pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock  (Read 387891 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #575 on: December 08, 2010, 03:27 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2010, 04:31 by sharpshot »


RT


« Reply #576 on: December 08, 2010, 04:22 »
0
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.

jbarber873

« Reply #577 on: December 08, 2010, 08:43 »
0
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.

« Reply #578 on: December 08, 2010, 11:55 »
0
another frustrated buyer just posted on the iS forums:

Quote
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!

lisafx

« Reply #579 on: December 08, 2010, 13:01 »
0

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. 

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #580 on: December 08, 2010, 13:36 »
0
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.

« Reply #581 on: December 08, 2010, 13:42 »
0
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.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #582 on: December 08, 2010, 13:45 »
0
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.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #583 on: December 08, 2010, 13:54 »
0
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.

lisafx

« Reply #584 on: December 08, 2010, 14:07 »
0
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.

« Reply #585 on: December 08, 2010, 14:27 »
0
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).

« Reply #586 on: December 08, 2010, 14:41 »
0
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.

« Reply #587 on: December 08, 2010, 15:14 »
0
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

lisafx

« Reply #588 on: December 08, 2010, 15:30 »
0
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. 

« Reply #589 on: December 08, 2010, 15:37 »
0
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.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #590 on: December 08, 2010, 19:26 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2010, 18:31 by SNP »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #591 on: December 08, 2010, 19:49 »
0
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.

« Reply #592 on: December 08, 2010, 19:58 »
0

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

« Reply #593 on: December 08, 2010, 20:00 »
0

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?

« Reply #594 on: December 08, 2010, 21:38 »
0

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. ;)

« Reply #595 on: December 08, 2010, 22:55 »
0
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. 

« Reply #596 on: December 09, 2010, 04:07 »
0
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?

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #597 on: December 09, 2010, 18:33 »
0
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

bittersweet

« Reply #598 on: December 09, 2010, 21:27 »
0
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


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.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2010, 21:39 by whatalife »

« Reply #599 on: December 10, 2010, 08:18 »
0
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
17297 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
33337 Views
Last post May 14, 2012, 10:27
by jbryson
20 Replies
7325 Views
Last post February 14, 2013, 17:41
by Poncke
9 Replies
4679 Views
Last post January 15, 2014, 19:56
by djpadavona

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors