MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock  (Read 387826 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

lisafx

« Reply #650 on: December 11, 2010, 16:00 »
0
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?


« Reply #651 on: December 11, 2010, 16:25 »
0
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/#
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.

« Reply #652 on: December 11, 2010, 16:26 »
0
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

lisafx

« Reply #653 on: December 11, 2010, 17:14 »
0

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 :(

« Reply #654 on: December 11, 2010, 20:45 »
0

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.

« Reply #655 on: December 12, 2010, 10:25 »
0
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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #656 on: December 12, 2010, 15:39 »
0
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.

« Reply #657 on: December 14, 2010, 10:37 »
0
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

Quote
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

lisafx

« Reply #658 on: December 14, 2010, 11:09 »
0
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!

« Reply #659 on: December 14, 2010, 11:14 »
0
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.

« Reply #660 on: December 14, 2010, 11:23 »
0
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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #661 on: December 14, 2010, 11:53 »
0
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.

« Reply #662 on: December 14, 2010, 12:10 »
0
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 ..."
« Last Edit: December 14, 2010, 12:14 by gostwyck »

« Reply #663 on: December 14, 2010, 12:15 »
0
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?

helix7

« Reply #664 on: December 14, 2010, 12:17 »
0
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.

« Reply #665 on: December 14, 2010, 12:17 »
0
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?

« Reply #666 on: December 14, 2010, 12:30 »
0
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.

« Reply #667 on: December 14, 2010, 12:42 »
0
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!

« Reply #668 on: December 14, 2010, 12:43 »
0
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.  

« Reply #669 on: December 14, 2010, 12:46 »
0
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.

« Reply #670 on: December 14, 2010, 12:55 »
0
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.

« Reply #671 on: December 14, 2010, 13:28 »
0
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.

« Reply #672 on: December 14, 2010, 14:41 »
0
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


I really hope they lose all their customers.

« Reply #673 on: December 14, 2010, 15:21 »
0
^^^ 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.

« Reply #674 on: December 14, 2010, 15:25 »
0
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
17295 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
33331 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
4678 Views
Last post January 15, 2014, 19:56
by djpadavona

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors