiences :)
One of the reasons you don't hear more is because whenever we do, there always seems to be some argument or snide comment by someone. >:(
-
I work alot with a Fortune 500 company who's employees depend on weekly advertising campaigns to promote their services. The advertising departments across the globe use Istock almost exclusively. Over the last two months more and more managers company wide are encouraging the desktop publishers to use more cost effective microstock companies. They have absolutely noticed the changes at Istock and the shift to promote a more costly product at the expense of time and money to the company.
It might be worth pointing them in the direction of the price slider.
Sue I posted my viewpoint in this thread quoted below in September and my views regarding IS have not changed much. The last time I purchased an image at IS they had not implemented the slider; which after checking it out does address some cost containment problems. However I think alot of the managers I talked to had a problem with the option to choose images at a more costly level at Istock vs in the past the cost options were more contained and controllable for the company, which has many buyers localized to regions within it. They do not want to spend resources confirming that employee's are using the mandated low cost images. In any case I recommended other options.
[snip]
I think theres a bit of a dichotomy between, "Even before this move we have been buying content more and more from sites who support photographers, graphic artists, video & audio producers.", which would imply that you're buying macro/RM files for your "our clients are mainly medium to small local businesses "
and
"I work a lot with a Fortune 500 company ... where more managers company wide are encouraging the desktop publishers to use more cost effective microstock companies"
Didn't take you long to stop supporting the content suppliers.
Pity, but ultimately it's your call.
SEem
I would much rather buyers went to the sites that pay me 50 or 60% commission than the deplorable 17% I get with istock. I have really lost all motivation since istock cut their already lowest commission. I think the only way to keep people like me involved in microstock is if the future looks less bleak. I'm still motivated to use alamy because they still have 60% commission and there isn't the threat of a drastic cut. For me to carry on with microstock, either the big sites that have cut commissions need to change their policy or the buyers have to look elsewhere. How can I keep doing this with a commission cut likely to happen again in the future and with the knowledge that site owners are getting rich while I am struggling to pay the bills?
At the moment, I'm annoyed with the commission cuts, I'm annoyed with the fact that most contributors are putting up with it and I really don't see much point in working harder to get back to the earnings I had in 2009 when they can just cut commissions again. The only thing that keeps me going is my love of photography and I'm more determined to find other ways to make money from it.
-
How many complaints, how long did it take for them to produce a goddam price filter? Like half a year? Thats an insult in itself, too late.
-
How many complaints, how long did it take for them to produce a goddam price filter? Like half a year? Thats an insult in itself, too late.
I was thinking that myself, the price filter should have been implemented such along time ago. It probably wasn't, as they probably wanted to push more expensive images. It's probably only been implemented now because they realize that it's beneficial to them to have it, as maybe they have realised they have scared off too many customers (more than they anticipated) who see high priced images pushed to the front. Lots of probablies in my sentences here, as I can only speculate. Buyers who have recently switched to other microstock sites, probably won't be aware of the price filter and even if they are, may well be unwilling to switch back, especially if they are happy with the other site or sites they have chosen.
-
I'm annoyed with the fact that most contributors are putting up with it
"most contributors" include you and me and anybody else who still has an iStock dial showing next to their name.
-
How many complaints, how long did it take for them to produce a goddam price filter? Like half a year? Thats an insult in itself, too late.
I was thinking that myself, the price filter should have been implemented such along time ago. It probably wasn't, as they probably wanted to push more expensive images. It's probably only been implemented now because they realize that it's beneficial to them to have it, as maybe they have realised they have scared off too many customers (more than they anticipated) who see high priced images pushed to the front. Lots of probablies in my sentences here, as I can only speculate. Buyers who have recently switched to other microstock sites, probably won't be aware of the price filter and even if they are, may well be unwilling to switch back, especially if they are happy with the other site or sites they have chosen.
Well, if you sh*t on your buyers for months, they aren't gonna come flying back just because you suddenly corrected something. They obviously refused to do this since it's not a task that would be considered a challenge for a pro coder. I had some support for IS in the past because they seemed to be demanding more for images instead of selling out for pennies, but with 12 and 8 cent commissions that crap, isn't it? ...not to mention the moblike staff : )
-
Thanks for posting Toni. Wish more buyers would take the time to post their experiences :)
One of the reasons you don't hear more is because whenever we do, there always seems to be some argument or snide comment by someone. >:(
Good point. If IS might have listened to buyers who complained all along, and made some attempt at resolving problems, this thread likely would have never even been started. Sometimes it's just too late, and I think some buyers are going to feel that way. Too little, too late.
-
I'm annoyed with the fact that most contributors are putting up with it
"most contributors" include you and me and anybody else who still has an iStock dial showing next to their name.
I did spend 9 months only deleting images, not uploading any. And yes, I'm annoyed with myself for putting up with 17% commission and uploading some new images last month. It's not easy for me because I rely on the money from istock at the moment but I really don't see any long term future for me there. I'm looking forward to the day I can get out. My original plan was to just upload lots more to the other sites but I've lost my motivation with microstock, so I'm spending some time working on other ideas and hopefully that will spark my enthusiasm again.
-
Well, here goes another one. Unhappy buyer 'tleedycorp', proudly displaying a Corporate Master badge, gives Istock both barrels in the Discussion forum;
"This site sucks now. Photo searches bring one of two possibilities, 1) 2 out of every 10 images are for editorial use only, or 2) "angry baby" appears in my search for Hong Kong. WTH?? This site is nearly useless to me now. Too bad I have 500+ credits to use. I might as well go back to Photos.com and the garbage they had there. Oh, and now practically everything is Vetta collection. Great. Another site that just wastes vast amounts of my time. But, like most things, I am sure nothing will change as a result of feedback. We will just be expected to pay more for a far less functional, and in my opinion, inferior and ineffective image search method. Too bad. This was very useful and helpful to us for a while."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338061&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338061&page=1)
Strangely, if you click on their name you arrive at the front page. Maybe their account has been closed already?
-
Well, here goes another one. Unhappy buyer 'tleedycorp', proudly displaying a Corporate Master badge, gives Istock both barrels in the Discussion forum;
"This site sucks now. Photo searches bring one of two possibilities, 1) 2 out of every 10 images are for editorial use only, or 2) "angry baby" appears in my search for Hong Kong. WTH?? This site is nearly useless to me now. Too bad I have 500+ credits to use. I might as well go back to Photos.com and the garbage they had there. Oh, and now practically everything is Vetta collection. Great. Another site that just wastes vast amounts of my time. But, like most things, I am sure nothing will change as a result of feedback. We will just be expected to pay more for a far less functional, and in my opinion, inferior and ineffective image search method. Too bad. This was very useful and helpful to us for a while."
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338061&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338061&page=1[/url])
Strangely, if you click on their name you arrive at the front page. Maybe their account has been closed already?
To be fair, although the 'customer is always right', that one clearly isn't prepared to make any effort. Which of us doesn't use some filters when on amazon, eBay, Landsend or any other large/deep site? iStock, with a few seconds thought, is no more difficult to use than any of these.
The only valid complaint they had is the silly bug/feature whereas every search seems to have a few invalid files thrown into the mix of every search result.
Anyway, iStock is hardly likely to worry if they buzz off to Photos.com - don't they want to push customers to the PP anyway?
-
... that one clearly isn't prepared to make any effort. Which of us doesn't use some filters when on amazon, eBay, Landsend or any other large/deep site? iStock, with a few seconds thought, is no more difficult to use than any of these.
I don't agree. I do use filters on other sites, but they are labeled - and thus clear. The price slider (and KKT acknowledged as much in that interview he gave a month or two back when he said in UI tests, buyers just didn't see the price slider) has an awful UI in my opinion. I want to exclude Vetta and Agency but I see a bunch of dots and some number of items that go away if I exclude those dots. It's indirect.
The price checkboxes or sliders at other sites are labelled with amounts of money, or you get ways to include/exclude collections by name (sellers on amazon.com for example).
I think the issue is that if you're already ticked off, making a buyer work that hard to do a simple thing is just one more irritant. And even if the buyer is a lazy ba3t*rd don't you want their money anyway? Only hardworking puritans are wanted as iStock buyers and the rest of you shuffle off somewhere else?
-
Anyway, iStock is hardly likely to worry if they buzz off to Photos.com - don't they want to push customers to the PP anyway?
I don't think they stated an intention to go back to Photos.com. I think they were saying that Istock has become as 'useless' as them.
-
To be fair, although the 'customer is always right', that one clearly isn't prepared to make any effort. Which of us doesn't use some filters when on amazon, eBay, Landsend or any other large/deep site? iStock, with a few seconds thought, is no more difficult to use than any of these.
The only valid complaint they had is the silly bug/feature whereas every search seems to have a few invalid files thrown into the mix of every search result.
Anyway, iStock is hardly likely to worry if they buzz off to Photos.com - don't they want to push customers to the PP anyway?
There was a time when not so many filters were needed at istock. That's probably more to the point of what the buyer was trying to express. And at other sites a search can still be easily accomplished with few (if any) filters.
This is what istock doesn't seem to understand. They cut the collection into all of these different pieces, price points, etc., which makes it harder to find images at the price you want to pay. So they add a filter, but the filter is not easy to find or use. And they add in limited filters for Vetta/Agency/Exclusive. So from their perspective istock is saying, "Look, we gave you all of these different collections and then we gave you these extra things to filter through collections! Yay us!" But what the buyer sees is added levels of complexity, tools that allow filtering but take time to use to tweak the search to match what they are looking for, and sometimes the complexity results in total failure like we've seen many times. Site and search complexity means code complexity, which means increased likelihood of bugs and site crashes.
-
Any five years old would understad how it works the slider, it's not rocket sciencie.
-
Thats not the point! even if a 2 year old could work it, not the point! point is, Why make buyers, having to work for it? I have seen many of them in action, stood behind their shoulders, all they want to do, is tap in a keyword or two, thats it. Its internet based sites for Gods sake, it should work to perfection, quick, effectivly and most important, easy. "Keep it simple" one of the most fundamental rules of business and engineering.
Now if this buyer is right, why do they mix editorials with commercials? a commercial clients nightmare, are editorials, have always been. Ask Magnum. I tell you, this site has gone bonkers, behaving like dizzy little bewildered school girls.
-
Any five years old would understad how it works the slider, it's not rocket sciencie.
Taking a disparaging attitude towards unhappy customers (buyers, not contributors) make for lousy customer service.
-
That's not the point, the point is that I can't understand someone having difficulties understanding how the slider works. Is graphic, intuitive and very simple.
-
That's not the point, the point is that I can't understand someone having difficulties understanding how the slider works. Is graphic, intuitive and very simple.
Hi!
In any event, they call it price-slider but really it gives a disguised message of a quality-slider and many buyers, Im sure is experiencing just that BUT, without any higher quality ofcourse.
-
That's not the point, the point is that I can't understand someone having difficulties understanding how the slider works. Is graphic, intuitive and very simple.
The mechanics of it are pretty simple (it's a slider that gives you price ranges), but the results that it gives you can be a little confusing. Especially for illustrations. The price ranges for illustrations on each dot can vary $10 to $20. Which makes it kind of useless if you have a real budget.
-
That's not the point, the point is that I can't understand someone having difficulties understanding how the slider works. Is graphic, intuitive and very simple.
Maybe the buyers just don't want the slider. Maybe they want images all priced the same __ just like they used to be.
-
That's not the point, the point is that I can't understand someone having difficulties understanding how the slider works. Is graphic, intuitive and very simple.
The mechanics of it are pretty simple (it's a slider that gives you price ranges), but the results that it gives you can be a little confusing. Especially for illustrations. The price ranges for illustrations on each dot can vary $10 to $20. Which makes it kind of useless if you have a real budget.
It's not clear to me what the dots mean (presumably price, but what price?) and the places at which the slider stops do not correspond to the position of the dots.
I think that the slider should move to the same position as the dots, and when you move the slider or if you hover the cursor over the dots, there should be a popup text which explains what they mean - for example, 4 dots ("Include all"), 3 dots ("Exclude images costing more than 10(XS) to 100 (XXXL) credits"), and so on. The images should also have dots to identify their price category. THEN there would be no excuse for people not to understand how it works. Right now I think it's somewhat confusing.
I don't know if actual customers feel the same way about the slider. I don't know if IS did tests/focus groups of the slider with actual customers (not insiders, contributors or reviewers) ... but if they haven't then they should.
-
Any five years old would understad how it works the slider, it's not rocket sciencie.
That's the istock attitude. Ignore the real problem and simply point to the slider as the answer to the complaint about prices.
There shouldn't be a need for a slider in the first place. That's the point.
Buyers are saying that there are too many collections, too many price variations, images are too expensive, and istock is offering the slider as the solution rather than addressing the problem and simplifying pricing.
Matter of fact they tend to go the other way and keep introducing new ways to alter pricing. E+, P+, etc. It's that same old "We'll tell you what you want instead of listening to what you're asking for" mentality.
-
SOME buyers are saying that. Others don't say anything and buy E+ Vetta and Agency and base files.
-
SOME buyers are saying that. Others don't say anything and buy E+ Vetta and Agency and base files.
As in, it doesn't matter to a company if it loses some customers, as long as there are other customers that it doesn't lose?
That's would be an interesting theory to research for an MBA thesis.
-
SOME buyers are saying that. Others don't say anything and buy E+ Vetta and Agency and base files.
As in, it doesn't matter to a company if it loses some customers, as long as there are other customers that it doesn't lose?
That's would be an interesting theory to research for an MBA thesis.
It is a fairly well-established business practice, to concentrate on a particular segment of the market, especially with higher priced goods or services. Trouble is that's unlikely to work in 'microstock' as there are already higher priced options at the traditional agencies. I'd have thought most microstock buyers are there because they want cheap images. I'm staggered at just how far Getty have dragged Istock away from their roots __ with fairly obvious consequences.
-
SOME buyers are saying that. Others don't say anything and buy E+ Vetta and Agency and base files.
As in, it doesn't matter to a company if it loses some customers, as long as there are other customers that it doesn't lose?
That's would be an interesting theory to research for an MBA thesis.
It is a fairly well-established business practice, to concentrate on a particular segment of the market, especially with higher priced goods or services. Trouble is that's unlikely to work in 'microstock' as there are already higher priced options at the traditional agencies. I'd have thought most microstock buyers are there because they want cheap images. I'm staggered at just how far Getty have dragged Istock away from their roots __ with fairly obvious consequences.
It depends. You earn ten times more selling 10 at 100 than 100 at 1.
-
That's the istock attitude. Ignore the real problem and simply point to the slider as the answer to the complaint about prices.
There shouldn't be a need for a slider in the first place. That's the point.
Buyers are saying that there are too many collections, too many price variations, images are too expensive, and istock is offering the slider as the solution rather than addressing the problem and simplifying pricing.
Matter of fact they tend to go the other way and keep introducing new ways to alter pricing. E+, P+, etc. It's that same old "We'll tell you what you want instead of listening to what you're asking for" mentality.
That particular buyer seemed not to like the one price of Photos.com either, as he thinks their photos are 'garbage', yet doesn't want to pay more for better. As I've said before, what do you think would happen if I went into e.g. Gucci and said I didn't like their prices? Do they care if I don't buy anything there? Are they reducing their prices so that I'll become a customer?
Not long ago, buyers were asking for a way of getting rid of expensive files from searches. That was provided. True, it would be better if the 'stops' for the slider were level with the dots. The dots perhaps aren't ideal, but otherwise it would require a lot of different sliders putting the equivalent of £ - ££££ in all different currencies (people outwith America don't always like to see $$$ [1])
Many different price points are common in all walks of life. I went into a hardware store today, and everything from nails and lightbulbs to fully-fitted kitchens came in at a wide variety of prices. It's normal.
Let's imagine I want to buy a top on Landsend (UK).
Go to the site. I can choose from the top ten categories. Ignoring the ones that don't apply, I can choose Women, Offers or Clearance. (There are also 17 different categories down the left hand side).
Let's say I choose Women. There are 12 choices in the dropdown. I want a top, so I have to choose between tops, shirts and blouses or knitwear.
Choose tops, and I have a choice between petite, regular, plus or tall sizes.
Choose tops, I now have a choice between polotops, shirts and blouses (again), Jersey tops, cardigans, tunics, polo necks and roll necks or 'shop by fit'. Underneath that, I can refine my choice by sleeve length, fabric or style.
Once I've got that all chosen, I can then choose to sort by most popular, recommended, Price low to high, or price high to low.
Price points: For women's regular short sleeved tops, prices range from £6 to '£35 reduced to £30'.
Filtering and different price points are a fact of online business. Unless you're selling only a very, very few products.
Actually, I don't think there's an easy way for a buyer to find the Dollar Bin from the first page, unlike LandsEnd, who has Clearance and Offers right on the top line of the home page. As far as I can see, it's not even accessible from the Site Map, Search Tips or FAQs, or Search FAQs. I think someone here did point out where it is, but it's certainly not easy to find.
[1] When Landsend first came to the UK, they somehow traded on their American-ness, got loads of complaints about that, which they printed in their catalogue, apologised and adapted very quickly.
-
It depends. You earn ten times more selling 10 at 100 than 100 at 1.
Good theory __ just doesn't work in practice. My portfolio makes nearly twice as much money for me at SS as it does at IS although the images at the latter are more expensive. I suspect that SS has just gained a new 'Corporate Master' buyer today too.
-
That's not the point, the point is that I can't understand someone having difficulties understanding how the slider works. Is graphic, intuitive and very simple.
yeah. I think more disparaging to buyers is how stupid some posters here make them sound...
-
It depends. You earn ten times more selling 10 at 100 than 100 at 1.
Good theory __ just doesn't work in practice.
Reality would be rather more messy, say one at $70 and three at $20 instead of 10 at $10. If you push it beyond a certain point the balancing act would become incredibly sensitive and any miscalculation or shift in the market might knock off the one $70 sale you rely on to make the equation work. That is a vulnerability that doesn't exist in the low-price model, so it is introducing a lot of risk into the system.
Maybe today they managed to keep the one at $70 but lost two at $20. Suddenly a $30 gain would turn into a $10 loss - and that's through cheesing-off a mid-price buyer, not the top-price buyer.
All completely speculative, of course, but it does indicate how different kinds of risk could affect such a system.
-
is this the "biggest" topic ever?
- topic started on September 09, 2010, 10:06
- around 1375 posts (0.33/day)
- read 83394 times
-
It depends. You earn ten times more selling 10 at 100 than 100 at 1.
Good theory __ just doesn't work in practice. My portfolio makes nearly twice as much money for me at SS as it does at IS although the images at the latter are more expensive. I suspect that SS has just gained a new 'Corporate Master' buyer today too.
No idea why, nor if you have the same number of photos in both sides etc. Regarding what we were talkin about, what Iknow as a fact is that,without being my photos nothing very special, I sell E+ Vetta, Agency on a daily basis. That's a fact, for me. If I would make more selling elsewhere is just guess work.
-
is this the "biggest" topic ever?
- topic started on September 09, 2010, 10:06
- around 1375 posts (0.33/day)
- read 83394 times
Yes on replies, no on views. Check the stat's here;
http://www.microstockgroup.com/stats/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/stats/)
-
Regarding what we were talkin about, what Iknow as a fact is that,without being my photos nothing very special, I sell E+ Vetta, Agency on a daily basis. That's a fact, for me. If I would make more selling elsewhere is just guess work.
Check out this thread in it's entirety, the traffic stat's and the IS sales threads. Truth is Istock's policies are losing them buyers by the bus load and no-one knows if and when that trend may stop. That's 'a fact' for me. You can shut your eyes and hide under the duvet clutching your little crown tightly to your bosom but it won't change the reality of the situation.
-
it seems to me that IS thinks the contributors should deal with customer relations and how to operate the site through their forums. Good luck with that strategy.
It also seems that the site is being defrauded again. Lots of refunds . No arguing this time.If it is credit card fraud they do not care. Take back the royalty, leave the file downloaded with the customer or theif and ignore complaint.
The site appears to be trying to maintain profit by getting more through dwindling sales and selling through other sites that do not annoy the customer as much as IS does. Good luck with that as a long term strategy.
Much has been said about variety and yet IS keeps accepting multiple similar images from exclusives and putting them in searches. It also pushes down cheaper files (irrespective some cryptic/confusing dots sliders to try to overcome exclusive/P+/vetta) Good luck as that as a long time marketing tool.
It has allowed many popular images that were at the site to be withdrawn with bailing contributors and many do not bother to upload there any more ( wilst uploading to all the other major sites).
Oh yes they have exclusives will that save them?
Operationally they cannot fix bugs/deal with valid complaints or keep goodwill with contributors. Not sure who runs their strategic management (if it exists) but it is a fail in my view.
-
Regarding what we were talkin about, what Iknow as a fact is that,without being my photos nothing very special, I sell E+ Vetta, Agency on a daily basis. That's a fact, for me. If I would make more selling elsewhere is just guess work.
Check out this thread in it's entirety, the traffic stat's and the IS sales threads. Truth is Istock's policies are losing them buyers by the bus load and no-one knows if and when that trend may stop. That's 'a fact' for me. You can shut your eyes and hide under the duvet clutching your little crown tightly to your bosom but it won't change the reality of the situation.
I see you seem to fancy crowns, but that's not my case. That's not about little crowns (why some independents are so obsseded with crowns?? It's just a silly graphic!) , that's about business and money. And nothing that you don't know for sure can never be a fact, obviously. I know how much money comes every week to bank account (another fact) I know what is my RPI and I have compared it with RPIs published here by independents. I haven't blind faith in anything, istock included, and if some day I have to change I would do it. Not yet, for sure, that's what my most important facts say to me rigth now.
-
it seems to me that IS thinks the contributors should deal with customer relations and how to operate the site through their forums.
That buyer chose to express his rant through the forums, which isn't necessarily the same thing.
-
Funny this. Why is it a general trend to call buyers complaining or jumping ship, stupid or unintelligent? then there must be thousands of stupid buyers. Die-hard IS members will always dismiss the buyers as just plain stupid, in this case because they cant use a slider, well maybe this buyer simply did not WANT, to use the moronic slider?
I cant remember ever seeing a client-complaint at the IS forum, being met in a civil and nice manner, let alone an appology, not even a logic explanation as to why things go wrong, pricings or whatever.
No wonder Bruce took his well earnt money and ran for his life, never to look back, he probably had the foresight to know exactly where this pharaphernalia was heading. :)
-
Funny this. Why is it a general trend to call buyers complaining or jumping ship, stupid or unintelligent? then there must be thousands of stupid buyers. Die-hard IS members will always dismiss the buyers as just plain stupid, in this case because they cant use a slider, well maybe this buyer simply did not WANT, to use the moronic slider?
What happens at any other site if a buyer doesn't like or WANT to use a slider, drop down, filter or any other search feature?
I cant remember ever seeing a client-complaint at the IS forum, being met in a civil and nice manner, let alone an appology, not even a logic explanation as to why things go wrong, pricings or whatever.
Did you read the one mentioned on this thread?
Whiteway suggested using the slider, and to untick Editorial if he didn't want to see them.
(Note that this buyer didn't say he didn't want to use a slider. He didn't seem to know it was there.)
Sean confirmed this and admitted there was a search bug which is putting a few irrelevant files into every search.
Kelvin put in a screenshot to show how it's done.
How would you have answered this buyer, the one who seems to think that "practically everything" is Vetta. 16 of the top 42 files are Vetta by best match. Admittedly that's a much higher percentage than most searches were returning before the best match shake last Friday, but it isn't even half.
(Side note: I wonder why they've gone back to pushing Vetta so much, since it was generally noted as unpopular? They must have discovered that in fact pushing the Vettas, contrary to our suppositions, was actually working well for them. Or it's just a mistake.)
-
What happens at any other site if a buyer doesn't like or WANT to use a slider, drop down, filter or any other search feature?
Well, most of other sites doesn't have a price slider because it is not necessary because all the files cost the same. But it they encounter a site that is difficult to use, they go to the next one. But they won't be coming back to iStock.
-
What happens at any other site if a buyer doesn't like or WANT to use a slider, drop down, filter or any other search feature?
Well, most of other sites doesn't have a price slider because it is not necessary because all the files cost the same. But it they encounter a site that is difficult to use, they go to the next one. But they won't be coming back to iStock.
When I go to Amazon, nothing costs the same. You seem to think that just because something is made of pixels, it costs the same as the next. Well, it doesn't. Life is rough. Use the filter like a big boy.
-
What happens at any other site if a buyer doesn't like or WANT to use a slider, drop down, filter or any other search feature?
Well, most of other sites doesn't have a price slider because it is not necessary because all the files cost the same. But it they encounter a site that is difficult to use, they go to the next one. But they won't be coming back to iStock.
I really meant any other online sales site, not necessarily stock sites.
I agree that what gets in and doesn't get in to Vetta and Agency is often arbitrary and unexplicable/indefensible, but I guess they wanted to encourage photographers to spend more for higher production shoots and be recompensed for it. Of course like you and everyone else, I could point out many Agency photos that have no more expense/production values, just have lensflare, 'cross-processing' and stuff. But that was the stated theory. Vetta, well, they changed the goalposts after launching it.
I really can only imagine that buyer doesn't use any other ecommerce sites (outside stock). Fair enough, but that can't be the norm.
True story: I've got a friend who is, unfortunately and embarassingly, a serial complainer. Example: once we went to a restaurant which she wanted to try for some reason. The minute we went in I knew it wasn't for us. Everyone else was in their 20s or early 30s, and there was more drinking than eating going on. The music was unknown to me, loud and not to my taste. Fair enough. I'd have thought, "Whoops, this isn't for me" and left. Not my friend (aged the other side of 70). She marched right up to the barman and said, "That music's far too loud. You'll need to turn it down".
The customer is always right? You have to cater to every market sector? I don't think so!
-
What happens at any other site if a buyer doesn't like or WANT to use a slider, drop down, filter or any other search feature?
Well, most of other sites doesn't have a price slider because it is not necessary because all the files cost the same. But it they encounter a site that is difficult to use, they go to the next one. But they won't be coming back to iStock.
Hmmm- take Shutterstock. First I have to decide whether I want to buy a subscription package then which one I want or I can choose options of images on demand.
True, there isn't a price slider, but there are plenty of filters down the left hand column which the buyer can use or ignore as they choose.
And it takes one more click to switch 'off' editorial - first you have to click the word Editorial then you can click on the box to have only Editorial or only non-editorial if you choose.
Each site has its own quirks, like any other real or online retailler; you just have to get used to them. Or indeed, move on.
-
When I go to Amazon, nothing costs the same. You seem to think that Judy because something is made of pixels, it costs the same as the next. Well, it doesn't. Life is rough. Use the filter like a big boy.
Actually I'd say that comparative products do roughly cost the same at Amazon. There is a 'going rate' for a standard paperback, hardbacks cost more, newer popular products are heavily discounted, etc, etc. The price differences that exist are largely logical and understandable.
I did the 'Hong Kong' search that the leaving buyer quoted. There's a very ordinary horizontal image of a 'junk ship' that is a Vetta and then the vertical version which is not. Does it cost 5x more (or less) for the photographer to have turned his wrists 90'?
I'm all for the photographer to earn more from exceptionally good, high production cost shoots or niche market stuff __ but why should Istock earn so much more from the sales of them? They're not doing any more work or incurring any more costs. Istock could double the cost of the image to the buyer, say, but give all the additional proceeds to the artist if that's what the higher prices were supposed to compensate for.
-
form shady sue
"True story: I've got a friend who is, unfortunately and embarassingly, a serial complainer. Example: once we went to a restaurant which she wanted to try for some reason. The minute we went in I knew it wasn't for us. Everyone else was in their 20s or early 30s, and there was more drinking than eating going on. The music was unknown to me, loud and not to my taste. Fair enough. I'd have thought, "Whoops, this isn't for me" and left. Not my friend (aged the other side of 70). She marched right up to the barman and said, "That music's far too loud. You'll need to turn it down".
The customer is always right? You have to cater to every market sector? I don't think so!"
Well if your friend had been a loyal customer and she found that the price were all up 50%. The menu was new with lots of expensive stuff she doesn't like and the whole feel of it had changed.?? Maybe the restaurant did not want her as a customer??? We are not talking about new customers but rather existing. New customers will dine down the road at SS, Fotolia etc. Maybe there is a crowd that was itching for the new "dining" experience but many are turned off by it and the other resaurants are cheaper with more variety and easier to read menus.
-
is this the "biggest" topic ever?
- topic started on September 09, 2010, 10:06
- around 1375 posts (0.33/day)
- read 83394 times
The thread will finish once they've all bailed. ETD...
-
Well if your friend had been a loyal customer and she found that the price were all up 50%. The menu was new with lots of expensive stuff she doesn't like and the whole feel of it had changed.?? Maybe the restaurant did not want her as a customer??? We are not talking about new customers but rather existing. New customers will dine down the road at SS, Fotolia etc. Maybe there is a crowd that was itching for the new "dining" experience but many are turned off by it and the other resaurants are cheaper with more variety and easier to read menus.
That happens too. When I was a student, my 'home' pals had a favourite pub, and I went with them whenever I went home. Out of the blue, I got a letter from one of them to tell me that to their astonishment it was now a Gay bar. They weren't exactly banned, but they weren't exactly welcome either. As the only Gay Bar in the area at that time, I'd imagine they did very well.
-
... You seem to think that just because something is made of pixels, it costs the same as the next. Well, it doesn't. Life is rough. Use the filter like a big boy.
I'm not the person at whom the comment was directed, but I think the point you're missing is that this "take your medicine and don't complain" approach might work if a buyer had no choices, but when you have one (or several) working sites from which to choose, why would you stick with the site whose interface is confusing, or annoying or both?
iStock has not defined some wonderful new UI paradigm with the price slider; even the people who suggest it should be used don't generally praise it. It's a rather unfortunate compromise design that is based more on what iStock wanted to steer buyers to (after 6 months or more of just ignoring requests to be able to filter out Vetta and Agency images).
Those of you taking a "pro slider" position can argue all you like with buyers or other contributors about how good you think it is and how buyers should just stop fussing, but as long as Getty hasn't bought up all the competition, buyers can shop elsewhere if they don't like what iStock's offering. I just don't see how this wilful dismissal of buyer complaints can lead anywhere good.
Given the buyer had 500+ credits still to use, I find it hard to believe he closed his account - doesn't anyone wonder why it's gone away?
-
... I got a letter from one of them to tell me that to their astonishment it [favorite pub] was now a Gay bar. They weren't exactly banned, but they weren't exactly welcome either. As the only Gay Bar in the area at that time, I'd imagine they did very well.
Can I now quote you saying that iStock is now just like a Gay Bar? :) Lobo will never let you back then...
-
When I was a student, my 'home' pals had a favourite pub, and I went with them whenever I went home. Out of the blue, I got a letter from one of them to tell me that to their astonishment it was now a Gay bar. They weren't exactly banned, but they weren't exactly welcome either. As the only Gay Bar in the area at that time, I'd imagine they did very well.
So you think that 'buyers are bailing on istock' because it has turned into a Gay site or something? Not quite sure I follow your logic.
-
... I got a letter from one of them to tell me that to their astonishment it [favorite pub] was now a Gay bar. They weren't exactly banned, but they weren't exactly welcome either. As the only Gay Bar in the area at that time, I'd imagine they did very well.
Can I now quote you saying that iStock is now just like a Gay Bar? :) Lobo will never let you back then...
;D
-
When I was a student, my 'home' pals had a favourite pub, and I went with them whenever I went home. Out of the blue, I got a letter from one of them to tell me that to their astonishment it was now a Gay bar. They weren't exactly banned, but they weren't exactly welcome either. As the only Gay Bar in the area at that time, I'd imagine they did very well.
So you think that 'buyers are bailing on istock' because it has turned into a Gay site or something? Not quite sure I follow your logic.
Not at all. Just pointing out that some businesses choose a certain market sector.
Making no value judgement on such a choice, and the anecdote was a reply to Mark's post, not my explanation for buyers baling.
H*ck I don't want to turn into an iStock rabid, but I do think that particular buyer was either being deliberately provocative, didn't want to try, has no experience of ecommerce in general or as someone earlier suggested, was h*cked off about something else but morphed it into that complaint.
What's the site to do: apparently many buyers asked for a way to filter out V/A files. The slider is clumsy, but it works for its purpose. One buyer complains about it. What's iStock meant to do - remove it altogether?
-
H*ck I don't want to turn into an iStock rabid, but I do think that particular buyer was either being deliberately provocative, didn't want to try, has no experience of ecommerce in general or as someone earlier suggested, was h*cked off about something else but morphed it into that complaint.
What's the site to do: apparently many buyers asked for a way to filter out V/A files. The slider is clumsy, but it works for its purpose. One buyer complains about it. What's iStock meant to do - remove it altogether?
I think you, or more importantly Istock, should take the buyer at face value. But of course they won't.
They could have some very simple buttons/filters similar to FT. Istock made it very clear that 'the slider' was only brought in under duress and after months of prevarication and delay. Belatedly they relunctantly did the bare-arse minimum to provide the facility that buyers demanded whilst deliberately making it as unintuative and awkward to use as they could possibly devise. Now they are paying the price for refusing to willingly do what their customers asked for. Not difficult to understand is it?
-
I'm not buying it. Buyers want prices in their range. Here's a slider that let's them relatively sort their range. It has to be 'relatively' because each image has a variety of prices per sizes. There it is. Use it. Dohine'you whine about how it isn't there, because it is.
-
I'm not buying it.
... and neither are the buyers! Woo-yay.
I think that's probably 'checkmate' isn't it?
-
for every buyer that goes to the forums peed off there are many more in the wings quietly signing up elsewhere. Does not matter what we think. If the buyers say they do not like wanky dot sliders that is it. Forcing them to not be able to sort was not working so why not give them what they wanted? It is really really poor marketing. Nonsense about differentiation of the markets is great but segmentation analysis justification in this case is rubbish. Nothing has been done form a marketing perspective. Trying to get more for less is not marketing it is just corporate greed. Sounds ok if it works but mostly it doesn't. Competition exist and buyer and contributer relations do count. Otherwise IS without buyers and contributers IS is just crappy software and some image thiefs getting free image downloads.
-
Well, for every buyer who can't understand a slider UI, there are many who can.
-
I'm not buying it.
... and neither are the buyers! Woo-yay.
I think that's probably 'checkmate' isn't it?
:)
Please explain why a slider that is meant to sort photos by price uses dots instead of...say...price? We've been through this whole slider argument before. It was put there solely to make an attempt at appeasing buyers(contributors?) Using dots was just the istock typical way of using smoke and mirrors instead of actually making it sort by what it is supposed to, by price. Leaves them a lot of room for their old sleight of hand, re-sort and re-shuffle.
It always takes an explanation from some exclusive at istock to a frustrated buyer to explain how the freakin site works. And then the buyer is chastised for complaining about it. Nice work, istock. Keep them coming to the other sites, I'm lovin it!
-
As I said, it can't be price. A small Vetta is less than a large regular. It isn't rocket science. It has to be an abstract thing.
-
Well, for every buyer who can't understand a slider UI, there are many who can.
... and for every buyer who can or who cannot 'understand a slider' there are plenty of other microstock agencies totally uncontaminated by such nonsense. Judging by the traffic stat's, that's kind of where they appear to be heading to. I think it'll be a very long time before SS introduce 'a slider' for example. Such things as 'sliders' have no place in the real world of microstock. The buying public know that they are just irritations designed to boost profits for the agency and cost themselves money or valuable time.
-
So, SS is for the 'dollar store buyer' who can't figure out a paradigm where things aren't all you can grab for $199 a month?
I'm sorry, but all this 'buyers aren't smart enough to know how to buy' stuff is really annoying me today. You can't say the entire buying public is leaving IS because they can't use a filter based on one post.
-
Please explain why a slider that is meant to sort photos by price uses dots instead of...say...price? We've been through this whole slider argument before. It was put there solely to make an attempt at appeasing buyers(contributors?) Using dots was just the istock typical way of using smoke and mirrors instead of actually making it sort by what it is supposed to, by price. Leaves them a lot of room for their old sleight of hand, re-sort and re-shuffle.
It always takes an explanation from some exclusive at istock to a frustrated buyer to explain how the freakin site works. And then the buyer is chastised for complaining about it. Nice work, istock. Keep them coming to the other sites, I'm lovin it!
That's so well said. Wish I'd written that! Needless to say, I agree with every word.
-
Ok, tell me how to make a price slider. Someone, please. If you set a top price of $10, does it just show you images with only mediums available? Does it bring up all images and just make mediums available? Does it just bring up images with a size with a top price of $10?
Folks, these are things that have multiple prices per product, choosable by the buyer. Conveniently, they are sorted into collections, each of which is relatively more expensive then the next. Since they are "relatively" more expensive, an abstract way of representing it is needed.
This is not Amazon, where a 42" Samsung TV is $400 and only $400.
-
sjlocke "So, SS is for the 'dollar store buyer' who can't figure out a paradigm where things aren't all you can grab for $199 a month?
I'm sorry, but all this 'buyers aren't smart enough to know how to buy' stuff is really annoying me today. You can't say the entire buying public is leaving IS because they can't use a filter based on one post."
Many of us now make more per sale at SS than we do at IS. SS has more EL and one off buyers. Why?? Do the people at IS not buy for EL or not bother to pay. It is not that buyers aren't smart enough but why should there be barriers?? If I go to a site to purchase something (not images) and it is difficult to interface I go elsewhere. Maybe I am dumb? Certainly some buyers are lazy and also have enough hassles in thier lives without IS or others adding to it. Put up barriers to buyers and pee them off and they leave. Are they lazy? - often like all of us, that is why they buy an image at IS rather than go to TS?? Why I get a sale at Alamy for nice dollars when they could have had the same imge at SS fo 1/100th of the price? Do not make them learn extra features or they may get cheesed of and go to TS or SS..
-
Many of us now make more per sale at SS than we do at IS. SS has more EL and one off buyers. Why??
Sorry, I'm not able to analyze your sales data.
-
I'm sorry, but all this 'buyers aren't smart enough to know how to buy' stuff is really annoying me today. You can't say the entire buying public is leaving IS because they can't use a filter based on one post.
I'm not saying that and you don't believe that either. The 'buying public' are leaving because Istock bears little or no relation to the original 'microstock' model that they originally bought in to. The fact that via a complex series of filters they might just about arrive at a rather more expensive version of what they once enjoyed (with many of the best images now excluded from them) does not make things 'ok'.
I'm staggered that neither you nor TPTB at Istock seem to be able to grasp such a simple concept __ that the original concept actually worked. Shutterstock, who have largely remained true to the microstock model, with all images priced the same, are cleaning up here at Istock's expense. It's like Istock are just willingly handing over the family silver __ for free! I can't believe they're not even making a fight for the business. Are Istock totally stupid or deluded or what?
-
"Folks, these are things that have multiple prices per product, choosable by the buyer. Conveniently, they are sorted into collections, each of which is relatively more expensive then the next. Since they are "relatively" more expensive, an abstract way of representing it is needed."
Said like a true evangalist. What nonsense. The collection they wanted is diffused by confusing price points and inconsistencies. Are P+ better??? Are exclusive images better than independent?? These changes are not about giving better product service and meeting demand and wants. They were about getting more money. Guess what ? If you ignore customers they take their business elsewhere. It seems that the forums at IS are often full of people having to tell customers how to shop, search or work around bugs.
Maybe the customers/buyers should have to do an entry test and training course to buy. Maybe that would make it all rosy. Get rid of the dumbies that can not understand the system?
-
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.
How hQ of iSmackz, gredyimagis, and some H&F dont realize how many long fur coats they can buy to they concubines with this 1-3% lost?!
And its christmas time ;D
-
@ markrhiggins
You typed all that, and you still didn't tell me how I should construct a price slider for "product" available at multiple prices. I never said anything about "better". The buyers asked how to exclude certain collections. The existing slider is the answer.
And don't start that "evangelist" crap. Anyone here knows I call it like it see it.
-
Sean why ask us how to make a "price slider"?
Maybe it is not what the customers want at all. It would be a good idea to talk to the customers what will best suit their needs and implement it. What happened is change imposed on them and then a slight compromise to give them changes in sorting. Clearly it is not the contributors or buyers who are driving changes. In marketing it may be.
How are the sales reimbursements going? It seems more image theft?
-
Well, here goes another one. Unhappy buyer 'tleedycorp', proudly displaying a Corporate Master badge, gives Istock both barrels in the Discussion forum;
"This site sucks now. Photo searches bring one of two possibilities, 1) 2 out of every 10 images are for editorial use only, or 2) "angry baby" appears in my search for Hong Kong. WTH?? This site is nearly useless to me now. Too bad I have 500+ credits to use. I might as well go back to Photos.com and the garbage they had there. Oh, and now practically everything is Vetta collection. Great. Another site that just wastes vast amounts of my time. But, like most things, I am sure nothing will change as a result of feedback. We will just be expected to pay more for a far less functional, and in my opinion, inferior and ineffective image search method. Too bad. This was very useful and helpful to us for a while."
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338061&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338061&page=1[/url])
Strangely, if you click on their name you arrive at the front page. Maybe their account has been closed already?
interesting theories abound here. but personally I think this last buyer that left is just mad as hell and not going to take it anymore so he left. no price sliders, education on how to exclude vetta or other helpful tips will keep him there. It seems to me that he got frustrated trying to find images and so it was just the last straw and he's moving on.
-
"Anyone here knows I call it like it see it."
Sometimes you can be too close to see the big picture. It is not how IS experts can use the software/sort etc. It is about customer service and meeting their needs. I find it really funny to see contributors writing script etc. It is interesting how the "budget basement tag" gets pushed onto SS. For many of us they earn more per image and per sale than IS. It was sad to see independent bashing at IS on the forums when the royalty changes happened. It is also sad to see some of those people now being in a position that they are making the hard transition to go independent. How . did it all happen? Customers? Contributers? It is a puzzle lol
-
Ok, tell me how to make a price slider. Someone, please. If you set a top price of $10, does it just show you images with only mediums available? Does it bring up all images and just make mediums available? Does it just bring up images with a size with a top price of $10?
Folks, these are things that have multiple prices per product, choosable by the buyer. Conveniently, they are sorted into collections, each of which is relatively more expensive then the next. Since they are "relatively" more expensive, an abstract way of representing it is needed.
This is not Amazon, where a 42" Samsung TV is $400 and only $400.
if you had empirical data, absolute proof, and a shiny new penny to boot....you wouldn't be able to convince this crowd. iStock bad, friend (any other agency) good. good effort Sean.
-
woo yay? Really it is not about bashing. It is just about trying to understand the self destructive nature of IS. Of course IS is forging ahead and gaining market share??? As for the trying to justify the changes it sort of sounds like Tea Party devotees trying to explain how giving more to the rich and taking from the poor will save your economy. All great if you do not think too hard or have the misfortune to understand Economics or marketing.
-
if you had empirical data, absolute proof, and a shiny new penny to boot....you wouldn't be able to convince this crowd. iStock bad, friend (any other agency) good. good effort Sean.
Huh? Surely it's the other way round? Independents get to see the bigger picture and report things the way they actually are. Exclusives, on the other hand, clutch their precious little crowns and then try to persuade everyone who'll listen that Istock, with whom they've invested their life, is doing really, really well actually __ despite all evidence to the contrary.
-
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.
-
@ markrhiggins
You typed all that, and you still didn't tell me how I should construct a price slider for "product" available at multiple prices. I never said anything about "better". The buyers asked how to exclude certain collections. The existing slider is the answer.
And don't start that "evangelist" crap. Anyone here knows I call it like it see it.
The search textfield on the first page should only include basic price. You should normally have to check IN Vetta not to check OUT it.
I think is pretty easy to implemement it like that.
-
...I'm staggered that neither you nor TPTB at Istock seem to be able to grasp such a simple concept __ that the original concept actually worked. Shutterstock, who have largely remained true to the microstock model, with all images priced the same, are cleaning up here at Istock's expense. It's like Istock are just willingly handing over the family silver __ for free! I can't believe they're not even making a fight for the business. Are Istock totally stupid or deluded or what?
I think you guys are being naive in regards to Shutterstock and it never having to adjust its business model. Even if its volume of sales overtakes Istock by a huge margin there will come a day when even the highest producing contributors won't be able to keep up with the growth of new competing images if nothing changes.
SS will have to raise standards so high that the amateurs struggle to get anything accepted or they will have to create special higher priced collections to keep the top talent from losing money because of dilution. Higher standards without higher prices could hurt the photographer's bottom line all by itself.
If SS stays true to its original microstock model and just raises standards the majority of contributors, who are not superstars, could become enraged at Shutterstock because of low acceptance rates. I think there's already been a thread at MSG about low acceptance rates.
We can acknowledge it or not but this industry has a supply problem and Vetta is one answer to that problem.
Hold on while I make sure my helmet is strapped on properly. ;D
-
It's interesting, for the sake of comparison, to see how Achilles responded to a similar complaint a few months back. I can't imagine any iStock top executive writing anything like this:
"...you're being heard. Subscriptions are a way to provide you access to those high level files. They require a commitment, it's true, but you can simply balance between credits and subscriptions over time. The way we price the image allows you to reach high quality content at a decent price, but you also need to adapt to various packages or to simply find a different image.
Only a smaller part of the database will cost 15 credits and is not true that level 1 images cost that much. They are 10 credits, while a level 0 image will require 7 credits for the high res. Assuming you use them online, go for a lower size and the prices are as low as 1 credit.
Our prices need to reflect the contributors' efforts. It is a tough market for everyone, but these images are extremely low priced considering their quality. Keep in mind that what you download for $5 might've cost hundreds or thousands to produce. There is a lot of work involved and the image has no guaranteed success. It may sell or it may not.
What you need to do is use the engine to limit it at level 0 or 1 images. These are new images that may soon be level 5. If you download them fast, you will enjoy a lower price.
Try to switch between credits and subscriptions, depending on your needs. And as suggested above, you can upload your own images and then convert earnings into credits. You will also view the other side of the story, unless you're a born talend is not a piece of cake to create great images and to sell them.
Check the free images section and see if you can get a part of your content from there. You can combine a level 5 image with two free ones and get nice content at a lower price.
I'm not trying to persuade you that what you pay is not expensive, that depends on your budget. One could pay half of what you pay and still think it is expensive. What I'm saying is that there are ways to get great content at a lower price without ruining the quality of the images. Give these a try and let us know your experience. "
I'd say that is a model of how the treat your customers: helpful, respectful and understanding, while simultaneously advertising the excellence of the goods on offer and complimenting those who created them.
Just for a laugh (and referring to something a page or two back), the art of serial complaining in a restaurant was demonstrated in its purest form by Stephen Fry in the waiter sketch of The New Statesman. Stephen Fry in The New Statesman (clips) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz1rhLnCrJQ#) . Enjoy.
-
reading the expert opinions about iStock in this thread, it's any wonder that iStock and we moronic exclusives can even afford our morning cups of coffee, since the buyers are all gone (because iStock kicked them in the you-know-whats one time too many), and the smart photographers are basking in the endless sunlight of Shutterstock Utopia--where nothing is wrong, there's no competition and buyers get belly rubs every hour on the hour.
-
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
@retrorocket ... collection growth, portfolio growth and sales dilution are genuine issues not just for SS but for suppliers to all agencies. However, they have nothing to do with upset customers.
(Calm down SNP, it's bad for the blood pressure)
-
@retrorocket ... collection growth, portfolio growth and sales dilution are genuine issues not just for SS but for suppliers to all agencies. However, they have nothing to do with upset customers.
(Calm down SNP, it's bad for the blood pressure)
don't worry, I had a big grin on typing that one.....and I did my five km run earlier this evening
-
@retrorocket ... collection growth, portfolio growth and sales dilution are genuine issues not just for SS but for suppliers to all agencies. However, they have nothing to do with upset customers.
(Calm down SNP, it's bad for the blood pressure)
I agree that's why I added the quote from Gostwyck to point out structural issues that will be problem in the future. I believe the uber positive sales reports given by the independents will continue for a time but not in the long term without changes.
I'm also not defending Istock's customer service or website problems. However, I do think higher priced collections like Vetta provide an answer to future issues now rather than later. There might be a better answer out there. We'll see.
ETA: Yes, I strayed from the original topic about the slider but the conversation became about business models.
-
I have to admit that I haven't read the last several pages of this thread from when I posted early today (too much yada, yada, yada), but mark me down as an early News Year's resolution... No more iStock threads. I'm giving them up. Everyone else is right. I don't care. :)
-
Sorry guys but this is all a bunch of crock anyway. This slider gives the impression of a quality slider, the higher the price, the better quality, right. Well thousands of buyers didnt swallow that garbage and why? simply because they couldnt see any differance in quality, thats why, so they refused to get fooled. tisk, tisk.
Collections? Vettas? well if you compare the Vettas to the two most accomplished commercial collections in the world ( wildly recognized buy buyers, etc) the Image-Bank and Stones, collections, they will make the Vettas look like Covent-Garden-arts, no more. So whats the big deal?
Look at, say the top 10 guys at IS or any site for that matter, just have a look! all lifestyles shooters, one after another and with models, etc. They all look the same, every single one of them, THE SAME ( no offence), so who is to say that one is better then the other? its a joke.
Yuri, an independant actually, tops every single agency in the world and good luck to him! anybody thinks he is there because he supplies unique imagery? answer is, no, he is there because of his brillant business approach to the industry, thats why.
IS approach to business: like a surgeon deciding to do a heart transplant, when a bypass or a pacemaker would have been more then enough or too simple, so the body rejects the new heart, ahhh! complications! and more complications! ofcourse, the end result is unavoidable.
-
... You seem to think that just because something is made of pixels, it costs the same as the next. Well, it doesn't. Life is rough. Use the filter like a big boy.
I'm not the person at whom the comment was directed, but I think the point you're missing is that this "take your medicine and don't complain" approach might work if a buyer had no choices, but when you have one (or several) working sites from which to choose, why would you stick with the site whose interface is confusing, or annoying or both?
iStock has not defined some wonderful new UI paradigm with the price slider; even the people who suggest it should be used don't generally praise it. It's a rather unfortunate compromise design that is based more on what iStock wanted to steer buyers to (after 6 months or more of just ignoring requests to be able to filter out Vetta and Agency images).
Those of you taking a "pro slider" position can argue all you like with buyers or other contributors about how good you think it is and how buyers should just stop fussing, but as long as Getty hasn't bought up all the competition, buyers can shop elsewhere if they don't like what iStock's offering. I just don't see how this wilful dismissal of buyer complaints can lead anywhere good.
Given the buyer had 500+ credits still to use, I find it hard to believe he closed his account - doesn't anyone wonder why it's gone away?
Exactly the high margin push is insulting, we are certainly able to discern quality and value and there are plenty of standard files available that meet or exceed the quality included in the Vetta and Agency collections. Price does not always equal a superior product.
-
You don't sell luxury brands at a one-dollar-store, because it just doesn't work. You would feel poor and unwanted when you would be at the shelves that contain cheap products. It's much nicer to go to a one-dollar-store where you can afford anything you see.
Buyers don't like the slider and they don't like a site that rubs into their faces that they are too poor to buy the "good stuff". I'm using apostrophes here, because some of the expensive stuff is inferior to the cheap stuff, also that doesn't make any sense.
-
This is not Amazon, where a 42" Samsung TV is $400 and only $400.
Interesting.
I thought, Surely there are 42" Samsung TVs at different price points, so I hopped along to Amazon.
Remember, the web designer's mantra is "What would Amazon do?"
And at least one poster on that thread on iStock said, "... and just type it in at Amazon and IT WORKS".
So I went to Amazon (UK) and typed in 'just' 42" Samsung TV, and this is what I got:
http://www.lizworld.com/Samsung.jpg (http://www.lizworld.com/Samsung.jpg)
So ... clearly I should have filtered by department.
But what if I don't WANT to filter by department and stamp my little foot and say so?
"Your site sucks. I wanted to buy a 42" Samsung TV and your search brings me anything BUT Samsung TVs"
Either a user opts to learn an interface or an online seller can't offer a wide variety of goods.
-
I think the price slider is a good solution to striking the balance between iStock and its artists' desire to sell higher price files and buyers' desire to limit their expenses if necessary. I don't want buyers coming in and permanently turning off Vetta and Agency, but I do want them to be able to filter them out if they're prepared to put in 10 seconds of effort.
Despite all the moaning about iStock, their higher prices are the only thing that are going to make it worthwhile for us in the long run.
-
I think the price slider is a good solution to striking the balance between iStock and its artists' desire to sell higher price files and buyers' desire to limit their expenses if necessary. I don't want buyers coming in and permanently turning off Vetta and Agency, but I do want them to be able to filter them out if they're prepared to put in 10 seconds of effort.
Despite all the moaning about iStock, their higher prices are the only thing that are going to make it worthwhile for us in the long run.
Agreeing 100%, despite all the moaning, etc ( myself included), its only the higher sales that will come to account for something. Thats in fact the ONLY reason Im still there.
-
Oh, and royalty percentages that are actually ethical and realistic, of course.
-
I think the price slider is a good solution to striking the balance between ...
Yeah, never mind the buyers leaving totally pissed off, it's a good solution, and that's it... 8 )
-
I think the price slider is a good solution to striking the balance between iStock and its artists' desire to sell higher price files and buyers' desire to limit their expenses if necessary. I don't want buyers coming in and permanently turning off Vetta and Agency, but I do want them to be able to filter them out if they're prepared to put in 10 seconds of effort.
Despite all the moaning about iStock, their higher prices are the only thing that are going to make it worthwhile for us in the long run.
Agree with you fotoVoyager. The only problem with the price slider is it should have been implemented from the first day Vettas and Agency files appeared. And I would like it to be even more prominent. Fit the budget to customers needs. To all that say that Vetta and Agency have no added value I think this is total nonsense. In any sector of life there are different price ranges depending usually on quality or scarcity. The same holds true for photography. And when I see Vetta/Agency files (with exceptions) I usually understand why they are more expensive. And although the quality in other micros is improving and jumping the gap, I still think the quality of the collection is superior at Istock the same way I see that Getty has still superior content to Istock.
-
Mind you, the dollar store was sold a while ago. The new owner has decided on a different price structure and perhaps to target a different segment of consumers.
You don't sell luxury brands at a one-dollar-store, because it just doesn't work. You would feel poor and unwanted when you would be at the shelves that contain cheap products. It's much nicer to go to a one-dollar-store where you can afford anything you see.
Buyers don't like the slider and they don't like a site that rubs into their faces that they are too poor to buy the "good stuff". I'm using apostrophes here, because some of the expensive stuff is inferior to the cheap stuff, also that doesn't make any sense.
-
This slider gives the impression of a quality slider, the higher the price, the better quality, right. Well thousands of buyers didnt swallow that garbage and why? simply because they couldnt see any differance in quality, thats why, so they refused to get fooled. tisk, tisk.
That's just silly. It's basically a "collection" slider. If you put a bunch of checkboxes, then you'd whine it's too much work to check things off. Heck, I know on Getty, there are tons of collections, and none of them mean anything to me, and they are all different prices. With the slider, at least, you have an easy way to cut things down a bit. All the price level says, is "here is the price for this image". The price itself doesn't lay claim to any level of quality, if that hurts your feelings. The price is what it is. If it is such garbage, why don't you remove all your work from Getty and put it on allyoucanstock?
-
This slider gives the impression of a quality slider, the higher the price, the better quality, right. Well thousands of buyers didnt swallow that garbage and why? simply because they couldnt see any differance in quality, thats why, so they refused to get fooled. tisk, tisk.
That's just silly. It's basically a "collection" slider.
So you are admitting the price and quality are only weakly connected? Isn't that just annoying and silly from the buyer's perspective?
-
The fact that IS threads turn into such huge and boring texts is proof of how wrong is their site.
-
The fact that IS threads turn into such huge and boring texts is proof of how wrong is their site.
You just failed Logic101
-
The fact that IS threads turn into such huge and boring texts is proof of how wrong is their site.
You just failed Logic101
In a lab where IS threads are short and interesting and IS site works like charm with no bugs and good management, yes, you are right.
-
So you are admitting the price and quality are only weakly connected? Isn't that just annoying and silly from the buyer's perspective?
I am not "admitting" anything. I am saying that everyone has their own impressions of what price indicates. It could be rarity. It could be quality. It could be that that price just indicates how much something costs with no reason. At IS, specifically and literally, price is determined by the collection something is in. Some collections are editor chosen and supposedly driven towards a specific aesthetic. A buyer may find this useful. Other buyers may not.
-
This slider gives the impression of a quality slider, the higher the price, the better quality, right. Well thousands of buyers didnt swallow that garbage and why? simply because they couldnt see any differance in quality, thats why, so they refused to get fooled. tisk, tisk.
That's just silly. It's basically a "collection" slider. If you put a bunch of checkboxes, then you'd whine it's too much work to check things off. Heck, I know on Getty, there are tons of collections, and none of them mean anything to me, and they are all different prices. With the slider, at least, you have an easy way to cut things down a bit. All the price level says, is "here is the price for this image". The price itself doesn't lay claim to any level of quality, if that hurts your feelings. The price is what it is. If it is such garbage, why don't you remove all your work from Getty and put it on allyoucanstock?
Hi there!
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? so the more you push the slider, the more expensive, why? better quality? IMO, hardly.
Yes, I know, its a price-slider but as far as buyers are concerned, they will interpret it as a quality-slider. So what IS, in retrospect is saying, is: independant base-files are garbage, so push the slider a little and get rid of the trash.
At the Getty search, you have a menue, saying, All-stock-files, RM and RF.
best.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
Glad you see it my way, I know you would.
How's the weather in cloud-cuckooland?
-
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.
-
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. ;D
-
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. ;D
Yeah, you're all over the place :-*
-
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'.
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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, 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.
-
^ 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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
^ 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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Yep, Christian I can understand that is the logic of some buyers, but for all others we have dots.. ;D Doing very well and have a good Holiday season.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. >:(
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/zoo/filetype/photos/source/basic#1f62e9bf (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.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/zoo/filetype/photos/source/basic#1f62e9bf[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/zoo/filetype/photos/source/basic#1f62e9bf[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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
(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/18474541/2/stock-photo-18474541-woman-holding-cocktail.jpg)
-
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 ...
-
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 (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.
-
The "quality" of things such as ape family:
(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/18463299/2/stock-photo-18463299-ape-family.jpg)
bear:
(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/18472800/2/stock-photo-18472800-standing-bear.jpg)
and tiger with ice cream cone:
(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/18463664/2/stock-photo-18463664-tiger-with-ice-cream-cone.jpg)
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
^ 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'
-
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.
-
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.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/Dorling%20Kindersley/source/basic#7ed9fe3[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/Dorling%20Kindersley/source/basic#7ed9fe3[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
^ 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.
-
Hey, if what they do works and brings in money - by all means fill Vetta with snapshots!! :D
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.
-
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).
-
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 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.)
-
^ 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?
-
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...
-
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...
This is the annoying part I see. Istock best exclusives were supposed to migrate better "agency" type shoots up to getty. Or at least that is what was said after the sale. The whole "quit your day job" was geared toward the wonderful opportunities on getty. Now the microstock site is being farmed for cash like this "drawing dump" and the rubberball dude whose work is just good microstock being sold at agency prices on a microstock site. It makes me think that getty could have never competed against istock if it had stayed owned by the founders with moves like these.
-
^ 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?
Here we go again. Buyers have stated their dissatisfaction with istock and the slider, and now it's THEIR fault because their stupid, lazy, or not in the target market. If they were a buyer, they WERE the target market, no? Buyers' dissatisfaction comes because of istock's actions, not because the buyer all of a sudden can't use a computer to shop.
I'll bet most of you have shopped online at B&H. You can sort your results by price. So you can buy cheap, or you can buy expensive. What's so difficult about that? It's not difficult at all. It just doesn't fall into the istock bull$hit way of scamming buyers. As was mentioned earlier, it's not just that the slider has meaningless dots, it's that the UI could be SO much simpler for any buyer to understand, and yet it's not being implemented because of greed.
Give me a reason why all of the collections at istock can't be listed, with a checkbox in front of them, with the title, "check the collections you would like to search in". This is what would be helpful to buyers. Then they could eliminate all of the high priced collections that they KNOW they can't afford. What's so difficult about that? The answer is NOTHING. But you see, this isn't the istock way. There's no room for games in that method. There's no way to trick the customer in that method.
-
Give me a reason why all of the collections at istock can't be listed, with a checkbox in front of them, with the title, "check the collections you would like to search in". This is what would be helpful to buyers. Then they could eliminate all of the high priced collections that they KNOW they can't afford. What's so difficult about that? The answer is NOTHING. But you see, this isn't the istock way. There's no room for games in that method. There's no way to trick the customer in that method.
That would become clumsy, as neither 'Vetta' nor 'Agency' as names gives the remotest indication of what it means, so they'd need to have a pop-up to explain that Vetta means 'more expensive' and Agency means 'most expensive', so why not just sort by price, given that neither collection has any sort of cohesion (Just imagine the fun they'd have trying to word the popup: "The Vetta collection consists of some originally ingested material, a curated group of dark, sepia, vignetted work, some random stuff we really like, a load of badly-keyworded stuff by Edstock and some simple or elaborate cartoons by a faux-exclusive").
There are very few customers who would be able to cope more easily with working out what the collections stand for than just a simple sort by price.
How would you describe what the Vetta collection is to help a buyer decide whether or not they want to choose it?
And Agency? I understood Agency was for lifestyle, but I see by searching on animal nobody with the price set to only Agency there are some oddly cropped animals that I'd have had rejected for 'flat lighting'. So how to describe Agency? "Bright lifestyle, some with loads of lensflare, some crossprocessed, with a lot of animal illustrations from DK and random stuff from faux-exclusives that we could only ingest if we promised Agency pricing"
And goodness knows how much else is in the Vetta and Agency collections that I don't know about.
Far simpler to stick with price IMO, but if you can think of better ways of describing each incohesive collection, go ahead.
-
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...
echo that....this comment is bang on. my guess is that it is a consensus throughout the serious contributor base. the cheesy, emotional drama was always a little irritating about iStock, but it was sometimes fun to get drawn into.
over the last two years, they've eliminated much of the fun, and they've increased the drama. in another thread, there is a discussion about sodafish, a longtime exclusive going indie. someone commented (Sean maybe?) that iStock are losing the loyalty of exclusives. personally speaking, that loyalty was neutralized a long time ago. now it's dollars keeping me exclusive, the decision is about where I can make the most as what type of contributor. I am proud being an iStock contributor, because I still believe it is the leader and I believe it is still a brand that garners respect. but exclusivity isn't an emotional decision.
I like the community thing, but the community of the industry. social media has enabled us to form a community outside the iStock parameters. it's no longer an iStock asset. I'd love a year without vague announcements, major site outages, 'projects that are good for the company and not for us but about which we're supposed to do back flips'.....just make the site work, let us do our work, with the bar set firmly in a fair position. lose the drama. I know how much the term F5 irritates me now. a week or so ago, a friend told me to F5 to refresh my screen and I cringed, lol, immediately realizing what an honest reaction it was.
-
I'd love a year without vague announcements, major site outages, 'projects that are good for the company and not for us but about which we're supposed to do back flips'.....just make the site work, let us do our work, with the bar set firmly in a fair position. lose the drama.
Lets hope so. Istock can command higher prices than competition....because of "some" exclusives. When those are throwing away the ring that binds them, that reasoning is over. The trust seems so deteriorated for many that a bone is not going to recover it. If they don't start to improve relations with contributors and attain a reliable site 2012 might be a "complicate" year.
-
Sodafish is thinking of leaving?
How will he recoup the loss from istock? I thought for illustrators istock/getty was by far the best choice?
I understand that many high ranking exclusives are thinking about independence, but the money has to come from somewhere. istock has been very successful at raising prices and those who benefit strongly from that - where can they go?
And building a customer base for your own webshop takes work and about 2 years.
ETA: just saw he broke photo exclusivity to have a look around. Smart decision. Yes, many mixed media contributors will probably give up the subject they have less time for because the RC system does not allow you to move up to an interesting level unless you focus on it.
-
^^^ It all comes down to a total lack of confidence in Istockphoto's management. On recent track record such concern is entirely understandable and warranted. I'm sure Sodafish's assessment of the situation will prove to be correct in the longer term too.
-
I am not denying the problems and the abysmal communication, believe me. I just hope that somewhere at HQ/Getty the awareness grows that good quality talent is very hard to replace.
For all the talk of "crowd sourcing" the microstock market is more a talent scout - an open plattform that draws in as many artists as possible and allows the talent to flourish into roses and diamonds.
But you can´t easily replace top level talent with 100 mediocre ones. If you rely on exclusive content as USP you need people who produce steadily and reliably in their given niche.
It will be really interesting to see what the next RC targets will be like for 2012 and if they can get the site to work reliably for that year.
And of course how much effort the competition puts into attracting and taking care of the exclusive talent. Although we are not as spoiled as we used to be...;)
-
I'd love a year without vague announcements, major site outages, 'projects that are good for the company and not for us but about which we're supposed to do back flips'.....just make the site work, let us do our work, with the bar set firmly in a fair position. lose the drama.
Lets hope so. Istock can command higher prices than competition....because of "some" exclusives. When those are throwing away the ring that binds them, that reasoning is over. The trust seems so deteriorated for many that a bone is not going to recover it. If they don't start to improve relations with contributors and attain a reliable site 2012 might be a "complicate" year.
,,
remember that the most of the earnings are made with the non-exclusives....for example : Lisafx, Monkeybusinessimage, yuriarcurs, andresr...
I should not wonder if istock will push in front of research material from which they can earn more..and the price filter is another method to earn more
-
remember that the most of the earnings are made with the non-exclusives....for example : Lisafx, Monkeybusinessimage, yuriarcurs, andresr...
I should not wonder if istock will push in front of research material from which they can earn more..and the price filter is another method to earn more
They seem to be experimenting with best match. For example a search on 'businessman' has a wide range of options in the top 20, including indies like Anders and Yuri.
However, 'monkey' has 17 Vettas in the top 20 (and only three files in the top 20 are actual monkeys, chimps and gorillas are apes and a bloke in a monkey suit is, well, a 'man' in a 'monkey suit'. We are dooooooomed.)
-
Here's another unhappy customer. They bought some credits to buy images for a specific project ... then the site went down ... and when the site came back ... the image prices had increased.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=1)
You couldn't make this stuff up. After all it's only the second price increase for Exc & Exc+ images in the last 3 months so why are customers complaining? Some of these customers just don't understand how jolly lucky they are.
-
Here's another unhappy customer. They bought some credits to buy images for a specific project ... then the site went down ... and when the site came back ... the image prices had increased.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=1[/url])
You couldn't make this stuff up. After all it's only the second price increase for Exc & Exc+ images in the last 3 months so why are customers complaining? Some of these customers just don't understand how jolly lucky they are.
Maybe the conspiracy people were right back when they said, Getty bought IS to kill it. LOL
Price changes without notice, Best Match fiddling, throwing everything into ThinkStock subscriptions... Unsustainable I tell you! :P
Although P+ seems to work, so it's not all bad?
-
I'm happy to see they left Photo+ prices alone - it'll make those files more appealing for any cost-conscious buyers who don't walk :)
I don't know why they don't give buyers a newsletter with a week or two's warning about coming price hikes - that would then perhaps get them a little boost in business of people shopping to beat the price increase (and they don't have to put things on sale). Little bit of good customer relations and a little bit of self interest...
-
I had no idea the price for an XS was 10 credits!!
I can't find a way to take an image out of E+ ?
-
I had no idea the price for an XS was 10 credits!!
I can't find a way to take an image out of E+ ?
They're locked for 6 months, so if promoted within that timescale, you can't.
-
I had no idea the price for an XS was 10 credits!!
I can't find a way to take an image out of E+ ?
They're locked for 6 months, so if promoted within that timescale, you can't.
Argh. I think it's been almost 6 months - will it be apparent when I can change it? I've looked at the file info page and the My Uploads page and can't figure it out.
-
For Photo+ if there's no date you can pull it; if it's still locked it says when the end of the lock will be - that's looking at the Photos+ page in my_uploads
-
For Photo+ if there's no date you can pull it; if it's still locked it says when the end of the lock will be - that's looking at the Photos+ page in my_uploads
Agreed. Also, the little check box will be black and you can uncheck it, instead of grayed out and inaccessible like it is when the image is still locked in.
-
I had no idea the price for an XS was 10 credits!!
I can't find a way to take an image out of E+ ?
They're locked for 6 months, so if promoted within that timescale, you can't.
Argh. I think it's been almost 6 months - will it be apparent when I can change it? I've looked at the file info page and the My Uploads page and can't figure it out.
Click on MyUploads.
Go to the left-hand column, and if necessary, click the button next to My Uploads, to get a list of topics, the bottom of which is ExclusivePlus.
Click on ExclusivePlus Royalty, to bring your E+ with sales to the top, then you can untick the boxes.
-
Here's another unhappy customer. They bought some credits to buy images for a specific project ... then the site went down ... and when the site came back ... the image prices had increased.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=1[/url])
You couldn't make this stuff up. After all it's only the second price increase for Exc & Exc+ images in the last 3 months so why are customers complaining? Some of these customers just don't understand how jolly lucky they are.
Whoa! To borrow from Sean Locke's post in that thread, the *unannounced* price changes are:
Old E: 3|5|10|15|20|25|28 (last change 3/14/2012)
New E: 4|6|10|15|20|25
Old E+: 8|15|28|38|40|50|55
New E+: 10|20|30|40|45|50|60
And they just upped exclusive files to a base of 3 credits in mid March? Now they are upping them again two six weeks later?!! That's obscene.
-
Maybe they're trying to encourage exclusives to leave without officially closing the program.
Who knows what they're thinking.
-
And they just upped exclusive files to a base of 3 credits in mid March? Now they are upping them again two weeks later?!! That's obscene.
It's six weeks later, so no problems there. ;D (Oddly, I made the same mistake at first. Time flies!)
I wonder if this is a way to encourage sales of independent files?
-
I have lost track of lots of details with IS, but is it a change that indie files are 4 credits for small and Photo+ is 5 for small?
1-4-07-10-15-20-23 for indie files and
2-5-10-15-20-25-28 for Photo+
-
I have lost track of lots of details with IS, but is it a change that indie files are 4 credits for small and Photo+ is 5 for small?
1-4-07-10-15-20-23 for indie files and
2-5-10-15-20-25-28 for Photo+
I'm pretty sure that is a price increase as well. I think the M went up 2 credits too. I'm pretty sure it was 1-3-5 last time I had to check on something there for a client. Thank goodness for the other sites!
-
And they just upped exclusive files to a base of 3 credits in mid March? Now they are upping them again two weeks later?!! That's obscene.
It's six weeks later, so no problems there. ;D (Oddly, I made the same mistake at first. Time flies!)
I wonder if this is a way to encourage sales of independent files?
That and heavily promoting indie files in certain areas (all my usual searches have an indie file in the first place, and five or six of the ten top places in the best match, though I know other geographic areas have very different best match results, not 'pushing' indie files).
-
That and heavily promoting indie files in certain areas (all my usual searches have an indie file in the first place, and five or six of the ten top places in the best match, though I know other geographic areas have very different best match results, not 'pushing' indie files).
In my key niche I've now got three of the top eight places, including No. 1. The scary thing is that this is not translating into sales. What does it take to get sales at iS these days?
-
And they just upped exclusive files to a base of 3 credits in mid March? Now they are upping them again two weeks later?!! That's obscene.
It's six weeks later, so no problems there. ;D (Oddly, I made the same mistake at first. Time flies!)
I wonder if this is a way to encourage sales of independent files?
Oh duh. Brain's not firing on all cylinders today ;)
-
That and heavily promoting indie files in certain areas (all my usual searches have an indie file in the first place, and five or six of the ten top places in the best match, though I know other geographic areas have very different best match results, not 'pushing' indie files).
In my key niche I've now got three of the top eight places, including No. 1. The scary thing is that this is not translating into sales. What does it take to get sales at iS these days?
Same here. Scary to note that even with better search positions, sales are still abysmal!
-
It looks like Formaccreative is not best pleased either;
"I am an unhappy buyer for sure, it is getting way too exspenive to buy here for us. I was just searching out some images for a project and was shocked at the price hike."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=4#post6662799 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=4#post6662799)
-
It looks like Formaccreative is not best pleased either;
"I am an unhappy buyer for sure, it is getting way too exspenive to buy here for us. I was just searching out some images for a project and was shocked at the price hike."
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=4#post6662799[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=4#post6662799[/url])
4$ a XS, how far will they go?
-
Darkface from Germany is not a happy bear;
"*! The new Prices SUCKS! istockphoto push the prices every year up to 100%.
it will be more expensive and more expensive and more expensive and more expensive and more expensive and more expensive..."
and ...
"Before: XS Exclusive Images = 2 Credits (2,92 EUR)
After: XS Exclusive Images = 4 Credits (5,84 EUR!!)
I will stop downloading exclusive Images now."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=10#post6669089 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=10#post6669089)
-
"it will be more expensive and more expensive and more expensive and more expensive and more expensive and more expensive..."[/color]
Life's like that.
Our gas (i.e, gas, not petrol) is going to be 15% more expensive next winter.
Hasn't that buyer heard of the Dollar Bin? Since he seems easily to be able to discount all exclusive files, he presumably doesn't very specific needs, which sometimes can only be met by an exclusive file. Hey, even I have some iStockwhacks.
-
Life's like that.
Our gas (i.e, gas, not petrol) is going to be 15% more expensive next winter.
Hasn't that buyer heard of the Dollar Bin? Since he seems easily to be able to discount all exclusive files, he presumably doesn't very specific needs, which sometimes can only be met by an exclusive file. Hey, even I have some iStockwhacks.
Fuel prices are governed by supply and demand within a world-wide market. Sometimes the prices go down as well as up. Istock's prices have risen something like 2000% for a medium-sized image in less than 8 years.
-
Life's like that.
Our gas (i.e, gas, not petrol) is going to be 15% more expensive next winter.
Hasn't that buyer heard of the Dollar Bin? Since he seems easily to be able to discount all exclusive files, he presumably doesn't very specific needs, which sometimes can only be met by an exclusive file. Hey, even I have some iStockwhacks.
Fuel prices are governed by supply and demand within a world-wide market. Sometimes the prices go down as well as up. Istock's prices have risen something like 2000% for a medium-sized image in less than 8 years.
But let's not forget by how many gazillion percent iStock (and others) lowered the price of stock with the start of microstock...
-
Life's like that.
Our gas (i.e, gas, not petrol) is going to be 15% more expensive next winter.
Hasn't that buyer heard of the Dollar Bin? Since he seems easily to be able to discount all exclusive files, he presumably doesn't very specific needs, which sometimes can only be met by an exclusive file. Hey, even I have some iStockwhacks.
Fuel prices are governed by supply and demand within a world-wide market. Sometimes the prices go down as well as up. Istock's prices have risen something like 2000% for a medium-sized image in less than 8 years.
But let's not forget by how many gazillion percent iStock (and others) lowered the price of stock with the start of microstock...
That really was the problem. It was, indeed, an unsustainable business model.
-
Life's like that.
Our gas (i.e, gas, not petrol) is going to be 15% more expensive next winter.
Hasn't that buyer heard of the Dollar Bin? Since he seems easily to be able to discount all exclusive files, he presumably doesn't very specific needs, which sometimes can only be met by an exclusive file. Hey, even I have some iStockwhacks.
Fuel prices are governed by supply and demand within a world-wide market. Sometimes the prices go down as well as up. Istock's prices have risen something like 2000% for a medium-sized image in less than 8 years.
But let's not forget by how many gazillion percent iStock (and others) lowered the price of stock with the start of microstock...
That really was the problem. It was, indeed, an unsustainable business model.
Maybe, long-term it was. But it was about balancing the sudden surge in supply with pent-up unsatisfied demand.
The real problem was that the quality of microstock could not be kept down to appropriate levels, because we all kept (and still keep) trying to improve to outperform our rivals.
Originally, iStock wanted beginners to graduate into iStockpro and sell at enhanced prices. Istockpro was a flop because most micro buyers wanted micro prices, so "pro" vanished.... then they decided to abolish iStock and put iStockpro in its place, but still under the istock brand.
-
I can't believe how long this thread is. If it's not the longest, it has to be the most reappearing. :o
-
Darkface from Germany is not a happy bear;
"*! The new Prices SUCKS! istockphoto push the prices every year up to 100%.
it will be more expensive and more expensive and more expensive and more expensive and more expensive and more expensive..."
and ...
"Before: XS Exclusive Images = 2 Credits (2,92 EUR)
After: XS Exclusive Images = 4 Credits (5,84 EUR!!)
I will stop downloading exclusive Images now."
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=10#post6669089[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=10#post6669089[/url])
for f-ucks sake ... 6 euro too expensive ?? how can these guys still be in business ? with 6 euros in germany you can barely get the cheapest mcdonalds meal.
let them switch over Flickr or to piracy and good riddance.
-
for f-ucks sake ... 6 euro too expensive ?? how can these guys still be in business ? with 6 euros in germany you can barely get the cheapest mcdonalds meal.
let them switch over Flickr or to piracy and good riddance.
Maybe he buys 1,000 XS images a month.
If there is a 100% price increase for a product, then either the original pricing was wildly wrong or the vendor is trying to screw the customers.
-
for f-ucks sake ... 6 euro too expensive ?? how can these guys still be in business ? with 6 euros in germany you can barely get the cheapest mcdonalds meal.
let them switch over Flickr or to piracy and good riddance.
Maybe he buys 1,000 XS images a month.
If there is a 100% price increase for a product, then either the original pricing was wildly wrong or the vendor is trying to screw the customers.
as in any other market, take consumer electronic for instance, to offer a cheap price you either sell sh-it for very small profit, or you enslave your in-house workers or you pay third world prices to outsourced factories ... there's no other way out, sorry, see Apple & Foxconn, HP/Sony/Acer/Compaq with Mitac and Quanta, Philips with Flextronics, and the list can go on and on ...
if the micro pricing will one day be taken to extreme i can tell you that yes living here in asia i could live with 5-600$ per month so it's still a long way from me going out of business but this would mean the death of micro and macrostockers in the west, and by the way who's gonna shoot the rest of the world to get paid few cents per download ? who's going to Tokyo where it's 30 euro just to sleep in a nasty guesthouse with dormitory and bunk beds and a fast food meal is 6-7 euro to start ? not me, thank you !
micro royalties are already ridicolous even for the third world, there's no way they can squeeze them even more.
billions of images are uploaded every day on the web by happy snappers but this have NO commercial value, and nobody will keyword them properly so who's gonna find them in the ocean of imagery available for free or CC licence or whatever other cr-ap licence ? there's no excuse for customers, our work has been already devalued to the extreme in the past years and now considered almost worthless.
customers complaining about the price should just f-u-ck off and shut up, as nowadays the prices are so low that it's either take it or leave it, thanks.
-
and i know the logic .. if a portfolio of 10,000 images is not enough to survice then "just double it", yes and tomorrow triple it ... easy isn't it .. customers think it's funny for us, they also probably think after work we booze around and sh-ag a couple hookers as well with the princely sums they pay us on micros ... and yeah why should they pay with the billions of snapshots on Instagram done with an iPhone .. i'm so * sick of all this.
-
and i know the logic .. if a portfolio of 10,000 images is not enough to survice then "just double it", yes and tomorrow triple it ... easy isn't it .. customers think it's funny for us, they also probably think after work we booze around and sh-ag a couple hookers as well with the princely sums they pay us on micros ... and yeah why should they pay with the billions of snapshots on Instagram done with an iPhone .. i'm so * sick of all this.
There is a remedy for all this! if at a given date, all agencies and I mean all, everyone, lets say 12, midnight, would increase their prices by lets say more realistic midstock prices. The following day: Where would the buyers go? they would have no option but to buy, they still need pictures, dont they, so they would have to buy regardless of the price increase, since the prices across the board are all the same, after the increase.
There is a Latin expression for this kind of business precidiure, its not nice perhaps but really, in Micro, I dont see any other option.
-
for f-ucks sake ... 6 euro too expensive ?? how can these guys still be in business ? with 6 euros in germany you can barely get the cheapest mcdonalds meal.
let them switch over Flickr or to piracy and good riddance.
Maybe he buys 1,000 XS images a month.
If there is a 100% price increase for a product, then either the original pricing was wildly wrong or the vendor is trying to screw the customers.
We don't have to guess about that one, it's a hard fact. Even with 2000% price increase (as gostwyck stated), the price is still absurd. Nobody realizes either how much it would cost him to hire a tog or buy from a trad agency, which have lowered prices many times during the MS era, so in reality even the macro prices are to low.
Regarding the prices, IS is the only one going in the right direction. I just hope for more hikes. I really do. And that the competition wakes up and does the same (without any further commission cuts), or else we're all doomed
-
and i know the logic .. if a portfolio of 10,000 images is not enough to survice then "just double it", yes and tomorrow triple it ... easy isn't it .. customers think it's funny for us, they also probably think after work we booze around and sh-ag a couple hookers as well with the princely sums they pay us on micros ... and yeah why should they pay with the billions of snapshots on Instagram done with an iPhone .. i'm so * sick of all this.
There is a remedy for all this! if at a given date, all agencies and I mean all, everyone, lets say 12, midnight, would increase their prices by lets say more realistic midstock prices. The following day: Where would the buyers go? they would have no option but to buy, they still need pictures, dont they, so they would have to buy regardless of the price increase, since the prices across the board are all the same, after the increase.
There is a Latin expression for this kind of business precidiure, its not nice perhaps but really, in Micro, I dont see any other option.
Exactly! That's what I meant in my previous post. 750/month subs should start at a grand (I don't think they could just go away, at least SS is super dependent on them), XS files from 10$ on and so on, ELs should start no lower than 500$. I mean it would cost that designer more to take that 10$ image, even if it's just an apple on white, if you calculate the time in. And it would probably be rubbish, since they don't know the first thing about taking photos (shy should they?) and even the simplest subject would cause them a lot of problems to shoot, hiring lighting gear, looking at tutorials, borrowing a camera...
-
We don't have to guess about that one, it's a hard fact. Even with 2000% price increase (as gostwyck stated), the price is still absurd. Nobody realizes either how much it would cost him to hire a tog or buy from a trad agency, which have lowered prices many times during the MS era, so in reality even the macro prices are to low.
Regarding the prices, IS is the only one going in the right direction. I just hope for more hikes. I really do. And that the competition wakes up and does the same (without any further commission cuts), or else we're all doomed
I don't know why you wish for that. It doesn't mean contributors are going to make any more money. And it does seem at first glance ridiculous to complain about the low price of photos, but if anything else doubled overnight, let's say the price of gas, I'm pretty sure I'd be complaining about it too.
I don't have a problem with prices moving up if I get a larger cut of the pie, but that hasn't been what's happening. The greedy ba$tards raise prices then cut our commissions (or find some other bull$hit way to cheat us out of money, like changing search algorithms, or having a bunch of "credit card fraud" happening, or some other such nonsense.) And istock is the worst. I totally see why buyers are bailing.
-
Where would the buyers go? they would have no option but to buy, they still need pictures, dont they, so they would have to buy regardless of the price increase, since the prices across the board are all the same, after the increase.
Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.
Be careful what you wish for.
-
Where would the buyers go? they would have no option but to buy, they still need pictures, dont they, so they would have to buy regardless of the price increase, since the prices across the board are all the same, after the increase.
Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.
Be careful what you wish for.
Or... go to court; wouldn't such a consolidated rise in prices be "price fixing?"
-
We don't have to guess about that one, it's a hard fact. Even with 2000% price increase (as gostwyck stated), the price is still absurd. Nobody realizes either how much it would cost him to hire a tog or buy from a trad agency, which have lowered prices many times during the MS era, so in reality even the macro prices are to low.
Regarding the prices, IS is the only one going in the right direction. I just hope for more hikes. I really do. And that the competition wakes up and does the same (without any further commission cuts), or else we're all doomed
I don't know why you wish for that. It doesn't mean contributors are going to make any more money. And it does seem at first glance ridiculous to complain about the low price of photos, but if anything else doubled overnight, let's say the price of gas, I'm pretty sure I'd be complaining about it too.
I don't have a problem with prices moving up if I get a larger cut of the pie, but that hasn't been what's happening. The greedy ba$tards raise prices then cut our commissions (or find some other bull$hit way to cheat us out of money, like changing search algorithms, or having a bunch of "credit card fraud" happening, or some other such nonsense.) And istock is the worst. I totally see why buyers are bailing.
I've bolded another important part of my post, it'll make more sense to you now, without a doubt ;)
-
Where would the buyers go? they would have no option but to buy, they still need pictures, dont they, so they would have to buy regardless of the price increase, since the prices across the board are all the same, after the increase.
Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.
Be careful what you wish for.
No way they would stop buying, unless they go out and take pics themselves, no way, it isnt worth it, and its not a break against the law either. Remember, we are not talking automotive industry here, we are talking pictures, as example, instead of selling a pic for 10 bucks, make it 20, etc, etc.
Warren! there is no law against this,
-
Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.
Be careful what you wish for.
No way they would stop buying, unless they go out and take pics themselves, no way, it isnt worth it, and its not a break against the law either. Remember, we are not talking automotive industry here, we are talking pictures, as example, instead of selling a pic for 10 bucks, make it 20, etc, etc.
Warren! there is no law against this,
[/quote]
Yes, they absolutely would stop buying. Stop being so arrogant as to think the world can't live without photos. It did before and it would again if the price was cost prohibitive. Here's a for-instance for you. I create FB banners for people. Most people (especially since Facebook is a free service) are not going to spend a hefty amount tricking out their Facebook page, but, priced right (say under $100), you can actually sell quite a few of them. Am I going to buy a $50 or $100 photo for such a design? Nope. I'll come up with another solution. I might even get a decent point and shoot and start talking some photos myself. Heck, even some phones are taking quality high-res photos these days. After all, it's not the camera, that takes the great photo, it's the person, right?
BTW, if all the microstock industry got together and decided to fix prices, it is absolutely against the law. It is called collusion and it has happened before.
-
Here is a link to the most recent example that I can find:
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/business&id=8616762 (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/business&id=8616762)
-
We don't have to guess about that one, it's a hard fact. Even with 2000% price increase (as gostwyck stated), the price is still absurd. Nobody realizes either how much it would cost him to hire a tog or buy from a trad agency, which have lowered prices many times during the MS era, so in reality even the macro prices are to low.
Regarding the prices, IS is the only one going in the right direction. I just hope for more hikes. I really do. And that the competition wakes up and does the same (without any further commission cuts), or else we're all doomed
I don't know why you wish for that. It doesn't mean contributors are going to make any more money. And it does seem at first glance ridiculous to complain about the low price of photos, but if anything else doubled overnight, let's say the price of gas, I'm pretty sure I'd be complaining about it too.
I don't have a problem with prices moving up if I get a larger cut of the pie, but that hasn't been what's happening. The greedy ba$tards raise prices then cut our commissions (or find some other bull$hit way to cheat us out of money, like changing search algorithms, or having a bunch of "credit card fraud" happening, or some other such nonsense.) And istock is the worst. I totally see why buyers are bailing.
I've bolded another important part of my post, it'll make more sense to you now, without a doubt ;)
I read that bolded part the first time. ;) And your statement still doesn't make sense, because it's not happening the way you say. There are price hikes, and there are commission cuts.
-
Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.
Be careful what you wish for.
No way they would stop buying, unless they go out and take pics themselves, no way, it isnt worth it, and its not a break against the law either. Remember, we are not talking automotive industry here, we are talking pictures, as example, instead of selling a pic for 10 bucks, make it 20, etc, etc.
Warren! there is no law against this,
Yes, they absolutely would stop buying. Stop being so arrogant as to think the world can't live without photos. It did before and it would again if the price was cost prohibitive. Here's a for-instance for you. I create FB banners for people. Most people (especially since Facebook is a free service) are not going to spend a hefty amount tricking out their Facebook page, but, priced right (say under $100), you can actually sell quite a few of them. Am I going to buy a $50 or $100 photo for such a design? Nope. I'll come up with another solution. I might even get a decent point and shoot and start talking some photos myself. Heck, even some phones are taking quality high-res photos these days. After all, it's not the camera, that takes the great photo, it's the person, right?
BTW, if all the microstock industry got together and decided to fix prices, it is absolutely against the law. It is called collusion and it has happened before.
[/quote]
Are you going to do it? You think you're a know it all person, even that good that you could be taking better photos with a phone than pros or talented amateurs do with good equipment and more importantly knowledge and mileage? I don't know who's arrogant after all you said...
Yes, it happened before and they got bailed out ;)
-
Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.
Be careful what you wish for.
No way they would stop buying, unless they go out and take pics themselves, no way, it isnt worth it, and its not a break against the law either. Remember, we are not talking automotive industry here, we are talking pictures, as example, instead of selling a pic for 10 bucks, make it 20, etc, etc.
Warren! there is no law against this,
Yes, they absolutely would stop buying. Stop being so arrogant as to think the world can't live without photos. It did before and it would again if the price was cost prohibitive. Here's a for-instance for you. I create FB banners for people. Most people (especially since Facebook is a free service) are not going to spend a hefty amount tricking out their Facebook page, but, priced right (say under $100), you can actually sell quite a few of them. Am I going to buy a $50 or $100 photo for such a design? Nope. I'll come up with another solution. I might even get a decent point and shoot and start talking some photos myself. Heck, even some phones are taking quality high-res photos these days. After all, it's not the camera, that takes the great photo, it's the person, right?
BTW, if all the microstock industry got together and decided to fix prices, it is absolutely against the law. It is called collusion and it has happened before.
-
Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.
Be careful what you wish for.
No way they would stop buying, unless they go out and take pics themselves, no way, it isnt worth it, and its not a break against the law either. Remember, we are not talking automotive industry here, we are talking pictures, as example, instead of selling a pic for 10 bucks, make it 20, etc, etc.
Warren! there is no law against this,
Yes, they absolutely would stop buying. Stop being so arrogant as to think the world can't live without photos. It did before and it would again if the price was cost prohibitive. Here's a for-instance for you. I create FB banners for people. Most people (especially since Facebook is a free service) are not going to spend a hefty amount tricking out their Facebook page, but, priced right (say under $100), you can actually sell quite a few of them. Am I going to buy a $50 or $100 photo for such a design? Nope. I'll come up with another solution. I might even get a decent point and shoot and start talking some photos myself. Heck, even some phones are taking quality high-res photos these days. After all, it's not the camera, that takes the great photo, it's the person, right?
BTW, if all the microstock industry got together and decided to fix prices, it is absolutely against the law. It is called collusion and it has happened before.
Something is wrong with this posts, I never answered it, yet its in my name. Tyler should perhaps have a look?
-
Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.
Be careful what you wish for.
No way they would stop buying, unless they go out and take pics themselves, no way, it isnt worth it, and its not a break against the law either. Remember, we are not talking automotive industry here, we are talking pictures, as example, instead of selling a pic for 10 bucks, make it 20, etc, etc.
Warren! there is no law against this,
Yes, they absolutely would stop buying. Stop being so arrogant as to think the world can't live without photos. It did before and it would again if the price was cost prohibitive. Here's a for-instance for you. I create FB banners for people. Most people (especially since Facebook is a free service) are not going to spend a hefty amount tricking out their Facebook page, but, priced right (say under $100), you can actually sell quite a few of them. Am I going to buy a $50 or $100 photo for such a design? Nope. I'll come up with another solution. I might even get a decent point and shoot and start talking some photos myself. Heck, even some phones are taking quality high-res photos these days. After all, it's not the camera, that takes the great photo, it's the person, right?
BTW, if all the microstock industry got together and decided to fix prices, it is absolutely against the law. It is called collusion and it has happened before.
Something is wrong with this posts, I never answered it, yet its in my name. Tyler should perhaps have a look?
Caspixel didn't quote it properly, he/she should correct it and everything will fall in its right place
-
Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.
Be careful what you wish for.
Exactly. I'm genuinely shocked by the short-sighted attitude being displayed by some posters. Microstock prices aren't too low, it's just that the agency's commissions are too high. Microstock came into being by supplying a 'good enough' product at an affordable price. It exploited a gap in the market that was simply not being catered for by the traditional agencies. History could obviously repeat itself __ then where would we be? (answer: back to 2004)
Fortunately SS don't appear to be as greedy and stupid as many other agencies so the worst case scenario should not happen. SS aren't going away and all these price rises by other agencies are simply gifting them the entire industry.
-
Exactly. I'm genuinely shocked by the short-sighted attitude being displayed by some posters. Microstock prices aren't too low, it's just that the agency's commissions are too high. Microstock came into being by supplying a 'good enough' product at an affordable price. It exploited a gap in the market that was simply not being catered for by the traditional agencies. History could obviously repeat itself __ then where would we be? (answer: back to 2004)
Fortunately SS don't appear to be as greedy and stupid as many other agencies so the worst case scenario should not happen. SS aren't going away and all these price rises by other agencies are simply gifting them the entire industry.
Yes, but are we still supplying only "a good enough" product? Surely not, I mean most of the images still are mediocre, but any buyer can find great stuff at any MS agency. For a buck!
I also explained why I think prices should rise and I could say the same about all of you that are all for super low prices, that you're shortsighted. Since the quality of libraries is rising, we have to work hard on improving our work and that in most cases means spending more on shoots. Soon we won't be able to make a profit anymore. AFAIK your earnings are falling, don't you think this could be the reason for that? You not spending enough for your shoots to look (even) better so you could compete with ppl in your rank (let's say ppl out of the top 1%, but within the top 5%, regarding earnings of course). And if you did, you would net less anyway. If costs of production goes up, so should the prices. We're not selling some BS Chevys here, we're (the top contributors anyway) selling Mercs (and macro shooters are selling Rollses). So our products should be priced accordingly. That may be a bit of exaggeration, but we all know the starting price point of MS was way too low, I'd say at 25% of what it should be. If they were at the same level as they're today, they'd be ok, a bit low, but that's how it is if you want to start selling something in huge quantities. So if they were and the prices would go up as they went, we'd be selling our photos at 4x the price now (or more, especially at IS). And nobody accounts for inflation, it's ridiculous.
-
It's all pie-in-the-sky. The agencies aren't going to collude in price fixing any more than the contributors are going to form a trade union.
And let's remember where micropayment stock agencies came from in the first place, they noticed that image prices were high and images could be sold more cheaply using modern technology. So they moved into that gap. If they all up their prices to $50 for an XS tomorrow then by Tuesday another stock site would have opened up to undercut them and the whole cycle would start again.
-
It's all pie-in-the-sky. The agencies aren't going to collude in price fixing any more than the contributors are going to form a trade union.
And let's remember where micropayment stock agencies came from in the first place, they noticed that image prices were high and images could be sold more cheaply using modern technology. So they moved into that gap. If they all up their prices to $50 for an XS tomorrow then by Tuesday another stock site would have opened up to undercut them and the whole cycle would start again.
Yep.
I don't think low prices are the problem either. When prices were low, buyers bought more images. They paid for images, rather than using comps, they sometimes bought pictures just because they liked the picture, not necessarily because they needed it for a current project.
The fact remains that in 2008-2010, when prices and RPD were considerably lower than they are now, I made more money.
Wut is absolutely right that production value is way up these days, and there should be some compensation for that, but a lot of micro stuff is still boiler plate. Separating out the high production value stuff from the average stuff is a good idea, and the different levels at the sites seem to take this into account. However dropping commissions on the higher priced collections, as Istock has done, seems to defeat the purpose - at least from a contributor's perspective.
Also, locking Istock non-exclusives out of the higher priced collections was short sighted. When Vetta and later TAC were first introduced, I would have happily placed some of my higher production value stuff in those collections EXCLUSIVELY if that had been an option. But it wasn't, so instead my best stuff is competing with those collections, at much lower prices both on Istock and elsewhere.
-
Different pricing models work for different contributors. The problem is that it's a one size fits all model and we don't have much choice or say in how our files are priced. Which is a shame because I think most of us know more about selling our images than most agencies do.
-
It's all pie-in-the-sky. The agencies aren't going to collude in price fixing any more than the contributors are going to form a trade union.
And let's remember where micropayment stock agencies came from in the first place, they noticed that image prices were high and images could be sold more cheaply using modern technology. So they moved into that gap. If they all up their prices to $50 for an XS tomorrow then by Tuesday another stock site would have opened up to undercut them and the whole cycle would start again.
Yep! and thats the entire problem, all in it for a quick buck, thats it.
-
And let's remember where micropayment stock agencies came from in the first place, they noticed that image prices were high and images could be sold more cheaply using modern technology. So they moved into that gap. If they all up their prices to $50 for an XS tomorrow then by Tuesday another stock site would have opened up to undercut them and the whole cycle would start again.
1. But then again, macro sites use the same technology and sell images at 20x the price
2. I was talking about 10$ for an XS (might be in another thread, because we're discussing this today in 2 different threads), but the main thing is if this was true, macro sites would have closed their doors at least 6-7 years ago, when they were selling images for 100x the MS price, not 20x like today (on average, I know there are 3$ sales over there, but there are also 4 digit sales;). And if this was true, than IS would be long overtaken by sites like PD, 123RF which are leading the race to the bottom. But they don't even care about them and their 1% market share ;)
-
And let's remember where micropayment stock agencies came from in the first place, they noticed that image prices were high and images could be sold more cheaply using modern technology. So they moved into that gap. If they all up their prices to $50 for an XS tomorrow then by Tuesday another stock site would have opened up to undercut them and the whole cycle would start again.
1. But then again, macro sites use the same technology and sell images at 20x the price
2. I was talking about 10$ for an XS (might be in another thread, because we're discussing this today in 2 different threads), but the main thing is if this was true, macro sites would have closed their doors at least 6-7 years ago, when they were selling images for 100x the MS price, not 20x like today (on average, I know there are 3$ sales over there, but there are also 4 digit sales;). And if this was true, than IS would be long overtaken by sites like PD, 123RF which are leading the race to the bottom. But they don't even care about them and their 1% market share ;)
Yes, but what percentage of your sales come from Alamy?
If buyers weren't price sensitive then the macros would be selling as many images as the micros ... and we'd all be millionaires. It galls me at DT where I constantly see "subscription sale, size maxiumum, 35c" but when it comes to credit sales they are mostly medium, small or XS. People are happy to grab the largest file they can as long as they don't pay extra for it. Once they have to pay more they instantly start counting the pennies and take the smallest size that will do.
-
I really wonder why any of you (who are against price rises) put any files in the P+ or feel wronged for not being able to contribute to A/V etc. Or why do Emeralds+ spend hours if not days to manually go through thousands of files just to find those that are eligible to have their price doubled (XS). That really is contradictory to everything you're saying in this thread. Kindly ask Agencies to introduce a "P-" collection for you ;)
-
Many of us have done this for 6, 7, years, even longer and many of us have earnt a small fortune. Times are changing, at first it was a glass of champaigne, now its white wine and we dont like it, pretty soon its water. Soon we have had our 10 years in this venture and thats that.
Fortunately there is another stock-world outside micro and thats the world of proper stock photography, the way it should be and should be executed, where contributors and agencies work towards long-term goals and where pnny-pinching buyers, cheapskates and scrooges are not welcome.
-
they also probably think after work we booze around and sh-ag a couple hookers"
You don't partake? ;D ;D
-
Many of us have done this for 6, 7, years, even longer and many of us have earnt a small fortune. Times are changing, at first it was a glass of champaigne, now its white wine and we dont like it, pretty soon its water. Soon we have had our 10 years in this venture and thats that.
Fortunately there is another stock-world outside micro and thats the world of proper stock photography, the way it should be and should be executed, where contributors and agencies work towards long-term goals and where pnny-pinching buyers, cheapskates and scrooges are not welcome.
I'd like for MS to make a step closer to that. I'd be just happy with it. But then again as you said in another thread, macros (or at least Getty) have also sliced your commissions from 50 all the way down to 20%. Regarding cuts, it's the same thing, prices also went down, RM sales are going down, but at least the service, relations and attitude are professional, not a joke like on most of the micros, especially 123RF, Zoonar etc
-
I really wonder why any of you (who are against price rises) put any files in the P+ or feel wronged for not being able to contribute to A/V etc. Or why do Emeralds+ spend hours if not days to manually go through thousands of files just to find those that are eligible to have their price doubled (XS). That really is contradictory to everything you're saying in this thread. Kindly ask Agencies to introduce a "P-" collection for you ;)
It's very simple. The P+, E+ and other prices already exist at iS, so the buyers who stayed there are used to those pricings. But you will also see a lot of posts from people complaining that sales of the files they put in E+ simply collapsed and they regretted having them stuck in there. Whether a file deserves to be at a high or low price point depends on the quality and subject matter. There's no point in trying to make "apple isolated on white" a Vetta file but it might do well at TS.
-
I really wonder why any of you (who are against price rises) put any files in the P+ or feel wronged for not being able to contribute to A/V etc. Or why do Emeralds+ spend hours if not days to manually go through thousands of files just to find those that are eligible to have their price doubled (XS). That really is contradictory to everything you're saying in this thread. Kindly ask Agencies to introduce a "P-" collection for you ;)
It's very simple. The P+, E+ and other prices already exist at iS, so the buyers who stayed there are used to those pricings. But you will also see a lot of posts from people complaining that sales of the files they put in E+ simply collapsed and they regretted having them stuck in there. Whether a file deserves to be at a high or low price point depends on the quality and subject matter. There's no point in trying to make "apple isolated on white" a Vetta file but it might do well at TS.
If that's true I hope for some more price rises, evenly introduced every 6 months or so. So that at least one agency is going to be selling my photos at a half decent price. I'm saying that because I've seen no decline in sales, on the contrary, I've seen constantly rising sales. The ratio between SS and IS is locked for me. I also think that P+ proves that buyers are willing to pay more, at least some and at least for some stuff. Indies are also reporting how this price rise has helped their RPD go up and consequently, earnings. We all know, as you said, that the agencies are not going to collectively rise the prices and that there's no way they're going to be quadrupled (like I hoped for), but at least they could sync the XS and S prices with exclusive (e.g. 2 cr for XS, 4 for P+ XS etc). I'm sure I'd earn more, I'd probably get a bit less sales, but my cut for XS and S files would be double, so I'd at least get 50%+ more for those sales (not 100%, because I'd get less sales)
-
I really wonder why any of you (who are against price rises) put any files in the P+ or feel wronged for not being able to contribute to A/V etc. Or why do Emeralds+ spend hours if not days to manually go through thousands of files just to find those that are eligible to have their price doubled (XS). That really is contradictory to everything you're saying in this thread. Kindly ask Agencies to introduce a "P-" collection for you ;)
I can see how it looks contradictory. Personally, I am not against all price rises. I am against steep ones coming so close together that it alienates buyers and negatively affects my earnings.
I also see a big difference between putting my P+ images and FT images at prices starting at 2 credits, vs. starting images at 20-50 credit base price - in the microstock model. Those prices, and even higher, are usual and expected at traditional stock agencies. Their buyers aren't going to freak out. But micro buyers still expect micro prices. Prices of P+ and FT emerald are still in line with what buyers expect from microstock, so there is less resistance.
-
I really wonder why any of you (who are against price rises) put any files in the P+ or feel wronged for not being able to contribute to A/V etc. Or why do Emeralds+ spend hours if not days to manually go through thousands of files just to find those that are eligible to have their price doubled (XS). That really is contradictory to everything you're saying in this thread. Kindly ask Agencies to introduce a "P-" collection for you ;)
I can see how it looks contradictory. Personally, I am not against all price rises. I am against steep ones coming so close together that it alienates buyers and negatively affects my earnings.
I also see a big difference between putting my P+ images and FT images at prices starting at 2 credits, vs. starting images at 20-50 credit base price - in the microstock model. Those prices, and even higher, are usual and expected at traditional stock agencies. Their buyers aren't going to freak out. But micro buyers still expect micro prices. Prices of P+ and FT emerald are still in line with what buyers expect from microstock, so there is less resistance.
So we at least agree on something, to a degree. That being said, I have to say, again!, that I was talking about 10 cr for an XS (and I know it's a bit exaggerated, but it's a starting point, so that we'd at least get to 4 or 5). So what you're saying about P+ and Emarald, you are for slight price rises. And if you look at it, that's what IS has been doing. I know 2 rises within a couple of month seem too much for you. But if they were spaced 6 months apart, they probably wouldn't be. All that being said, recent IS price rises should bother us indies, it's not about our files anyway. Or better said it should bother you in ppl that disapprove of the recent rises. But it bothers me that indie files didn't get rises. And if I get back to you, you should be glad that they upped the prices twice, that will make your files more saleable, if anything ;)
-
Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.
Be careful what you wish for.
No way they would stop buying, unless they go out and take pics themselves, no way, it isnt worth it, and its not a break against the law either. Remember, we are not talking automotive industry here, we are talking pictures, as example, instead of selling a pic for 10 bucks, make it 20, etc, etc.
Warren! there is no law against this,
Yes, they absolutely would stop buying. Stop being so arrogant as to think the world can't live without photos. It did before and it would again if the price was cost prohibitive. Here's a for-instance for you. I create FB banners for people. Most people (especially since Facebook is a free service) are not going to spend a hefty amount tricking out their Facebook page, but, priced right (say under $100), you can actually sell quite a few of them. Am I going to buy a $50 or $100 photo for such a design? Nope. I'll come up with another solution. I might even get a decent point and shoot and start talking some photos myself. Heck, even some phones are taking quality high-res photos these days. After all, it's not the camera, that takes the great photo, it's the person, right?
BTW, if all the microstock industry got together and decided to fix prices, it is absolutely against the law. It is called collusion and it has happened before.
Are you going to do it? You think you're a know it all person, even that good that you could be taking better photos with a phone than pros or talented amateurs do with good equipment and more importantly knowledge and mileage? I don't know who's arrogant after all you said...
Yes, it happened before and they got bailed out ;)
[/quote]
Whatever. What do you think people were doing before microstock? They weren't buying macro.
-
I remember the 1970s, when we cut up bits of Adverkit drawings to put in adverts and the small town companies were very happy with that. "Wow! You've got a frame to put my advert in? Let me get my cheque book".
We actually sold whole broadsheet pages on the basis that there were slots in the pretty borders where people could put their words.
I guess it was cool back then (shucks, I remember waiting for the next Adverkit bundle to give us an idea to sell on). Who knows what people would settle for today, if pictures weren't cheap any more?
-
If that's true I hope for some more price rises, evenly introduced every 6 months or so. So that at least one agency is going to be selling my photos at a half decent price. I'm saying that because I've seen no decline in sales, on the contrary, I've seen constantly rising sales. The ratio between SS and IS is locked for me. I also think that P+ proves that buyers are willing to pay more, at least some and at least for some stuff. Indies are also reporting how this price rise has helped their RPD go up and consequently, earnings. We all know, as you said, that the agencies are not going to collectively rise the prices and that there's no way they're going to be quadrupled (like I hoped for), but at least they could sync the XS and S prices with exclusive (e.g. 2 cr for XS, 4 for P+ XS etc). I'm sure I'd earn more, I'd probably get a bit less sales, but my cut for XS and S files would be double, so I'd at least get 50%+ more for those sales (not 100%, because I'd get less sales)
Why do you even bother with microstock? You knew what it was and what the price points were when you started, didn't you? Why don't you just put all your images at Getty in the macro collection?
That's what I don't understand about the people who are submitting to microstock who are complaining about the prices. You are certainly free NOT to sell your best, highest production value photos at microstock prices. So instead of complaining about how you submit them to microstock and don't get a return, why don't you submit to them to macro stock instead, if you are so intent on getting a bigger return?
-
I remember the 1970s, when we cut up bits of Adverkit drawings to put in adverts and the small town companies were very happy with that. "Wow! You've got a frame to put my advert in? Let me get my cheque book".
We actually sold whole broadsheet pages on the basis that there were slots in the pretty borders where people could put their words.
I guess it was cool back then (shucks, I remember waiting for the next Adverkit bundle to give us an idea to sell on). Who knows what people would settle for today, if pictures weren't cheap any more?
Part of what designers do is look for solutions to problems. If buying photos is no longer cost effective for a lot of the small designers, etc. then a new trend will arise. And many designers will start taking their own photos of apples and other inanimate objects, textures, their friends, and the like. They did it before. And once microstock came along guess where those photos ended up? :D
-
Whatever. What do you think people were doing before microstock? They weren't buying macro.
No, they weren't buying macro. The company I worked for invested in Comstock discs that contained a bunch of stock images. We used the images over and over because the company couldn't afford to buy any more. Macro images were at least $100 a pop and there's no way small companies could afford to use stock images in monthly newsletters at that price.
Microstock changed all of that for smaller companies and individuals. If there weren't microstock? No, companies would NOT buy macro, they can't afford it. They would have their secretary take the company point and shoot out to shoot whatever image they thought they needed, or they would go over to microsoft office online and use the freebies provided, courtesy of the fools contributors ;D who signed up for partner programs from agencies like istock, fotolia, etc. Doesn't matter that they are fairly low rez. Quality doesn't matter much anymore at smaller companies. Only the ad agencies charging an arm and a leg to their clients could afford macro.
-
Why do you even bother with microstock? You knew what it was and what the price points were when you started, didn't you? Why don't you just put all your images at Getty in the macro collection?
That's what I don't understand about the people who are submitting to microstock who are complaining about the prices. You are certainly free NOT to sell your best, highest production value photos at microstock prices. So instead of complaining about how you submit them to microstock and don't get a return, why don't you submit to them to macro stock instead, if you are so intent on getting a bigger return?
But, what are micro prices? I can join sites and sell images from between $1 and a hundred dollars or so. That's a large range with a lot of different models and strategies.
-
If that's true I hope for some more price rises, evenly introduced every 6 months or so. So that at least one agency is going to be selling my photos at a half decent price. I'm saying that because I've seen no decline in sales, on the contrary, I've seen constantly rising sales. The ratio between SS and IS is locked for me. I also think that P+ proves that buyers are willing to pay more, at least some and at least for some stuff. Indies are also reporting how this price rise has helped their RPD go up and consequently, earnings. We all know, as you said, that the agencies are not going to collectively rise the prices and that there's no way they're going to be quadrupled (like I hoped for), but at least they could sync the XS and S prices with exclusive (e.g. 2 cr for XS, 4 for P+ XS etc). I'm sure I'd earn more, I'd probably get a bit less sales, but my cut for XS and S files would be double, so I'd at least get 50%+ more for those sales (not 100%, because I'd get less sales)
Why do you even bother with microstock? You knew what it was and what the price points were when you started, didn't you? Why don't you just put all your images at Getty in the macro collection?
That's what I don't understand about the people who are submitting to microstock who are complaining about the prices. You are certainly free NOT to sell your best, highest production value photos at microstock prices. So instead of complaining about how you submit them to microstock and don't get a return, why don't you submit to them to macro stock instead, if you are so intent on getting a bigger return?
So complaining about rises is ok in your books, but complaining about rises being too small or too infrequent isn't? Did you even read the post you quoted? I really can't see any relation to macro in it :o . You're replying to me in a fashion as if I'd said I wanted micro to die. But I just want it to be more fair to contributors, for all the work we've put into it, for how far it's come in such a short period of time. The quality of the libraries has risen a lot more than the price. But I can see your viewpoint as a buyer. And it looks like you fall into the category of "pnny-pinching buyers, cheapskates and scrooges" as Lageerek colorfully described them.
-
So complaining about rises is ok in your books, but complaining about rises being too small or too infrequent isn't? Did you even read the post you quoted? I really can't see any relation to macro in it :o . You're replying to me in a fashion as if I'd said I wanted micro to die. But I just want it to be more fair to contributors, for all the work we've put into it, for how far it's come in such a short period of time. The quality of the libraries has risen a lot more than the price. But I can see your viewpoint as a buyer. And it looks like you fall into the category of "pnny-pinching buyers, cheapskates and scrooges" as Lageerek colorfully described them.
You should probably take your beef to your agency and not take it out on the buyers though. The buyers truly have very little control over the prices. The only thing we can do is choose to shop at one place or another. None of us dictates what your commissions are or what the price points are. And as lisafx already pointed out, sales were actually much better when prices (at iStock for instance) were lower, because people buy more images, even if they don't use them, when the prices are lower. I do think the photographers get raked over the coals as far as commission cut goes. The split at iStock is criminal, really. But they try to appease the contributors by raising the prices, so there is a false sense of making more money, as sales continue to decline.
I don't really care if you think I'm cheap or penny pinching or whatever lagereek said. I have to buy photos that fit in with what I can charge my customers. Designers that serve small business have small budgets. That's just the way it is. And calling me names isn't going to change that. I'm just sorry you are incapable of listening to my points. You seem to have this invincible feeling that buyers will keep buying when there are other options to photos. There were before and there will be again.
There is a reason microstock became the phenomenon it did. I just still scratch my head at the whiners that start submitting to it and then complain that they are selling too cheaply. You knew what the business model was when you joined. If *you* want to spend your time and money doing high value production shots for microstock, you only have yourself to blame for that. And calling me names is not going to change that. LOL
-
So complaining about rises is ok in your books, but complaining about rises being too small or too infrequent isn't? Did you even read the post you quoted? I really can't see any relation to macro in it :o . You're replying to me in a fashion as if I'd said I wanted micro to die. But I just want it to be more fair to contributors, for all the work we've put into it, for how far it's come in such a short period of time. The quality of the libraries has risen a lot more than the price. But I can see your viewpoint as a buyer. And it looks like you fall into the category of "pnny-pinching buyers, cheapskates and scrooges" as Lageerek colorfully described them.
You haven't got a clue what you are talking about partially because you weren't around when microstock took off and therefore what it was/is about.
Here's an example of how higher prices 'help' the contributor. I recently turned Emerald at FT. That enabled me to double the prices of my images and receive a higher commission on each sale. So what happened next? Both my income and my ranking (which is based on credits sold) has fallen at FT. I am not kidding __ that's what has happened. So much for higher prices.
-
Reading all this! its quite clear that most but a few, dont really know anything else then micro, or rather have no experience of any other form of photography then micro.
I keep reading stuff like " buyers would take their own pics, etc" , look, let me tell you, most buyers here, DO NOT, have a single clue of how to set-up, or take pictures, let alone all the raw, PP, PS and other programs, they dont even know what is involved in post-processing, theyre punters, not creatives and all they need is a pic, to promote whatever.
Professional Stock-photographers, survived far, far better before the entrance of Micro and will continue to do so, after micro. Micro, is but one step on a ladder, no more. However, to many here, micro seem to be the only form of commercial photography, simply because they dont know any other form of photography. Further more when it comes to, buyers, tons and tons of buyers, DONT even know about micro, theyre not even interested in micro, wouldnt know where to start, buying micro. To them, this is regarded as some sort of a joke and do not wish to be associated with it.
Trad agencies, is still and will always be the source, where "proper" buyers go, its not just money involved here, its customer-relation, service, support, know-how, expertice, design, layout, the whole god-damned package all wrapped in one AND they are prepared to pay for this.
Its a gigantic fools paradise, to even start believing that the micro model will sustain or present itself as a major, upper, supplier to all industries.
best :)
-
I wish all the business tried to do al least once the photos they need (and, hey, the designs too) by themselves. It's the best way for them to understand that microstock, and even general stock prices, are a steal and a bargain. By the time the "secretary" is finished with her "point and shot", after all the hassle of finding a suitable model and possibly props , and trying to get the photo tecnically accepatble and with some kind of impact, and then retouching it without really mastering any retouching software, they just have to look at the results and add up the money spent, including the working time invested, to understand it instantly.
-
Thats what it is, and thats how it is regarded by 80% of micro buyers, we go out with P/S and hope for the best. They are not even aware of that images has to go through a computer, etc.
Few months back, a buyer in Germany is on my private mail. He wants 8, of my pics for his compny profile, high-res and enough quality for a middle-spread and 6, A4 size prints, to go into this profile, i.e. a glossy big promotional printing job and package, add to this he wants me to do the graphical work, fit the pictures and with falling in text, etc, etc, etc.
This he wants done for micro prices ::)
this is what the average micro buyer takes us for. No wonder.
-
Arr..? Maybe not fully true.
The whole picture business is changing:
1..Books are often issued globally with generic microstock content.
2..Microstock pictures are often far better than pictures found from traditional sources.
3..Keywording and content in microstock pictures is often incorrect, and the customer does not care - or know.
4..The demand for large size images is falling as more and more communication is channeled via the net.
5..The target group of many web based publications is global, hence the demand for generic pictures. Common lowest denominator.
6..Everyone is a publisher, traditional media are being pushed aside, both by peer to peer news and advertising via social media.
7..Picture quality is not so important as availability and relevance. A cellphone shot can be much more relevant (and valuable) than a photograph taken by a professional photojournalist.
-
Reading all this! its quite clear that most but a few, dont really know anything else then micro, or rather have no experience of any other form of photography then micro.
I keep reading stuff like " buyers would take their own pics, etc" , look, let me tell you, most buyers here, DO NOT, have a single clue of how to set-up, or take pictures, let alone all the raw, PP, PS and other programs, they dont even know what is involved in post-processing, theyre punters, not creatives and all they need is a pic, to promote whatever.
As a former graphic designer/art director at a small company, that doesn't sound so unusual. I'm by no means a photographer, but I used to take some of our product shots. Then, tweak them in Photoshop and isolate them out. Sometimes things have to get done (now) when you're running a project, so graphic designers have to wear a lot of hats.
-
Reading all this! its quite clear that most but a few, dont really know anything else then micro, or rather have no experience of any other form of photography then micro.
I keep reading stuff like " buyers would take their own pics, etc" , look, let me tell you, most buyers here, DO NOT, have a single clue of how to set-up, or take pictures, let alone all the raw, PP, PS and other programs, they dont even know what is involved in post-processing, theyre punters, not creatives and all they need is a pic, to promote whatever.
Professional Stock-photographers, survived far, far better before the entrance of Micro and will continue to do so, after micro. Micro, is but one step on a ladder, no more. However, to many here, micro seem to be the only form of commercial photography, simply because they dont know any other form of photography. Further more when it comes to, buyers, tons and tons of buyers, DONT even know about micro, theyre not even interested in micro, wouldnt know where to start, buying micro. To them, this is regarded as some sort of a joke and do not wish to be associated with it.
Trad agencies, is still and will always be the source, where "proper" buyers go, its not just money involved here, its customer-relation, service, support, know-how, expertice, design, layout, the whole god-damned package all wrapped in one AND they are prepared to pay for this.
Its a gigantic fools paradise, to even start believing that the micro model will sustain or present itself as a major, upper, supplier to all industries.
best :)
You seemed to think microstock was enough of a market to sell in, however. Why do *you* bother if macro is the end all, be all?
Also, I'm betting many more people think their snap shots with their phones and point and shoots are adequate and aren't interested in hiring a professional photographer, setting up a proper photo shoot, or care about post-processing. I can't tell you how many clients send me such photos. Or just go out and look at websites of most small businesses. They know absolutely nothing about macro or micro. Nor do they care. Most of them can't afford photos from the macros, so they'll just use their own photos or do without. A few can be convinced to hire a professional photographer. But some don't even want to use a microstock photo, as they would rather use their own photos, as bad as they may be.
Sure, big ad agencies and corporations have the budgets for macros, but there are a lot of other businesses out there who don't. And not every single designer in the world works for a big ad agency or services big corporations with million dollar advertising budgets. Not sure why you don't get that. And your scorn and disdain isn't going to change that. That is why the micro market originated, because the world of photography was an elite club, closed to many business and photographers alike. Look at how many NEW photographers were able to sell their photos who would never have been accepted to Getty or other macro clubs. Without microstock they would not have had a channel to sell their photos - Lisa Gagne, lisafx, Sean Locke, etc... It's unlikely that microstock is going away, even if the current agencies go "mid stock". That will just open the door for someone else to start another microstock site. Always remember, iStock originally started as a sharing site, because the macros were out of reach of so many people.
-
Youre not reading the post properly or dont understand it! Im looking at the micro industry from a photographers perspective, im a commercial freelance photographer, dayrate, etc. Micro, is extremely good to me, Im earning a bundle, no complaints there at all.
You seem to be under the impression that if micro ended, everyone would go out and take their own shots or stop buying, the entire globe would stop buying, right, pics would just fall from the sky and free of charge. I suppose if the entire car-business collapsed, yeah, right, people would ofcourse start building their own cars. I forgot, silly me.
Nah, youre dreaming mate, dreaming.
-
You seem to be under the impression that if micro ended, everyone would go out and take their own shots or stop buying, the entire globe would stop buying, right, pics would just fall from the sky and free of charge. I suppose if the entire car-business collapsed, yeah, right, people would ofcourse start building their own cars. I forgot, silly me.
Nah, youre dreaming mate, dreaming.
I'm under the impression that people would just go back to what they were doing *before* micro. Remember those times? And I never said I thought pictures would fall from the sky free of charge. That's in your own imagination. Nor do I expect people to start building their own cars. You seem to be the one with reading comprehension problems. Besides, taking a photo is a far cry from building a car. LOL
-
Could you two guys, not begin to find out what you agree on and produce some important material, instead of fighting over what you dont agree on.
Its easy enough to disagree.
Its harder and much more productive to find the things you agree on.
We need people who agree to fight the greedy monsters.
-
You seem to be under the impression that if micro ended, everyone would go out and take their own shots or stop buying, the entire globe would stop buying, right, pics would just fall from the sky and free of charge. I suppose if the entire car-business collapsed, yeah, right, people would ofcourse start building their own cars. I forgot, silly me.
Nah, youre dreaming mate, dreaming.
I'm under the impression that people would just go back to what they were doing *before* micro. Remember those times? And I never said I thought pictures would fall from the sky free of charge. That's in your own imagination. Nor do I expect people to start building their own cars. You seem to be the one with reading comprehension problems. Besides, taking a photo is a far cry from building a car. LOL
Yeah well, thats my entire point, thats why micro should move much, much closer to macro or at least midstock. To stop this penny-pinching attitudes from buyers, etc. Give it a few more years and they will have us down to selling pics for 0.5c. and the agencies will ofcourse do nothing, just, yes sir, no sir.
So, we lose some buyers, so what, heck! thats the kind of buyers we dont want anyway, can do very nicely without them.
I have been with the Getty-RM-housecollection since 93 and yes I have seen pics getting cheaper and cheaper but not at the micro rate, pics within the RM, might fall but it still good revenues but with micro? when they fall from pittens to the bottom of the barrell, too much.
-
Could you two guys, not begin to find out what you agree on and produce some important material, instead of fighting over what you dont agree on.
Its easy enough to disagree.
Its harder and much more productive to find the things you agree on.
We need people who agree to fight the greedy monsters.
neither me nor Cas, invited you to butt in here ;D, go have a beer!
-
As a real world example, the last image I bought was a paintbrush with paint on it. It was $3 at Canstock. If it was $50-$100, I would have just got my camera out and some supplies from the closet and taken it myself. But if it was $10-$20, I would have still bought it.
My point is that buyers will pay more for the images up to a point. I don't think there is anything wrong with the agencies increasing prices to find that sweet spot. Most images have way more value than a couple dollars, so there really isn't any reason they should cost that much.
-
As a newcomer from outer space I have the privilege of not knowing the history.
I also have the privilege of seing what is going on without taking part.
And I see.
"Dividera et impera"
you are fighting eachother, and such others are left in peace, that maybe are more fightsworthy.
-
As a real world example, the last image I bought was a paintbrush with paint on it. It was $3 at Canstock. If it was $50-$100, I would have just got my camera out and some supplies from the closet and taken it myself. But if it was $10-$20, I would have still bought it.
My point is that buyers will pay more for the images up to a point. I don't think there is anything wrong with the agencies increasing prices to find that sweet spot. Most images have way more value than a couple dollars, so there really isn't any reason they should cost that much.
Yes but this is not really a good example and I tell you why. I know an enormous amount of ADs and Art-buyers, etc, and some of them know how to use a camera and in fact take their own shots but they are the real small-fry, that have got the time for all that.
Most ADs, AD-agency people I know havent even got the time for the lunch, let alone learning how to shoot.
Have you ever been up to just an average sized AD-agency? its total chaos and mayhem, and everything should have been done like yesterday.
-
Yeah well, thats my entire point, thats why micro should move much, much closer to macro or at least midstock. To stop this penny-pinching attitudes from buyers, etc. Give it a few more years and they will have us down to selling pics for 0.5c. and the agencies will ofcourse do nothing, just, yes sir, no sir.
So, we lose some buyers, so what, heck! thats the kind of buyers we dont want anyway, can do very nicely without them.
I have been with the Getty-RM-housecollection since 93 and yes I have seen pics getting cheaper and cheaper but not at the micro rate, pics within the RM, might fall but it still good revenues but with micro? when they fall from pittens to the bottom of the barrell, too much.
Except that there are plenty of photos in micro that aren't worth midstock prices. Isolated objects, textured backgrounds, older, outdated photos with poor lighting, etc. I do agree that the shots with the models in specific settings should be priced higher. But someone who is taking snap shots of their friends in their backyard - nope. Look through the micro collections and can you *really* say *every single shot* should be at mid stock prices? I tend to buy a lot of textures and things like that. I do it because I like to buy the photos, but if it gets cost prohibitive, I can create my own textures without it costing me that much in time.
The other problem I see is that it seems like nearly every single mid-stock photo option fails. iStockPro anyone? So if the current microstock agencies move to midstock, I've no doubt more microstock agencies will just pop up. Again, you seem to forget how iStock started...with FREE photos.
Maybe you don't want the low-end buyers, but the low-end buyers helped many people succeed in microstock. You yourself say that you make a nice return on your photos in microstock, so how about you stop bashing the people who are putting money in your pocket? That's really just rude.
-
Yeah well, thats my entire point, thats why micro should move much, much closer to macro or at least midstock. To stop this penny-pinching attitudes from buyers, etc. Give it a few more years and they will have us down to selling pics for 0.5c. and the agencies will ofcourse do nothing, just, yes sir, no sir.
So, we lose some buyers, so what, heck! thats the kind of buyers we dont want anyway, can do very nicely without them.
I have been with the Getty-RM-housecollection since 93 and yes I have seen pics getting cheaper and cheaper but not at the micro rate, pics within the RM, might fall but it still good revenues but with micro? when they fall from pittens to the bottom of the barrell, too much.
Except that there are plenty of photos in micro that aren't worth midstock prices. Isolated objects, textured backgrounds, older, outdated photos with poor lighting, etc. I do agree that the shots with the models in specific settings should be priced higher. But someone who is taking snap shots of their friends in their backyard - nope. Look through the micro collections and can you *really* say *every single shot* should be at mid stock prices? I tend to buy a lot of textures and things like that. I do it because I like to buy the photos, but if it gets cost prohibitive, I can create my own textures without it costing me that much in time.
The other problem I see is that it seems like nearly every single mid-stock photo option fails. iStockPro anyone? So if the current microstock agencies move to midstock, I've no doubt more microstock agencies will just pop up. Again, you seem to forget how iStock started...with FREE photos.
Maybe you don't want the low-end buyers, but the low-end buyers helped many people succeed in microstock. You yourself say that you make a nice return on your photos in microstock, so how about you stop bashing the people who are putting money in your pocket? That's really just rude.
Well, I am a rude person and YES, I can do nicely without, pimps, pontses and panders, cheapskates, scrooges, warewoolfs and vampires, well, maybe not vampires, they tend to live forever, suits me fine.
-
Yes but this is not really a good example and I tell you why. I know an enormous amount of ADs and Art-buyers, etc, and some of them know how to use a camera and in fact take their own shots but they are the real small-fry, that have got the time for all that.
Most ADs, AD-agency people I know havent even got the time for the lunch, let alone learning how to shoot.
Have you ever been up to just an average sized AD-agency? its total chaos and mayhem, and everything should have been done like yesterday.
I'd love to know the percentage of ad agencies vs freelance designers though.
-
Yeah well, thats my entire point, thats why micro should move much, much closer to macro or at least midstock. To stop this penny-pinching attitudes from buyers, etc. Give it a few more years and they will have us down to selling pics for 0.5c. and the agencies will ofcourse do nothing, just, yes sir, no sir.
So, we lose some buyers, so what, heck! thats the kind of buyers we dont want anyway, can do very nicely without them.
I have been with the Getty-RM-housecollection since 93 and yes I have seen pics getting cheaper and cheaper but not at the micro rate, pics within the RM, might fall but it still good revenues but with micro? when they fall from pittens to the bottom of the barrell, too much.
Except that there are plenty of photos in micro that aren't worth midstock prices. Isolated objects, textured backgrounds, older, outdated photos with poor lighting, etc. I do agree that the shots with the models in specific settings should be priced higher. But someone who is taking snap shots of their friends in their backyard - nope. Look through the micro collections and can you *really* say *every single shot* should be at mid stock prices? I tend to buy a lot of textures and things like that. I do it because I like to buy the photos, but if it gets cost prohibitive, I can create my own textures without it costing me that much in time.
The other problem I see is that it seems like nearly every single mid-stock photo option fails. iStockPro anyone? So if the current microstock agencies move to midstock, I've no doubt more microstock agencies will just pop up. Again, you seem to forget how iStock started...with FREE photos.
Maybe you don't want the low-end buyers, but the low-end buyers helped many people succeed in microstock. You yourself say that you make a nice return on your photos in microstock, so how about you stop bashing the people who are putting money in your pocket? That's really just rude.
Well, I am a rude person and YES, I can do nicely without, pimps, pontses and panders, cheapskates, scrooges, warewoolfs and vampires, well, maybe not vampires, they tend to live forever, suits me fine.
Then stop selling microstock and you won't have to deal with any of them. Simple solution. You are creating all your own problems and aggravation.
-
I like vampires:
Here is one:
(http://www.stolt.dk/images/vampire/800%20vampire%20girl%20on%20black.jpg)
Photogrqaphed on Draculas castle:
(http://www.stolt.dk/images/vampire/800%20vampire%20on%20the%20roof.jpg)
-
I like vampires:
Here is one:
([url]http://www.stolt.dk/images/vampire/800%20vampire%20girl%20on%20black.jpg[/url])
Photogrqaphed on Draculas castle:
([url]http://www.stolt.dk/images/vampire/800%20vampire%20on%20the%20roof.jpg[/url])
Bloody hell, thats really nice pictures! where did you find them? pic no2, is just great.
-
Thanks,
I took them. I made them.
It is the real Draculsa castle.
-
Well, I am a rude person and YES, I can do nicely without, pimps, pontses and panders, cheapskates, scrooges, warewoolfs and vampires, well, maybe not vampires, they tend to live forever, suits me fine.
I always thought the ad agencies were the cheapskates because they have the budgets to pay more, but eat at the all you can eat buffet anyway. ;D
-
Well, I am a rude person and YES, I can do nicely without, pimps, pontses and panders, cheapskates, scrooges, warewoolfs and vampires, well, maybe not vampires, they tend to live forever, suits me fine.
I always thought the ad agencies were the cheapskates because they have the budgets to pay more, but eat at the all you can eat buffet anyway. ;D
Actually youre right, they can be pretty mean, but even when theyre scrooges, it still results in pretty big dosh. Standard thing with AD-agencies is to make it look as if the photographer is earning a fortune, to the client, that is, then they include their direction of the shots bill, which is just as high, making the photographer look a real greedy SOB.
Then they go for luch, liquid lunch, getting pissed.
-
Thanks,
I took them. I made them.
It is the real Draculsa castle.
The picture of the castle, is great, you have really caught the atmosphere! you should turn that kind of photography into a nieche, I mean look at the films, vampires, etc, are really more popular then ever.
Is that by any chance the Bran-castle? where this Vlad- the impaler lived?
-
yes it is that castle.
Vlad Draculas castle in Bran, Romania.
-
yes it is that castle.
Vlad Draculas castle in Bran, Romania.
Whats it like around the castle? I have been thinking of visiting a friend i Bucarest and would really like to visit the place. It looks terrific for photography.
-
it is not.
Around the castle its full of trees and mountains, it is not easy to get a good shot of the castle.
The castle is a tourist attraction, well modernized and over populated. They will sell you anything vampirized and scream at you when you dont buy,.
the castle is small.
much smaller than you think. Like a house.
However, it is the real castle, and that is something.
-
it is not.
Around the castle its full of trees and mountains, it is not easy to get a good shot of the castle.
The castle is a tourist attraction, well modernized and over populated. They will sell you anything vampirized and scream at you when you dont buy,.
the castle is small.
much smaller than you think. Like a house.
However, it is the real castle, and that is something.
Historians or folklore, has it that it is the real castle, however, the actual Dracula ( bram stokers) invention, was in fact genuine and that his real castle-ruins, should be down a slope, small mountain just a kilometer from this Bran castle. Well? I dont know? but how could a legend grow as strong as this? without the slightest truth. No smoke without fire, as they say.
-
There were secret pasages, and poles in the backyard....
-
You seem to be under the impression that if micro ended, everyone would go out and take their own shots or stop buying, the entire globe would stop buying, right, pics would just fall from the sky and free of charge. I suppose if the entire car-business collapsed, yeah, right, people would ofcourse start building their own cars. I forgot, silly me.
Nah, youre dreaming mate, dreaming.
I'm under the impression that people would just go back to what they were doing *before* micro. Remember those times? And I never said I thought pictures would fall from the sky free of charge. That's in your own imagination. Nor do I expect people to start building their own cars. You seem to be the one with reading comprehension problems. Besides, taking a photo is a far cry from building a car. LOL
It really looks caspixel like you think ppl would start using horse carriages again if the car industry went bust... :o
-
As a real world example, the last image I bought was a paintbrush with paint on it. It was $3 at Canstock. If it was $50-$100, I would have just got my camera out and some supplies from the closet and taken it myself. But if it was $10-$20, I would have still bought it.
My point is that buyers will pay more for the images up to a point. I don't think there is anything wrong with the agencies increasing prices to find that sweet spot. Most images have way more value than a couple dollars, so there really isn't any reason they should cost that much.
That's what I'm trying to say to the ppl all along, XS should be sold for 5 or 10 cr, but they all start saying you're mad, no one is going to buy an XS for 50 (I guess they multiply what I'm saying 5*10), do macro and stop complaining etc.
-
That's what I'm trying to say to the ppl all along, XS should be sold for 5 or 10 cr, but they all start saying you're mad, no one is going to buy an XS for 50 (I guess they multiply what I'm saying 5*10), do macro and stop complaining etc.
I don't think you are mad (at least not for that view). ;D
I have a site where I sell the smallest size for $10 and the largest for $30, and it's my number one site now. I sell just the vector version on my own site, and I think that works very well too.
-
That's what I'm trying to say to the ppl all along, XS should be sold for 5 or 10 cr, but they all start saying you're mad, no one is going to buy an XS for 50 (I guess they multiply what I'm saying 5*10), do macro and stop complaining etc.
Sorry, I must have missed the posts where people accused you of being mad.
This thread is about Istock, and the policies they've implemented that have chased away buyers. People are responding to that topic, and if you do read the thread, it is indisputable that the frequency and severity of Istock's price rises is chasing away a significant amount of buyers.
The conversation you keep trying to have, about where prices should be for microstock, and whether or not there should be a joint effort at price fixing in the industry, is a legitimate issue to discuss, but it wasn't the topic of this thread.
Maybe it deserves its own thread?
-
Maybe we should consider as well the kind of costumers that bail on istock (being almost always the spoken reason the hikes in prices).Maybe the are the spectrum that goes from "free" -although legal--, to "almost free". I say that because I've noticed than my Vetta and E+ files are selling more than never, in a much bigger proportion than regular files (considering the number of files in each collection) and not precisely in small sizes.
-
That's what I'm trying to say to the ppl all along, XS should be sold for 5 or 10 cr, but they all start saying you're mad, no one is going to buy an XS for 50 (I guess they multiply what I'm saying 5*10), do macro and stop complaining etc.
Sorry, I must have missed the posts where people accused you of being mad.
This thread is about Istock, and the policies they've implemented that have chased away buyers. People are responding to that topic, and if you do read the thread, it is indisputable that the frequency and severity of Istock's price rises is chasing away a significant amount of buyers.
The conversation you keep trying to have, about where prices should be for microstock, and whether or not there should be a joint effort at price fixing in the industry, is a legitimate issue to discuss, but it wasn't the topic of this thread.
Maybe it deserves its own thread?
Read between the lines ;) . I'm not offended though, mad ppl are usually way more interesting :)
You're right. But I won't open a new thread, just got from a shoot and have a ton of PPing to do ;)
-
Thank you Lisa for trying to bring the thread back to the topic, which is buyers bailing on istock. It almost turned into a pimping thread there for a minute. ::)
You all can put down the "types of buyers" that are leaving istock all you want, but the fact is, it has hurt istock. If all istock wants is ad agencies and large companies for buyers, then they are certainly on the right track. Job well done!
-
Thank you Lisa for trying to bring the thread back to the topic, which is buyers bailing on istock. It almost turned into a pimping thread there for a minute. ::)
You all can put down the "types of buyers" that are leaving istock all you want, but the fact is, it has hurt istock. If all istock wants is ad agencies and large companies for buyers, then they are certainly on the right track. Job well done!
Well, yes but I think even worse is the non caring attitude, they or Getty, really dont seem to care what happens, its like a happy go lucky attitude as if everything is fine, no problems in the world, we have our exclusives, vettas, etc.
-
Thank you Lisa for trying to bring the thread back to the topic, which is buyers bailing on istock. It almost turned into a pimping thread there for a minute. ::)
You all can put down the "types of buyers" that are leaving istock all you want, but the fact is, it has hurt istock. If all istock wants is ad agencies and large companies for buyers, then they are certainly on the right track. Job well done!
I guess that's what I don't get. IS files aren't really that expensive for regular exclusive and non-exclusive. The agency stuff and extra collection get pricey and confusing. I question the way they implemented everything, but for the most part, I don't think IS is overpriced.
-
You seem to be under the impression that if micro ended, everyone would go out and take their own shots or stop buying, the entire globe would stop buying, right, pics would just fall from the sky and free of charge. I suppose if the entire car-business collapsed, yeah, right, people would ofcourse start building their own cars. I forgot, silly me.
Nah, youre dreaming mate, dreaming.
I'm under the impression that people would just go back to what they were doing *before* micro. Remember those times? And I never said I thought pictures would fall from the sky free of charge. That's in your own imagination. Nor do I expect people to start building their own cars. You seem to be the one with reading comprehension problems. Besides, taking a photo is a far cry from building a car. LOL
It really looks caspixel like you think ppl would start using horse carriages again if the car industry went bust... :o
Actually, that is a good point. They might not go back to horse and carriage, but they might start using more public transportation, car pooling, walking, or biking. In fact, when gas prices go up, that's exactly what they do. So you see, you are right, they will look for alternate methods. Just like people will do if buying photos gets cost prohibitive.
And I still don't understand why those who are bitching the most about "cheap" buyers are submitting to microstock. When you submit to a business model that sells things at low prices you are going to get price sensitive buyers. If you do not want price conscious buyers, submit to macrostock. If you can get accepted that is. NO ONE is forcing you to sell microstock, so you are free at any time to pull your portfolios to avoid having to deal with cheapskates and scrooges. And then you can sit around and dream about submitting to the magical mid-stock agency that is going to materialize and make everything better. LOL
-
You seem to be under the impression that if micro ended, everyone would go out and take their own shots or stop buying, the entire globe would stop buying, right, pics would just fall from the sky and free of charge. I suppose if the entire car-business collapsed, yeah, right, people would ofcourse start building their own cars. I forgot, silly me.
Nah, youre dreaming mate, dreaming.
I'm under the impression that people would just go back to what they were doing *before* micro. Remember those times? And I never said I thought pictures would fall from the sky free of charge. That's in your own imagination. Nor do I expect people to start building their own cars. You seem to be the one with reading comprehension problems. Besides, taking a photo is a far cry from building a car. LOL
It really looks caspixel like you think ppl would start using horse carriages again if the car industry went bust... :o
Actually, that is a good point. They might not go back to horse and carriage, but they might start using more public transportation, car pooling, walking, or biking. In fact, when gas prices go up, that's exactly what they do. So you see, you are right, they will look for alternate methods. Just like people will do if buying photos gets cost prohibitive.
And I still don't understand why those who are bitching the most about "cheap" buyers are submitting to microstock. When you submit to a business model that sells things at low prices you are going to get price sensitive buyers. If you do not want price conscious buyers, submit to macrostock. If you can get accepted that is.
I can understand to a point some of your philosophy, I would also welcome macro, midstock or whatever yoju might call it. The thing is, we are not alone in micro. many years back, yes, micro photographers. Today! I can assure you, most, even famous photographers, getty RM photographers are supplying micro and all under different pseudos, etc.
Seriously though, you can not think that people would stop buying and use what? they havent got the time for alternative methods or whatever, they havent got the time to rig or shoot pictures themselves. Thats why they buy! No matter how much governments are rising prices on booze, ciggies, petrol, people are still boozing, smoking and driving.
-
I can understand to a point some of your philosophy, I would also welcome macro, midstock or whatever yoju might call it. The thing is, we are not alone in micro. many years back, yes, micro photographers. Today! I can assure you, most, even famous photographers, getty RM photographers are supplying micro and all under different pseudos, etc.
Seriously though, you can not think that people would stop buying and use what? they havent got the time for alternative methods or whatever, they havent got the time to rig or shoot pictures themselves. Thats why they buy! No matter how much governments are rising prices on booze, ciggies, petrol, people are still boozing, smoking and driving.
Do you really think photos are as important to people as fuel? And booze and smoking are addictive, so once people start, they can't quit. The parallel just doesn't work. Sorry. You, of all people, who have been in the industry for so long, should know what people did before microstock. Though I've already explained it countless times. Some *might* start taking photos themselves (after all, that was how iStock started - designers were taking their own photos because they couldn't afford macrostock prices and decided to trade them), others will do without photos and will simply find other solutions to take their place. Photos are just one tool in a designer's toolbox. As for the people who aren't designers - churches, school teachers, bloggers, etc - they may just steal photos or not use them at all.
It's weird how people seem to have forgotten the origins of microstock and the pre-microstock days aren't really ancient history. I bet you can find a lot of designers who would tell you what they did before the advent of inexpensive photos.
-
I can understand to a point some of your philosophy, I would also welcome macro, midstock or whatever yoju might call it. The thing is, we are not alone in micro. many years back, yes, micro photographers. Today! I can assure you, most, even famous photographers, getty RM photographers are supplying micro and all under different pseudos, etc.
Seriously though, you can not think that people would stop buying and use what? they havent got the time for alternative methods or whatever, they havent got the time to rig or shoot pictures themselves. Thats why they buy! No matter how much governments are rising prices on booze, ciggies, petrol, people are still boozing, smoking and driving.
Do you really think photos are as important to people as fuel? And booze and smoking are addictive, so once people start, they can't quit. The parallel just doesn't work. Sorry. You, of all people, who have been in the industry for so long, should know what people did before microstock. Though I've already explained it countless times. Some *might* start taking photos themselves (after all, that was how iStock started - designers were taking their own photos because they couldn't afford macrostock prices and decided to trade them), others will do without photos and will simply find other solutions to take their place. Photos are just one tool in a designer's toolbox. As for the people who aren't designers - churches, school teachers, bloggers, etc - they may just steal photos or not use them at all.
It's weird how people seem to have forgotten the origins of microstock and the pre-microstock days aren't really ancient history. I bet you can find a lot of designers who would tell you what they did before the advent of inexpensive photos.
now please tell us that SS will be sold for a cent ;D
-
I can understand to a point some of your philosophy, I would also welcome macro, midstock or whatever yoju might call it. The thing is, we are not alone in micro. many years back, yes, micro photographers. Today! I can assure you, most, even famous photographers, getty RM photographers are supplying micro and all under different pseudos, etc.
Seriously though, you can not think that people would stop buying and use what? they havent got the time for alternative methods or whatever, they havent got the time to rig or shoot pictures themselves. Thats why they buy! No matter how much governments are rising prices on booze, ciggies, petrol, people are still boozing, smoking and driving.
Do you really think photos are as important to people as fuel? And booze and smoking are addictive, so once people start, they can't quit. The parallel just doesn't work. Sorry. You, of all people, who have been in the industry for so long, should know what people did before microstock. Though I've already explained it countless times. Some *might* start taking photos themselves (after all, that was how iStock started - designers were taking their own photos because they couldn't afford macrostock prices and decided to trade them), others will do without photos and will simply find other solutions to take their place. Photos are just one tool in a designer's toolbox. As for the people who aren't designers - churches, school teachers, bloggers, etc - they may just steal photos or not use them at all.
It's weird how people seem to have forgotten the origins of microstock and the pre-microstock days aren't really ancient history. I bet you can find a lot of designers who would tell you what they did before the advent of inexpensive photos.
In that case, before the invention of the picture, (the photograph) what did businesses use for promotion, advertising, etc, ?
-
In that case, before the invention of the picture, (the photograph) what did businesses use for promotion, advertising, etc, ?
They hired illustrators and paid them good money. Thanks a lot, stupid camera.
-
In that case, before the invention of the picture, (the photograph) what did businesses use for promotion, advertising, etc, ?
They hired illustrators and paid them good money. Thanks a lot, stupid camera.
:D
And they used type.
-
Well I am sure there is plenty of time 2012, to hire illustrators and use type. Then along comes Daguerre, with the bright idea to capture images on a wet-plate, large format camera, followed by the intro of silver, etc and voila! film! finally comes somebody whos invented electronic capture, namely digital. BUT! lets just stop people alltogether from using digital capture, throw us back 120 years, hire illustraters, type, etc. Oh by the way, whats the cost sir? 20K and thats after discount.
-
Well I am sure there is plenty of time 2012, to hire illustrators and use type. Then along comes Daguerre, with the bright idea to capture images on a wet-plate, large format camera, followed by the intro of silver, etc and voila! film! finally comes somebody whos invented electronic capture, namely digital. BUT! lets just stop people alltogether from using digital capture, throw us back 120 years, hire illustraters, type, etc. Oh by the way, whats the cost sir? 20K and thats after discount.
I'm not sure why you keep coming up with more and more outrageous scenarios, except maybe to just act stupid. It's really not that complicated. What did a lot of people do in place of photos even as little as 10 or 15 years ago, before the microstock explosion? They used type. Or maybe some clip art. I have books that were written about design that have not one mention of using stock photos, but there are plenty of other design solutions that look beautiful. In fact, my design teachers never talked about using stock photos either. To think, people actually even did design *before computers and Photoshop*! *gasp*
Nonetheless, the point is probably moot anyway, as microstock isn't going away. Maybe some of the current businesses will migrate to midstock, but that will only open the door to new microstock agencies. If this happens, I wonder how many of these complainers of low prices will be the first uploading. LOL
-
"Six games all. Tiebreaker. Lagereek to serve first"
-
"Six games all. Tiebreaker. Lagereek to serve first"
I'm quite sure it's not a tie. LOL I've been making much more logical sense than his nonsensical posts about the automobile industry and going back in time 120 years. ;)
-
"Six games all. Tiebreaker. Lagereek to serve first"
I'm quite sure it's not a tie. LOL I've been making much more logical sense than his nonsensical posts about the automobile industry and going back in time 120 years. ;)
Nice self observation. I'm also better than Yuri ;)
-
"Six games all. Tiebreaker. Lagereek to serve first"
I'm quite sure it's not a tie. LOL I've been making much more logical sense than his nonsensical posts about the automobile industry and going back in time 120 years. ;)
I agree. Everything seems to turn into a pi$$ing contest here. Even though many of us have been around the industry as long as the ones who think they know everything have. ::)
-
I disagree. Not everything is a pissing match here. ;D
-
"Six games all. Tiebreaker. Lagereek to serve first"
I'm quite sure it's not a tie. LOL I've been making much more logical sense than his nonsensical posts about the automobile industry and going back in time 120 years. ;)
I know! I was just giving Lagereek a little encouragement to extend the entertainment.
-
"Six games all. Tiebreaker. Lagereek to serve first"
I'm quite sure it's not a tie. LOL I've been making much more logical sense than his nonsensical posts about the automobile industry and going back in time 120 years. ;)
I know! I was just giving Lagereek a little encouragement to extend the entertainment.
;D
-
yes it is that castle.
Vlad Draculas castle in Bran, Romania.
Now that's funny. Vlad Dracula? Is this another case of people just making things up to see is people will believe it, or just making things up to keep your fingers limber?
"The Wallachian ruler Vlad Ţepeş (Vlad the Impaler) 1448-1476 does not seem to have had a significant role in the history of the fortress, although he passed several times through the Bran Gorge."
So not only wasn't his name Dracula, he never occupied that castle and Stoker didn't know of the castle and had his character situated someplace else. So much for the photo of the real and hard to see castle.
It's near Brasov which on many English language maps will be printed a Brasso. Just in case someone actually looks and doesn't believe all the personal "factual information" we get from the Internet vs those terrible newspapers, books, libraries and public sources.
iStock buyers bailing? I don't know, but the thread has reached 66 pages which is of interest in itself. ;D
-
Well lets see who can pissssssssssssss, the longest. ;D cclapper, to serve! first service.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dcn6vWLw-k[/youtube]
-
Oh, for God's sake.
The last reason why I participate at MSG is to see a peeing dog video. And it's a YouTube video posted, no less, by the guy who's so worried about Pinterest cutting into his ability to provide for his family.
Sickening.
-
Oh, for God's sake.
The last reason why I participate at MSG is to see a peeing dog video. And it's a YouTube video posted, no less, by the guy who's so worried about Pinterest cutting into his ability to provide for his family.
Sickening.
I'm glad you liked it!
-
Stoker didn't know of the castle and had his character situated someplace else.
Curiously, the castle he described was in northern England, and it wasn't even a castle, it was Whitby Abbey. So much for Transylvania. I've never seen any discussion of whether the angry mob of ignorant, superstitious peasants who appear in the movies are based on the true-bred Yorkshire fisher-folk of Whitby or not, perhaps that is something we could speculate on.
-
Oh, for God's sake.
The last reason why I participate at MSG is to see a peeing dog video. And it's a YouTube video posted, no less, by the guy who's so worried about Pinterest cutting into his ability to provide for his family.
Sickening.
I'm glad you liked it!
Brillant!
-
Stoker didn't know of the castle and had his character situated someplace else.
Curiously, the castle he described was in northern England, and it wasn't even a castle, it was Whitby Abbey. So much for Transylvania. I've never seen any discussion of whether the angry mob of ignorant, superstitious peasants who appear in the movies are based on the true-bred Yorkshire fisher-folk of Whitby or not, perhaps that is something we could speculate on.
Youre right! and when you see the ruins of Whitby abbey high up on the hill, overlooking the port, its easy to see why Stoker chose this setting for his novel. Really erie atmosphere, especially at night.
-
Just to verify it is as real as it gets:
Castel Bran, where Vlad Tepes Dracula lived (among other places).
He was not the only Dracula. his grandfather was also named Dracul, which probably compares to "Lionheart". He fought the Turks, and was quite gruesome.
BUT he had nothing to do with vampires, that comes from the novel of Stoker.
And since the novel, things have been mixed up in half fantasy and half truth as it often is with legends.
The castle.
(http://www.naturephotos.dk/ForumPics/3_101201182317.jpg)
Dracula.
(http://www.naturephotos.dk/ForumPics/3_101203061319.jpg)
-
Just to verify it is as real as it gets:
Castel Bran, where Vlad Tepes Dracula lived (among other places).
He was not the only Dracula. his grandfather was also named Dracul, which probably compares to "Lionheart". He fought the Turks, and was quite gruesome.
BUT he had nothing to do with vampires, that comes from the novel of Stoker.
And since the novel, things have been mixed up in half fantasy and half truth as it often is with legends.
The castle.
([url]http://www.naturephotos.dk/ForumPics/3_101201182317.jpg[/url])
Dracula.
([url]http://www.naturephotos.dk/ForumPics/3_101203061319.jpg[/url])
Thanks! nice!
-
Anything to derail the truth about istock. Too funny.
-
Anything to derail the truth about istock. Too funny.
Notice they have also not answered my questions as to why they submit to microstock when they complain about the pricing points and "cheap" customers. If they are so unhappy with it, they should stop diluting the market, delete their portfolios, and leave microstock to the people who do want to sell at those price points. Simple.
-
Notice they have also not answered my questions as to why they submit to microstock when they complain about the pricing points and "cheap" customers. If they are so unhappy with it, they should stop diluting the market, delete their portfolios, and leave microstock to the people who do want to sell at those price points. Simple.
+1 :)
Some of us were perfectly happy to sell at microstock prices. It was always a VOLUME business. It's the market dilution and the royalty cuts that have made this business unsustainable, not the low prices. As I mentioned further up the thread, I actually made MORE money, through volume, when prices started at $1.
That said, let me reply preemptively to the inevitable "then lower your prices at FT and remove your P+ images": Since the market is so diluted, apparently with people who resent being in it ( ???), and since the sites have seen fit to slash royalties, I need to sell at the higher prices to try and make up some of that shortfall. It's a vicious cycle.
-
I'm exclsive at IS. It is not IS prices what I considear cheap. I consider them reasonable, both for customers and producers. Another thing are subs sites and prices. Another matter, but I'm not there.
-
I dont care about the price.
I care about other things.
Like the split.
Like how many they sell.
In orther words, I dont care if they sell my pictures cheap as long as they sell many and dont go over a 50 % split.
If over. I feel exploited by parasites.
-
Some of us were perfectly happy to sell at microstock prices. It was always a VOLUME business. It's the market dilution and the royalty cuts that have made this business unsustainable, not the low prices. As I mentioned further up the thread, I actually made MORE money, through volume, when prices started at $1.
That said, let me reply preemptively to the inevitable "then lower your prices at FT and remove your P+ images": Since the market is so diluted, apparently with people who resent being in it ( ??? ), and since the sites have seen fit to slash royalties, I need to sell at the higher prices to try and make up some of that shortfall. It's a vicious cycle.
That is, perhaps, the most illogical statement you've ever made. Especially after saying prices should remain low and not only that, it was better and would be better if they started at 1$. And they start at 1$ at almost every agency anyway. Someone could say you're having double standards ;) . Standing your ground for super low prices and that bumping them up every single chance you get.
I also don't think you're in any better position to call it unsustainable than IS was. After all, you make more than 99.99999% of the contributors and make well above the US average. It's kind of laughing down on us peons, just like IS was. And we called them * for that...
-
That is, perhaps, the most illogical statement you've ever made. Especially after saying prices should remain low and not only that, it was better and would be better if they started at 1$. And they start at 1$ at almost every agency anyway. Someone could say you're having double standards ;) . Standing your ground for super low prices and that bumping them up every single chance you get.
I also don't think you're in any better position to call it unsustainable than IS was. After all, you make more than 99.99999% of the contributors and make well above the US average. It's kind of laughing down on us peons, just like IS was. And we called them * for that...
Oh boo hoo. I am not all that concerned with what you find logical or not. Your continuous postings of self-contradicting opinions and inflammatory rants is all I need to know about your familiarity with the concept of logic ::)
As for your other obscene insults, well, I can only assume you've resorted to them because you are aware that you are losing the argument on its merits.
-
That is, perhaps, the most illogical statement you've ever made. Especially after saying prices should remain low and not only that, it was better and would be better if they started at 1$. And they start at 1$ at almost every agency anyway. Someone could say you're having double standards ;) . Standing your ground for super low prices and that bumping them up every single chance you get.
I also don't think you're in any better position to call it unsustainable than IS was. After all, you make more than 99.99999% of the contributors and make well above the US average. It's kind of laughing down on us peons, just like IS was. And we called them * for that...
Oh boo hoo. I am not all that concerned with what you find logical or not. Your continuous postings of self-contradicting opinions and inflammatory rants is all I need to know about your familiarity with the concept of logic ::)
As for your other obscene insults, well, I just consider the source...
I really don't understand you. You ask me to not talk about price rises in this thread, I stop it, you start provoking and laughing at us that want prices to go up and still contribute to MS. And after that I get a personal attack instead of a reply. Attack is the best defense, right? So much about inflammatory posts ;) . If you're saying my posts are self-contradicting put out some arguments. I did. I don't talk out of my ass, just calling someone names without saying exactly why I'm I doing it. Or I do (for some ppl), but at least I explain it, not just blindly accuse someone of something.
I'm sorry you got that, you're not used to get honest opinions obviously, since everyone thinks, dammn this is Lisa, she's huge, I can't ever question her, disagree with her or even tell her I find one of her statements illogical and self-contradicting (saying something, doing the exact opposite) .
-
can we call a truce here or is this thread destined to be locked? :-[
-
Fine by me, it would be a shame to lock it, since it's a great and interesting thread, a ton of good info is to be found in it
-
Well, Wut has a point. Those who have been calling for bailing on IS continuously should be happy, shouldn't they? Obviously if IS is selling less of their images, perhaps their wish were answered, perhaps their loyal buyers have followed them to SS, DT, FT and so on. I don't understand the complaints on IS raising the prices. IS should have become not that relevant to them, due to bailing, no? ;D
I also feel that some people are too dominated by their emotions over the past unjust from IS. It was fair then, but, maybe I don't see the whole picture since I am exclusive, in my experience, IS has become quite stable this year. They raise the price, but I am also making more money, a lot more.
-
I also feel that some people are too dominated by their emotions over the past unjust from IS. It was fair then, but, maybe I don't see the whole picture since I am exclusive, in my experience, IS has become quite stable this year. They raise the price, but I am also making more money, a lot more.
Well, you're all right, Jack.
In my case, although my money is up from last year, it's not nearly as much as it would have been had they kept their promise to grandfather us in to our next cannister level.
And many people who had, at their request, started supplying various media were right royally shafted and some narrowly missed their suddenly imposed targets by a small margin in more than one medium, and have every reason not to forget where they buried the hatchet.
-
I also feel that some people are too dominated by their emotions over the past unjust from IS. It was fair then, but, maybe I don't see the whole picture since I am exclusive, in my experience, IS has become quite stable this year. They raise the price, but I am also making more money, a lot more.
Well, you're all right, Jack.
In my case, although my money is up from last year, it's not nearly as much as it would have been had they kept their promise to grandfather us in to our next cannister level.
And many people who had, at their request, started supplying various media were right royally shafted and some narrowly missed their suddenly imposed targets by a small margin in more than one medium, and have every reason not to forget where they buried the hatchet.
Well let's not forget an idiot was running the show for the last few years! Rebecca seem to have stabilised IS a lot since then.
-
Just to verify it is as real as it gets:
Castel Bran, where Vlad Tepes Dracula lived (among other places).
He was not the only Dracula. his grandfather was also named Dracul, which probably compares to "Lionheart". He fought the Turks, and was quite gruesome.
BUT he had nothing to do with vampires, that comes from the novel of Stoker.
And since the novel, things have been mixed up in half fantasy and half truth as it often is with legends.
The castle.
The word for dragon in Romanian is "drac" and "ul" is the definitive article. Vlad III’s father thus came to be known as "Vlad Dracul," or "Vlad the dragon." In Romanian the ending "ulea" means "the son of". Under this interpretation, Vlad III thus became Vlad Dracula, or "the son of the dragon." By the way Vlad III's Father was named Vlad II and acquired the name Dracul It Isn't The Family Last Name!
OK if you accept the sign as tourist trade, and recognize that it's half truth and half fantasy, I have to agree. Various sources say there is no evidence or proof that Vlad Tepes ever lived at Bran Castle.
He was kind of nasty. "Vlad usually had a horse attached to each of the victim’s legs and a sharpened stake was gradually forced into the body. The end of the stake was usually oiled and care was taken that the stake not be too sharp, else the victim might die too rapidly from shock. Normally the stake was inserted into the body through the buttocks and was often forced through the body until it emerged from the mouth."
Microstock at microstock prices, that's what I say. It is what it is, by definition. And I agree with the general consensus here that people know what they are getting into, at least the general market and pricing, when they start. No reason to complain later about how it works.
lisafx It was always a VOLUME business. It's the market dilution and the royalty cuts that have made this business unsustainable, not the low prices.
Precisely the correct answer.
-
I also feel that some people are too dominated by their emotions over the past unjust from IS. It was fair then, but, maybe I don't see the whole picture since I am exclusive, in my experience, IS has become quite stable this year. They raise the price, but I am also making more money, a lot more.
Well, you're all right, Jack.
In my case, although my money is up from last year, it's not nearly as much as it would have been had they kept their promise to grandfather us in to our next cannister level.
And many people who had, at their request, started supplying various media were right royally shafted and some narrowly missed their suddenly imposed targets by a small margin in more than one medium, and have every reason not to forget where they buried the hatchet.
But my dear Sue, you are still an exclusive, ain't you? What will you gain if the buyers bail on IS? Will you make more or less? Like you, I was also partly hurt by the RC thing, But it was done. It's Rebecca Period now. She seems to be low key and efficient. As I said before, and you probably don't believe in old Jack, that I am making a lot more this year, solely because of E+ and price increases, and not because of more DLs. Yep, like many others, I have stopped counting DLs, I simply count money. I expect even more money when my E+ images are mirrored in Getty.
-
But my dear Sue, you are still an exclusive, ain't you? What will you gain if the buyers bail on IS? Will you make more or less? Like you, I was also partly hurt by the RC thing, But it was done. It's Rebecca Period now. She seems to be low key and efficient. As I said before, and you probably don't believe in old Jack, that I am making a lot more this year, solely because of E+ and price increases, and not because of more DLs. Yep, like many others, I have stopped counting DLs, I simply count money. I expect even more money when my E+ images are mirrored in Getty.
Sorry but continuingly raising prices in order to counteract ever-dwindling sales would not give me much hope for the future. You might even say, as a business model, it is 'unsustainable'.
-
Joe, I am sorry, but the doom's day forecast has not been sustainable either, at least for me. I have no interest to woo-yay if my efforts are not compensated. I also have the option to become non-excluisve again.
If you'd rather sell your images at low price but in big volumn in other agencies, good for you! If you think it's in your best interest to stop buyers from buying from IS, you should be glad that IS raises the prices to make its competitors more competitive. You get your wish, so what's the matter?
-
I also feel that some people are too dominated by their emotions over the past unjust from IS. It was fair then, but, maybe I don't see the whole picture since I am exclusive, in my experience, IS has become quite stable this year. They raise the price, but I am also making more money, a lot more.
Well, you're all right, Jack.
In my case, although my money is up from last year, it's not nearly as much as it would have been had they kept their promise to grandfather us in to our next cannister level.
And many people who had, at their request, started supplying various media were right royally shafted and some narrowly missed their suddenly imposed targets by a small margin in more than one medium, and have every reason not to forget where they buried the hatchet.
But my dear Sue, you are still an exclusive, ain't you? What will you gain if the buyers bail on IS? Will you make more or less? Like you, I was also partly hurt by the RC thing, But it was done. It's Rebecca Period now. She seems to be low key and efficient. As I said before, and you probably don't believe in old Jack, that I am making a lot more this year, solely because of E+ and price increases, and not because of more DLs. Yep, like many others, I have stopped counting DLs, I simply count money. I expect even more money when my E+ images are mirrored in Getty.
Freedom, Sweetie, I didn't say I didn't believe in Jack. I'm just saying that your experience isn't universal among exclusives: even some top exclusives are doing badly, much worse - proporitionately obviously - than I am, despite (or perhaps because of?) E+ and price increases.
-
Fair enough, Sue, obviously some exclusives are not getting what they think they deserve.
Back to topic, will these exclusives (including you) get more money if the buyers are bailing on IS? That is why I don't understand why you are in this chorus while continuing on being exclusive.
-
"a sharpened stake was gradually forced into the body. The end of the stake was usually oiled and care was taken that the stake not be too sharp, else the victim might die too rapidly from shock. Normally the stake was inserted into the body through the buttocks and was often forced through the body until it emerged from the mouth."
Now that sounds suspiciously like being shafted by a microstock agency, so I suppose we are back on topic :)
-
Rebecca this and that, whats the matter? she cant even sneeze, without permission to sneeze, nothing! which is what she has been doing since her start: nothing.
Getty want to move IS towards midstock, even higher. Nothing we can do about that, its not our company.
This issue is burnt to death by just about everyone of us here. Best just left alone, isnt it.
-
I have a gut feeling that prices had reached a happy medium at iStock in around 2007-08. They were higher than $1, but yet still manageable for most casual buyers. I have nothing to support this, other than a gut feeling from being at the party then. Does anyone have records that show pricing at that time on iStock? I'm pretty sure it was the same across for independents and exclusives at that time.
-
Maybe its time to throw in a vampire or 2.
or maybe not.
-
so. I cannot help it.
Compares to "Woman with headset".
Reviewer from a microstock agency standing ready for reviewing the photographers picture:
(http://www.stolt.dk/images/vampire/800%20Vampire%20peeping%20.jpg)
-
Ha1 ha, I like your idea, about the reviewer that is. Good shot!
-
It's Rebecca Period now. She seems to be low key and efficient.
Low profile, definitely. Efficient?? This is an efficiency report posted by iStock's own staff:
MAY BUG REPORTS:
Contributors reporting that files uploaded on 3rd / 4th May - while site was experiencing issues with displaying thumbnails - that some images uploaded during that period seem to have been skipped by inspectors. 08May12 KJ.
Update:
We are going to manually re-process as many files as we can in the short term. We have the folks in Dev running through things to see if they can see what happened.
For those of you wanting a swift resolution please open a Support Ticket with your list of affected files. We will get them unstuck as quickly as possible. Support Tickets will be the quickest route.
Site indexing and also stats not updating as per usual schedules. This is being addressed. The Dev Team are looking into the issue. We will post updates as and when we can. 04May12 KJ
The front page lightbox "Parents" link is incorrect and leads to a 404 page. 03May12 KJ
OLDER BUGS:
Contributors using Win XP and Firefox unable to upload. Upload times out. First reported here and later here 24Apr12 KJ
Contributor preference to show member name as opposed to real name is being reset for some contributors, along with adult filter preference. See here for example. 31Mar12
Some open support tickets disappearing from the Contact Us page e.g. here. 31Mar12
Keywords entered in other languages appearing to be getting wrongly mapped to English CV terms, possibly when editing other keywords e.g. the German word for red "rot" getting mapped to rotting (decay) etc. KJ
Royalties & stats not adding up on the E+ page. E+ royalty numbers listed on the E+ page are incorrect. For example, sjlocke has an image with 500+ E+ downloads, supposedly, for an E+ total royalty of $26.00 . Also, there are no dates for last exclusive+ download. Clicking on sales number does not link to anything also. KJ
Contributors cannot see RCs earned in 2010 - only the current and previous year is visible in the stats drop down box e.g. here KJ
Incorrect and lower royalty rates paid to some from 1st to 3rd of Jan. KJ
NOTE: Issue is in Dev. Bulk royalties will be deposited and email breakdowns will be provided. This should be completed by Jan 20/2012. *The fix for this is still ongoing. We'll post more news when we have it.
The downloads numbers, royalties and other stats displayed may vary according to which page you check them e.g. the my_uploads page may differ from the portfolio page, which may differ from the file's close up page etc. Example here
Using IE8 - narrowing results doesn't work. Upgrading to IE9 seems to solve the issue. Those using Win XP however cannot upgrade to this latest version of IE. KJ
Subscription Royalties & delayed royalties showing errors in download figures e.g. this one showing 65535 delayed royalties. KJ
Preferred sort order switches to Best Match when you view a contributor's portfolio. KJ
RSS feed links missing .php - leading to hanging pages - details here KJ
RC stats - along with other stats - may not be updating on their usual daily schedules. KJ
Contributors reporting a drop in their RC totals e.g.here. KJ
A number of exclusive contributors are reporting that some of their files are missing from their iStock portfolios and they have been opted into the PP without their consent. Examples here Others report that images are not available on Partner sites or iStock - see here. Others report that they have opted out of the PP and yet they are being repeatedly opted in, against their wishes, and their images remain available on PP sites. KJ
Several contributors reporting that many of their images have vanished from the Partner Program sites and subsequently have seen large drops in earnings details here and please also see here KJ
The zoom function appears broken for older Illustrations - which appear like this KJ
Some contributors unable to add images to E+ collections examples here , here and here. Further details of E+ page issues here
Several users reporting they are having to sign in many times each day. KJ
Site mails and forum posts being truncated - possibly a WYSIWYG issue - e.g. this post KJ
Resubmitted images are losing their Model Releases - long running issue. KJ
Partner Program stats showing sales with zero royalties - reported here. Further discussion of this issue & info can be found in the PP forum here KJ
Non Latin alphabet characters causing problems in caption and image description boxes, so any punctuation marks such as apostrophes, ampersands & umlauts etc can cause rest of text to be truncated. e.g. here and a little more info here. Referral mail personal message field also can't handle thesel characters and on the received mail it shows a "?" instead. Ref# KJ-35
Forum subscribe/unsubscribe - These two options are backwards.Ref# PH-9
Moo cards - not able to upload files to order cards. Ref #JG-16
WE ARE ALREADY AWARE OF ALL OF THE ISSUES ABOVE.
PLEASE DO NOT RE-REPORT THEM HERE.
-
It's Rebecca Period now. She seems to be low key and efficient.
Low profile, definitely. Efficient?? This is an efficiency report posted by iStock's own staff:
MAY BUG REPORTS:
Contributors reporting that files uploaded on 3rd / 4th May - while site was experiencing issues with displaying thumbnails - that some images uploaded during that period seem to have been skipped by inspectors. 08May12 KJ.
Update:
We are going to manually re-process as many files as we can in the short term. We have the folks in Dev running through things to see if they can see what happened.
For those of you wanting a swift resolution please open a Support Ticket with your list of affected files. We will get them unstuck as quickly as possible. Support Tickets will be the quickest route.
Site indexing and also stats not updating as per usual schedules. This is being addressed. The Dev Team are looking into the issue. We will post updates as and when we can. 04May12 KJ
The front page lightbox "Parents" link is incorrect and leads to a 404 page. 03May12 KJ
OLDER BUGS:
Contributors using Win XP and Firefox unable to upload. Upload times out. First reported here and later here 24Apr12 KJ
Contributor preference to show member name as opposed to real name is being reset for some contributors, along with adult filter preference. See here for example. 31Mar12
Some open support tickets disappearing from the Contact Us page e.g. here. 31Mar12
Keywords entered in other languages appearing to be getting wrongly mapped to English CV terms, possibly when editing other keywords e.g. the German word for red "rot" getting mapped to rotting (decay) etc. KJ
Royalties & stats not adding up on the E+ page. E+ royalty numbers listed on the E+ page are incorrect. For example, sjlocke has an image with 500+ E+ downloads, supposedly, for an E+ total royalty of $26.00 . Also, there are no dates for last exclusive+ download. Clicking on sales number does not link to anything also. KJ
Contributors cannot see RCs earned in 2010 - only the current and previous year is visible in the stats drop down box e.g. here KJ
Incorrect and lower royalty rates paid to some from 1st to 3rd of Jan. KJ
NOTE: Issue is in Dev. Bulk royalties will be deposited and email breakdowns will be provided. This should be completed by Jan 20/2012. *The fix for this is still ongoing. We'll post more news when we have it.
The downloads numbers, royalties and other stats displayed may vary according to which page you check them e.g. the my_uploads page may differ from the portfolio page, which may differ from the file's close up page etc. Example here
Using IE8 - narrowing results doesn't work. Upgrading to IE9 seems to solve the issue. Those using Win XP however cannot upgrade to this latest version of IE. KJ
Subscription Royalties & delayed royalties showing errors in download figures e.g. this one showing 65535 delayed royalties. KJ
Preferred sort order switches to Best Match when you view a contributor's portfolio. KJ
RSS feed links missing .php - leading to hanging pages - details here KJ
RC stats - along with other stats - may not be updating on their usual daily schedules. KJ
Contributors reporting a drop in their RC totals e.g.here. KJ
A number of exclusive contributors are reporting that some of their files are missing from their iStock portfolios and they have been opted into the PP without their consent. Examples here Others report that images are not available on Partner sites or iStock - see here. Others report that they have opted out of the PP and yet they are being repeatedly opted in, against their wishes, and their images remain available on PP sites. KJ
Several contributors reporting that many of their images have vanished from the Partner Program sites and subsequently have seen large drops in earnings details here and please also see here KJ
The zoom function appears broken for older Illustrations - which appear like this KJ
Some contributors unable to add images to E+ collections examples here , here and here. Further details of E+ page issues here
Several users reporting they are having to sign in many times each day. KJ
Site mails and forum posts being truncated - possibly a WYSIWYG issue - e.g. this post KJ
Resubmitted images are losing their Model Releases - long running issue. KJ
Partner Program stats showing sales with zero royalties - reported here. Further discussion of this issue & info can be found in the PP forum here KJ
Non Latin alphabet characters causing problems in caption and image description boxes, so any punctuation marks such as apostrophes, ampersands & umlauts etc can cause rest of text to be truncated. e.g. here and a little more info here. Referral mail personal message field also can't handle thesel characters and on the received mail it shows a "?" instead. Ref# KJ-35
Forum subscribe/unsubscribe - These two options are backwards.Ref# PH-9
Moo cards - not able to upload files to order cards. Ref #JG-16
WE ARE ALREADY AWARE OF ALL OF THE ISSUES ABOVE.
PLEASE DO NOT RE-REPORT THEM HERE.
Yep! very efficient, isnt it. ::)
-
Old thread I know but buyers are still 'bailing on iStock'. Here's xidigital, a customer for over 5 years, giving both barrels;
"I understand that certain photos require expensive equipment to be shot, but i fail to understand why certain "regular" photos (nothing fancy, just a few people sitting on a couch for example) are considered premium and cost 20 credits+ for a small one! iStock used to be reasonable when it comes to prices - 1credit for small and 5-10 credits for vector. Now it's nearly impossible to find a good photo for 1 credit.
The whole beauty of iStock used to be: affordable good quality stock photos. I know iStock is now owned by Getty (whos pricing policies are beyond naive), and it's sad to see iStock follow the same path. Thankfully there are many alternatives nowadays with great selection at a reasonable price.
Our firm and a few other large design companies in Canada are switching to those alternatives. Anybody else thinks that these prices are a bit too much and driving designers away from this site?"
He then continues with this, later in the thread;
"After I posted this thread, i found that this concern has been raised multiple times and to be honest, some of the replies from photographers really upset me. Some photographers complain that the equipment prices went up and to produce quality photos it requires more money.
I'll give you an analogy: Just because one pizza delivery guy drives a nicer car than the other, doesn't mean that he will get paid more. Just because i just purchased a brand new MBP for 3k doesn't mean that i'll start charging my clients more for the work i do.
The funny part is that photos i've purchased 5 years ago NOW cost 5x more credits with 70% increase for /credit price. What used to cost $1 now costs $8.5. SAME PHOTO! It wasn't retaken.. just went up in price 850%!
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?"
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=348507&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=348507&page=1)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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 :)
-
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.).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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).
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
This thread says a lot about what has gone wrong over there and is now apparent to pretty much everyone.
-
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:
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.
-
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..
-
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 :)
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350067&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350067&page=1)
:( >:(
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350067&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350067&page=1[/url])
:( >:(
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.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350067&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350067&page=1[/url])
:( >:(
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).
-
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
-
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.