pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock  (Read 387802 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #450 on: November 09, 2010, 17:58 »
0
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.


lisafx

« Reply #451 on: November 09, 2010, 18:17 »
0
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. 

Fotonaut

« Reply #452 on: November 10, 2010, 02:52 »
0
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.

« Reply #453 on: November 10, 2010, 04:17 »
0
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.

« Reply #454 on: November 10, 2010, 04:36 »
0

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.

lisafx

« Reply #455 on: November 10, 2010, 09:24 »
0

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...  
« Last Edit: November 10, 2010, 09:27 by lisafx »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #456 on: November 10, 2010, 09:29 »
0

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.

Fotonaut

« Reply #457 on: November 10, 2010, 12:18 »
0
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
Istock by Best Match: 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 switching "moped" with "scooter" (which is less relevant), 16 results (mostly of water scooters): http://is.gd/gUkcl

Fotolia: 1 image: http://is.gd/gUkne and a couple more with water scooters when switching "moped" with "scooter".

Istock wins hands on.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #458 on: November 10, 2010, 12:25 »
0
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
Istock by Best Match: 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 switching "moped" with "scooter" (which is less relevant), 16 results (mostly of water scooters): http://is.gd/gUkcl

Fotolia: 1 image: http://is.gd/gUkne 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

« Reply #459 on: November 10, 2010, 13:04 »
0
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
Istock by Best Match: 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 switching "moped" with "scooter" (which is less relevant), 16 results (mostly of water scooters): http://is.gd/gUkcl

Fotolia: 1 image: http://is.gd/gUkne 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.

Fotonaut

« Reply #460 on: November 10, 2010, 13:09 »
0
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


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.

Fotonaut

« Reply #461 on: November 10, 2010, 13:14 »
0
"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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #462 on: November 10, 2010, 13:15 »
0
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


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.

« Reply #463 on: November 10, 2010, 13:46 »
0

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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #464 on: November 10, 2010, 14:04 »
0

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.

helix7

« Reply #465 on: November 10, 2010, 14:15 »
0
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.

lisafx

« Reply #466 on: November 10, 2010, 14:27 »
0
"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  :(
« Last Edit: November 10, 2010, 14:30 by lisafx »

« Reply #467 on: November 10, 2010, 14:59 »
0
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.

« Reply #468 on: November 24, 2010, 10:25 »
0

lagereek

« Reply #469 on: November 24, 2010, 10:36 »
0
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?

« Reply #470 on: November 24, 2010, 10:52 »
0
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.

« Reply #471 on: November 24, 2010, 12:21 »
0
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. 

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #472 on: November 24, 2010, 12:32 »
0
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.

« Reply #473 on: November 24, 2010, 12:39 »
0
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?

lisafx

« Reply #474 on: November 24, 2010, 13:33 »
0
+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...
« Last Edit: November 24, 2010, 13:35 by lisafx »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
17294 Views
Last post October 23, 2010, 14:12
by gbalex
18 Replies
5817 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 15:34
by lagereek
162 Replies
33330 Views
Last post May 14, 2012, 10:27
by jbryson
20 Replies
7321 Views
Last post February 14, 2013, 17:41
by Poncke
9 Replies
4677 Views
Last post January 15, 2014, 19:56
by djpadavona

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors