MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock  (Read 387867 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #400 on: October 27, 2010, 08:11 »
0
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.


« Reply #401 on: October 27, 2010, 08:51 »
0
 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

« Reply #402 on: October 27, 2010, 09:23 »
0
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!

« Reply #403 on: October 27, 2010, 19:02 »
0
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

« Reply #404 on: October 28, 2010, 09:26 »
0
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

lisafx

« Reply #405 on: October 28, 2010, 15:36 »
0
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
« Last Edit: October 28, 2010, 15:41 by lisafx »

« Reply #406 on: October 28, 2010, 17:07 »
0


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.

« Reply #407 on: October 28, 2010, 17:12 »
0
... 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]

« Reply #408 on: October 29, 2010, 08:35 »
0
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

« Reply #409 on: October 29, 2010, 09:29 »
0
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.

« Reply #410 on: October 29, 2010, 11:56 »
0
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


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 ?

lisafx

« Reply #411 on: October 29, 2010, 16:08 »
0
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.   ::)

« Reply #412 on: October 29, 2010, 17:35 »
0
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.

« Reply #413 on: October 29, 2010, 18:03 »
0
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?

« Reply #414 on: October 30, 2010, 11:22 »
0
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.  
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 11:34 by gbalex »

lisafx

« Reply #415 on: October 30, 2010, 16:09 »
0

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

jbarber873

« Reply #416 on: October 30, 2010, 16:55 »
0
   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 )

« Reply #417 on: October 30, 2010, 17:32 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 17:36 by loop »

« Reply #418 on: October 30, 2010, 18:44 »
0
  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.

« Reply #419 on: October 30, 2010, 18:50 »
0
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.

lisafx

« Reply #420 on: October 30, 2010, 19:30 »
0
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.

lisafx

« Reply #421 on: October 30, 2010, 19:31 »
0
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.  
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 19:36 by lisafx »

« Reply #422 on: October 30, 2010, 19:33 »
0
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???

« Reply #423 on: October 30, 2010, 19:38 »
0
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                     

« Reply #424 on: October 30, 2010, 20:54 »
0
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 cant avoid thinking costumers judge that this Vetta is better than her sisters. And, most times, I agree.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
17295 Views
Last post October 23, 2010, 14:12
by gbalex
18 Replies
5818 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 15:34
by lagereek
162 Replies
33334 Views
Last post May 14, 2012, 10:27
by jbryson
20 Replies
7323 Views
Last post February 14, 2013, 17:41
by Poncke
9 Replies
4678 Views
Last post January 15, 2014, 19:56
by djpadavona

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors