MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock  (Read 387903 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #750 on: December 29, 2010, 21:24 »
0
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"


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/#__


« Reply #751 on: December 30, 2010, 03:13 »
0
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???

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #752 on: December 30, 2010, 04:59 »
0
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).

« Reply #753 on: December 30, 2010, 07:38 »
0
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.

« Reply #754 on: December 30, 2010, 09:43 »
0
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.

« Reply #755 on: December 30, 2010, 10:44 »
0
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.

lisafx

« Reply #756 on: December 30, 2010, 10:58 »
0
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 ??

« Reply #757 on: December 30, 2010, 11:01 »
0
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.

« Reply #758 on: December 30, 2010, 11:02 »
0
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.  

lisafx

« Reply #759 on: December 30, 2010, 11:04 »
0

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...

lisafx

« Reply #760 on: January 02, 2011, 12:00 »
0
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.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #761 on: January 02, 2011, 15:10 »
0
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.

« Reply #762 on: January 05, 2011, 16:00 »
0
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.

« Reply #763 on: January 06, 2011, 17:02 »
0
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".

« Reply #764 on: January 06, 2011, 17:07 »
0
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."

lisafx

« Reply #765 on: January 06, 2011, 17:13 »
0

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...  

« Reply #766 on: January 06, 2011, 17:29 »
0

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.

« Reply #767 on: January 06, 2011, 17:35 »
0
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".

« Reply #768 on: January 06, 2011, 17:54 »
0

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 :).
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 17:57 by cdwheatley »

« Reply #769 on: January 06, 2011, 18:31 »
0

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.

« Reply #770 on: January 06, 2011, 18:38 »
0
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!

« Reply #771 on: January 06, 2011, 18:54 »
0
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.

« Reply #772 on: January 11, 2011, 16:36 »
0
Did anybody read the "Buyers Can't Sign Up?" thread?

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=290922&page=1

Should anything surprise me anymore?

lisafx

« Reply #773 on: January 11, 2011, 16:51 »
0
Yeah, it's really unbelievable!  Thanks for posting a link here.  Seems appropriate to the topic.

« Reply #774 on: January 11, 2011, 18:17 »
0
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
17299 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
33339 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