pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock  (Read 387817 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #900 on: February 09, 2011, 13:06 »
0
I have thousands of images at IS, tens of thousands dl's... never had a single mail from a  customer wanting to buy directly, except if they want somenthing special (i.e. Image exclusivity, same model doing another thing in a custom made shot etc). Never for license concerns or not wanting to buy small credit packages. So, a very different experiencie from what you happen to say.

And yes, tehy have a way to verify MRs, model's phones are in the MR.

Exactly the same for me. No IS customer has ever contacted me in an attempt to buy direct. I once had a query from someone on DT asking how to obtain one of my images but I think they were either confused (i.e. a bit stupid) or fishing for a freebie. Saying it happens 'every month' seems so unlikely that I don't actually believe the Getty rep bit either. Any Getty rep's making such statements regularly would soon be reported to IS whilst the customer attempted to clarify the situation.

I believe I said every other month. I'm sorry you aren't receiving the emails. If you don't get them, they must not exist.. If they existed, SURELY you would get them too. That's how the world works you know. Everything is equal. Or wait... Is it?

As for the getty reps saying what they said. Believe me or not, it happened. I reported it to istock with the names of the reps and they were going to look into it. It was the last Getty Rep meeting we had 6ish months ago.


« Reply #901 on: February 09, 2011, 14:06 »
0
I guess the reps are desperate to earn commission, and it wouldn't be the only industry in which commission-based reps lie to boost their own income.

I totally understand why a rep would lie to get a commission (not that I agree with it).  That's salesmanship 101.  What is surprising to me is that they would tell lies that trash part of their own company.  ???

Sadly I don't find this too surprising.  if you've ever worked a commission job with pushy sales co-workers you'll find that some of these people will trash their own mother if they felt it would get them the sale and no one else. 

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #902 on: February 09, 2011, 14:33 »
0
The Getty badmouthing IS has been heard before, it's not new.

Quote
Also, I would say at least once every other month I get a "Can we buy from you outside of istock" email from buyers.
   

I have sold  a lot of images and I have never had this, I'm amazed you get it every 2 months.

I went to see a small but very well know and influential design consultancy today and they said they were very happy with IS and only looked at other comapanies if they absolutely couldn't find what they wanted at IS. They weren't interested in any goings-on at IS, they were just happy with the images they found there.

« Reply #903 on: February 09, 2011, 14:38 »
0
Likewise, having worked in the past with commissioned sales reps, they get judged (by their bosses) on whether they make their quotas on the various products assigned to them.

It's not only about them making money on the things they get commissions for (and as I'm guessing they don't get commission, or as much commission, to sell iStock credit packs, they have every incentive to trash them if they represent competition for the things they do get commissions for). It's also about them keeping their jobs. If they do a great job overall for the company in ways that aren't measured by their bosses and miss their quotas, they get fired. I don't think it's a great model, but it's very prevalent in American companies (may be elsewhere too, but I just don't have experience of elsewhere).

Incentive systems can work well, but you have to be very careful to design them to get the results you want. When there is no penalty to a sales rep who sells something that doesn't really meet customer requirements and generates huge downstream costs in support calls, they'll keep selling that way. Some companies started tracking those back end costs to try and put a stop to that sort of "good for me, bad for the company" transactions.

So some of the behavior you could lay at the feet of an individual sales rep; some of it you need to look at the company for designing the incentive system badly. I know nothing about how Getty's system is designed though...

« Reply #904 on: February 09, 2011, 14:41 »
0
The Getty badmouthing IS has been heard before, it's not new.

Quote
Also, I would say at least once every other month I get a "Can we buy from you outside of istock" email from buyers.
   

I have sold  a lot of images and I have never had this, I'm amazed you get it every 2 months.

I'm surprised. I would think more people would have this happen. I had one today, but it wasn't quite the same. It is "Can I buy this from you, since Istock doesn't allow me to resell t-shirts with this design?" OBVIOUSLY, not quite the same as I mentioned before, and I will just refer them back to istock customer relations to discuss licensing options.

Apprently people find me to be very emailable???

« Reply #905 on: February 09, 2011, 15:51 »
0
I guess the reps are desperate to earn commission, and it wouldn't be the only industry in which commission-based reps lie to boost their own income.

I totally understand why a rep would lie to get a commission (not that I agree with it).  That's salesmanship 101.  What is surprising to me is that they would tell lies that trash part of their own company.  ???

Sadly I don't find this too surprising.  if you've ever worked a commission job with pushy sales co-workers you'll find that some of these people will trash their own mother if they felt it would get them the sale and no one else. 

And I was thinking that maybe the Getty reps have their panties in a knot because IS is undercutting them and taking away their livelihood. No matter that they are owned by the same people. Kind of like the trad agency photographers looking down on microstock photographers.

« Reply #906 on: February 09, 2011, 16:05 »
0
I guess the reps are desperate to earn commission, and it wouldn't be the only industry in which commission-based reps lie to boost their own income.

I totally understand why a rep would lie to get a commission (not that I agree with it).  That's salesmanship 101.  What is surprising to me is that they would tell lies that trash part of their own company.  ???

Sadly I don't find this too surprising.  if you've ever worked a commission job with pushy sales co-workers you'll find that some of these people will trash their own mother if they felt it would get them the sale and no one else. 

Yeah you just have to follow the money.  In my past corporate days working at company 'X', one of the product managers told me that when the founder and chairman of company 'X' would accompany them on the really, really important sales trips, into the boardrooms of Fortune 100 companies, he would basically forget that he was representing company 'X' and would spend the entire meeting pushing the products sold by company 'Y'.  Company 'Y' was a subsidiary of 'X' but he had a much larger, personal investment stake in startup 'Y' than he had in parent company 'X'.  This was a 50 year old allegedly eminent and respectable corporate CEO, not a junior sales rep.  He was a former sales rep however so that might explain his behavior.

I believe that the word "synergy" as related to corporate acquisitions was invented by corporate types looking for an excuse for their insider self-dealing    ;)

« Reply #907 on: February 09, 2011, 17:20 »
0
The Getty badmouthing IS has been heard before, it's not new.

Quote
Also, I would say at least once every other month I get a "Can we buy from you outside of istock" email from buyers.
   

I have sold  a lot of images and I have never had this, I'm amazed you get it every 2 months.

I'm surprised. I would think more people would have this happen. I had one today, but it wasn't quite the same. It is "Can I buy this from you, since Istock doesn't allow me to resell t-shirts with this design?" OBVIOUSLY, not quite the same as I mentioned before, and I will just refer them back to istock customer relations to discuss licensing options.

Apprently people find me to be very emailable???

is it email or sitemail? perhaps a lot of photogs dont publish their emails on their istock portfolio page.  It doesn't automatically get listed there anyhow, does it?  at least mine is not there, but my website link is.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #908 on: February 09, 2011, 17:30 »
0
I have thousands of images at IS, tens of thousands dl's... never had a single mail from a  customer wanting to buy directly, except if they want somenthing special (i.e. Image exclusivity, same model doing another thing in a custom made shot etc). Never for license concerns or not wanting to buy small credit packages. So, a very different experiencie from what you happen to say.

And yes, tehy have a way to verify MRs, model's phones are in the MR.

Exactly the same for me. No IS customer has ever contacted me in an attempt to buy direct. I once had a query from someone on DT asking how to obtain one of my images but I think they were either confused (i.e. a bit stupid) or fishing for a freebie. Saying it happens 'every month' seems so unlikely that I don't actually believe the Getty rep bit either. Any Getty rep's making such statements regularly would soon be reported to IS whilst the customer attempted to clarify the situation.
I've had two, but a long time ago. One was asking if s/he could use one of my pics in a book, but something about the writing seemed like it wasn't just a simple question. I said it could, linked to the EL page, just in case, and referred them to support if they weren't clear about the EL.
The other, very soon after I started, was suggesting they paid me for my image offsite so that I'd get more and they'd pay less. This was in early 2007, when images were mega cheap anyway. I ignored them.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 18:12 by ShadySue »

« Reply #909 on: February 09, 2011, 17:51 »
0
Quote
is it email or sitemail? perhaps a lot of photogs dont publish their emails on their istock portfolio page.  It doesn't automatically get listed there anyhow, does it?  at least mine is not there, but my website link is.

I have a link to my web page. Most everyone that contacts me, does so through my personal site. Most of them seem genuine. I always tell them I can't since I'm exclusive, unless they want it to be something new and WAY more expensive. That usually deters them. I do vectors. I don't know if that makes a difference in these circumstances.

« Reply #910 on: February 09, 2011, 18:15 »
0
I have a link to my web page. Most everyone that contacts me, does so through my personal site. Most of them seem genuine. I always tell them I can't since I'm exclusive, unless they want it to be something new and WAY more expensive. That usually deters them. I do vectors. I don't know if that makes a difference in these circumstances.

Fair enough, sorry that I doubted you. I don't have any links on my profile page so that wouldn't apply to me. I do think that vector artists are more likely to get contacted as vectors tend to be more expensive and presumeably they can also be modified to fit a buyer's exact needs.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 18:24 by gostwyck »

lisafx

« Reply #911 on: February 09, 2011, 18:48 »
0
Another very well-articulated buyer's set of complaints:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=301712&messageid=5822512

First paragraph sums it up pretty well:

Though I'm a contributor, I function mainly as a buyer. iStock, as of late, has become nearly unusable to me. If it weren't for the higher quality images and my existing credits (including those that come from downloads of my files), I would go elsewhere. I know others who already have. I have had a contracted ad agency ask me to move to a different microstock for their projects because of iStock's US Postal Service style constant rate increases. This, when I have used iStock for nearly a decade and have only veered away if what I needed was not available.

Of course, being also a contributor, his/her opinion will no doubt be considered irrelevant by TPTB.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #912 on: February 09, 2011, 23:27 »
0
I'm actually one of the buyers mentioned in this thread. (Also a contributor) We have had Getty reps come to our company and tell us not to use istock. "They have no way of verifying if images have releases, and its just safer not to use them." Said the reps. That and a multitude of other issues have lead my company to seriously cut down on istock. Some teams keep it going, while others don't. They are going the right direction to make it impossible to convince people that they are still worth using. I get numerous emails from people wanting to buy my images directly from me simple because they don't want to buy an entire credit package for one image.

This really wouldn't be a big surprise to me. The Getty reps probably earn commissions, and are judged on job performance, by what they sell for Getty. If a prospective client approached them with a $100,000 budget and said "why shouldn't I just spend $100K with istock", the rep would lose the sale and would probably say almost anything to get that $100K for Getty. If they're not meeting Getty quota they could lose their job.

It's human nature. If the reps were compensated for both Getty and Istock sales there wouldn't be a bias. If the sales goes to Istock and they get nothing, of course they're going to deter the prospect from Istock.

One of the best sales-related quotes is from the movie Glengarry Glen Ross. This is the daily life of a salesperson. Anybody want third prize? "We're adding a little something to this month's sales contest. As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired. "

« Reply #913 on: February 11, 2011, 12:13 »
0
Off goes another one. Buyer cswalsh writes;

"I'm not a contributor, I'm just a client (since 2001), and I'm stunned today to find that your search function is still essentially broken. Anything more than a couple words returns no results at all. Of all the sites, you guys consistently have had the best video, images, etc. But that doesn't matter if I can't find it. So for my last two projects, I've bought from other sites, because I didn't have the time to sort through thousands of results to find what I needed.


The old search had issues, but it worked. It's probably too late, but I would revert, revert, revert."

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #914 on: February 11, 2011, 12:43 »
0
Off goes another one. Buyer cswalsh writes;

"I'm not a contributor, I'm just a client (since 2001), and I'm stunned today to find that your search function is still essentially broken. Anything more than a couple words returns no results at all. Of all the sites, you guys consistently have had the best video, images, etc. But that doesn't matter if I can't find it. So for my last two projects, I've bought from other sites, because I didn't have the time to sort through thousands of results to find what I needed.


The old search had issues, but it worked. It's probably too late, but I would revert, revert, revert."


thing is, you can't just revert at this point and we wouldn't want them to. the new functionality is great if they would just get it working. iStock has done what all major technology companies inevitably do....releasing new technology prematurely to keep the leading edge in the industry....which soon becomes the bleeding edge as the technology breaks down. gostwyck, for once I'm going to use your words and say that Getty or whomever was pulling the strings got very very greedy with the launch of the new site, then the faceted search, and now new collections. it may be important to stay ahead of the competition...but what is the point of having a fantastic formula 1 race car if you can't drive it at all.....they've got to get this situation under control. I know, talk about stating the obvious.....but it is obvious so why they're not doing it is perplexing. is it that difficult to get people in Calgary?
« Last Edit: February 11, 2011, 12:46 by SNP »

lisafx

« Reply #915 on: February 11, 2011, 13:30 »
0
Getty or whomever was pulling the strings got very very greedy with the launch of the new site, then the faceted search, and now new collections. it may be important to stay ahead of the competition...but what is the point of having a fantastic formula 1 race car if you can't drive it at all.....they've got to get this situation under control. I know, talk about stating the obvious.....but it is obvious so why they're not doing it is perplexing. is it that difficult to get people in Calgary?

I could not agree more.  In my wildest, most cynical imaginings, I would never have predicted Istock would let things get so out of hand.  Completely baffling that it has gone on this long. 

« Reply #916 on: February 11, 2011, 16:32 »
0
the new functionality is great if they would just get it working. iStock has done what all major technology companies inevitably do....releasing new technology prematurely to keep the leading edge in the industry....which soon becomes the bleeding edge as the technology breaks down.

What 'new functionality'? What can you do with the 'facetted search' that you couldn't do before much easier and quicker? What does Istockphoto's supposed cutting-edge technology do, even if it actually worked, that you can't do much easier and quicker on every other microstock agency?

Are buyers supposed to be grateful that they can now only perform a two-word search and that any other words have to be added to a different search box and then a further sub-search undertaken? If anyone can explain what the 'new search' is supposed to actually achieve (if they can ever get it to work) then I'd be grateful. It just appears to be a significant step-backwards with months of disruption to boot.

« Reply #917 on: February 11, 2011, 17:03 »
0
I've yet to understand the usefulness of that box. I just want to enter the words and get results. Period. I don't want to figure out what some silly box is for.

« Reply #918 on: February 11, 2011, 18:34 »
0
If the crumb trail box worked as intended it has one useful feature that you didn't have before - the ability to drop one search term from a many word search string without redoing anything. Those little circles with x can be clicked wherever in the list they occur.

You could - if it worked - type 8 or 10 words into the top box and then add or drop terms from the box on the left. And you could from that panel on the left remove Vetta or add illustrations, or look at only vertical or...

I don't see any reason why the top box couldn't work just like Google and still have the panel on the left fill up with all sorts of useful refinements (like collections, size, media type, etc.) you could make if you wanted. Best of both worlds.

There but for competent software engineers we would be now...

« Reply #919 on: February 12, 2011, 14:37 »
0
Off goes another one. Buyer cswalsh writes;

"I'm not a contributor, I'm just a client (since 2001), and I'm stunned today to find that your search function is still essentially broken. Anything more than a couple words returns no results at all. Of all the sites, you guys consistently have had the best video, images, etc. But that doesn't matter if I can't find it. So for my last two projects, I've bought from other sites, because I didn't have the time to sort through thousands of results to find what I needed.


The old search had issues, but it worked. It's probably too late, but I would revert, revert, revert."


One of my colleges tried to buy an image yesterday and the search was completely non functional.  He gave up and bought 100 images for the project at DT!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #920 on: February 12, 2011, 14:40 »
0
One of my colleges tried to buy an image yesterday and the search was completely non functional.  He gave up and bought 100 images for the project at DT!
Try to persuade them to post to the forum and to email someone, though I don't know who the 'someone' would be that would GAD.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2011, 17:35 by ShadySue »

« Reply #921 on: February 13, 2011, 16:52 »
0
Off goes another one. Buyer cswalsh writes;

"I'm not a contributor, I'm just a client (since 2001), and I'm stunned today to find that your search function is still essentially broken. Anything more than a couple words returns no results at all. Of all the sites, you guys consistently have had the best video, images, etc. But that doesn't matter if I can't find it. So for my last two projects, I've bought from other sites, because I didn't have the time to sort through thousands of results to find what I needed.

The old search had issues, but it worked. It's probably too late, but I would revert, revert, revert."

One of my colleges tried to buy an image yesterday and the search was completely non functional.  He gave up and bought 100 images for the project at DT!

Try to persuade them to post to the forum and to email someone, though I don't know who the 'someone' would be that would GAD.

Why???  As a business you reap what you sow!
« Last Edit: February 13, 2011, 17:00 by gbalex »

« Reply #922 on: February 14, 2011, 07:23 »
0
Another unhappy buyer - http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=303462&page=1

"I've been using istock for 5 or 6 years now, spending about 100 a month. I like the superior images and the fact that I've always been able to find what I want.

But I've finally had it with the prices. I started using this site back in the days when I could charge my clients 1-3 for a high res quality image. Now the same quality image is 10-50. Not to mention having to wade through images costing much more than this to find ones which are just affordable. Enough, I'm gone.

istock, if you sort out the insane inflation and reduce prices to a level my clients (mostly charities) can afford then I'll be back. Until then I'm trying the competition.

Thanks for the help and inspiration you've given me over the years."

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #923 on: February 14, 2011, 07:33 »
0
Quote
However the reality is that I'm a freelance designer working with small clients on small budgets.

I think the reality of istock is that this is no longer the sort of buyer they're aiming at. I saw a high-end design consultancy last week, they use a lot of microstock and said they never look anywhere other than IS, unless they really can't find what they want there, just because they feel the image quality is higher and the buying experience better.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #924 on: February 14, 2011, 07:59 »
0
Another unhappy buyer - http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=303462&page=1
istock, if you sort out the insane inflation and reduce prices to a level my clients (mostly charities) can afford then I'll be back. Until then I'm trying the competition.

Thanks for the help and inspiration you've given me over the years."[/color]

The later post from the OP said they didn't mind the search issues, and wasn't even complaining about Vetta and Agency (possibly not flooding the searches he was doing?) - it was based only on price.
Would you rather the prices went down to the levels of, say, five or even two years ago? (this is a very serious question/issue/dilemma)


 

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