pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock  (Read 387934 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #925 on: February 14, 2011, 08:09 »
0
Quote
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)

I agree, it's an interesting question. When I'm annoyed with the tech problems and see my January income down from the previous year I do often wonder what would happen if they dropped prices right back to , say, $5 for every image, no collections, no nothing, just cheap images. The answer is, I don't know, but I'm not unhappy to see image prices at a more realistic ( ie. higher) level. I'm a professional with many years experience, I prefer people to pay realistically for that experience and quality.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #926 on: February 14, 2011, 08:18 »
0
Quote
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)

I agree, it's an interesting question. When I'm annoyed with the tech problems and see my January income down from the previous year I do often wonder what would happen if they dropped prices right back to , say, $5 for every image, no collections, no nothing, just cheap images. The answer is, I don't know, but I'm not unhappy to see image prices at a more realistic ( ie. higher) level. I'm a professional with many years experience, I prefer people to pay realistically for that experience and quality.
To update what I wrote earlier: the OP subsequently stated that he'd prefer the Vetta/agency files to be filterable out.
Like most people, I'm now shooting with much more expensive equipment than I was five years ago, just to keep up with rising expections of standards. If it wasn't for iStock, I'd still be shooting happily with my 350D.
Not speaking for the OP, but many buyers just don't need the super high technical quality demanded by iStock. Where they'll be able to go when all the micros rise to a realistic level: Flickr has many excellent CC images (I used them a lot when I was teaching) but of course no releases.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2011, 08:48 by ShadySue »

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #927 on: February 14, 2011, 08:26 »
0
Quote
, just to keep up with rising expections of standards.

I think personally the decision of IS to attempt to raise standards and position themselves at a quality level above other micro competitors is a good one. They attract a high standard of work, in fact I'd like it to be even higher personally, and more selective. I'm less sure about things like Vetta, it should all be great with a big weeding out of the mediocre. I have a lightbox of mediocre images at IS, for my own amusement, those images should all be gone.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #928 on: February 14, 2011, 08:30 »
0
Like I always say, if I've got designer tastes on an M&S budget, it won't do me any good whining to the designer shop!
Maybe the Dollar Bin should be a bit more 'visible'.

« Reply #929 on: February 14, 2011, 10:04 »
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)

edited because I'd not yet read the rest of the thread :-)
« Last Edit: February 14, 2011, 10:33 by Sadstock »

« Reply #930 on: February 14, 2011, 10:36 »
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."



Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a more diplomatic reply from Lobo. Is a sea change coming?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #931 on: February 14, 2011, 10:38 »
0

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a more diplomatic reply from Lobo. Is a sea change coming?
I noticed it was signed "A Lobo"  :D

« Reply #932 on: February 14, 2011, 11:40 »
0
Maybe someone finally talked to Lobo about his etiquette.

Although, I'm still waiting for a "YOU ARE A CONTRIBUTOR TOO, AREN'T YOU!? WHAT IS YOUR REAL NAME?"

« Reply #933 on: February 14, 2011, 11:58 »
0
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)

For most of us the prices are lower than two years ago and the commissions are a LOT lower than two years ago. So yes, restore the status quo ante.

« Reply #934 on: February 14, 2011, 12:29 »
0

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a more diplomatic reply from Lobo. Is a sea change coming?
I noticed it was signed "A Lobo"  :D

Ha, me too. That would explain some things.

« Reply #935 on: February 14, 2011, 12:52 »
0
Maybe someone finally talked to Lobo about his etiquette.

Although, I'm still waiting for a "YOU ARE A CONTRIBUTOR TOO, AREN'T YOU!? WHAT IS YOUR REAL NAME?"

:D

« Reply #936 on: February 14, 2011, 12:59 »
0
Like I always say, if I've got designer tastes on an M&S budget, it won't do me any good whining to the designer shop!
Maybe the Dollar Bin should be a bit more 'visible'.

As long as Vetta, Agency, E+ and dollar bin can be separately searchable if desired, I think that the dollar bin might be a great way to handle the budget conscious buyer. Problems with it at the moment are many - no new content, prices are too high (I think there need to be a max of 3 price bands rather than the sizes matching the rest of the collections; given their programming challenges, they can keep all the same sizes, but XS & S are 1, M & L are 2, XL and up are 3 credits).

If things that hadn't sold at all in 2 years  (or even 3 years if 2 years is too short - things that stop selling, not just things that never sold) were moved to the dollar bin automatically and regularly, I think it'd be more interesting to buyers. Right now it's a forgotten place for the most part.

I know there'd be a huge uproar from IS exclusives, but I think a sort order by price would be something buyers would value. I'd rather keep the buyers and take the risk that I might lose a sale or two by giving them the choice of an independent image over mine if they were really cash strapped for a particular project. I think that driving buyers away is a riskier move than letting them order searches the way they want.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #937 on: February 14, 2011, 13:01 »
0
Quote
, just to keep up with rising expections of standards.

I think personally the decision of IS to attempt to raise standards and position themselves at a quality level above other micro competitors is a good one. They attract a high standard of work, in fact I'd like it to be even higher personally, and more selective. I'm less sure about things like Vetta, it should all be great with a big weeding out of the mediocre. I have a lightbox of mediocre images at IS, for my own amusement, those images should all be gone.

I agree

« Reply #938 on: February 14, 2011, 13:19 »
0
Quote
, just to keep up with rising expections of standards.

I think personally the decision of IS to attempt to raise standards and position themselves at a quality level above other micro competitors is a good one. They attract a high standard of work, in fact I'd like it to be even higher personally, and more selective. I'm less sure about things like Vetta, it should all be great with a big weeding out of the mediocre. I have a lightbox of mediocre images at IS, for my own amusement, those images should all be gone.

I agree


I totally disagree. There should be stuff available at all prices.

Sometimes I buy a cheap wine which is perfect for a sauce. Other times I am looking for something very special to serve to my friends (or drink myself). The same store done well can serve both those needs. If the really good stuff is over-priced (or not quite good enough) then I am going somewhere else. If the stuff I am probably going to cook with is not cheap enough then ditto.

That's why branding works. You can have well done store which has different ranges at different prices. It's the total experience of the store which matters.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #939 on: February 14, 2011, 14:06 »
0
Quote
, just to keep up with rising expections of standards.

I think personally the decision of IS to attempt to raise standards and position themselves at a quality level above other micro competitors is a good one. They attract a high standard of work, in fact I'd like it to be even higher personally, and more selective. I'm less sure about things like Vetta, it should all be great with a big weeding out of the mediocre. I have a lightbox of mediocre images at IS, for my own amusement, those images should all be gone.

I agree

I totally disagree. There should be stuff available at all prices.

Sometimes I buy a cheap wine which is perfect for a sauce. Other times I am looking for something very special to serve to my friends (or drink myself). The same store done well can serve both those needs. If the really good stuff is over-priced (or not quite good enough) then I am going somewhere else. If the stuff I am probably going to cook with is not cheap enough then ditto.

That's why branding works. You can have well done store which has different ranges at different prices. It's the total experience of the store which matters.

I agree with this too so let me clarify. I agree that iStock continues to raise standards and part of the iStock brand is the expectation of quality. having said that, I think it is important that they continue to offer images at various price points for different types of buyers.

« Reply #940 on: February 14, 2011, 14:26 »
0
Quote
, just to keep up with rising expections of standards.

I think personally the decision of IS to attempt to raise standards and position themselves at a quality level above other micro competitors is a good one. They attract a high standard of work, in fact I'd like it to be even higher personally, and more selective. I'm less sure about things like Vetta, it should all be great with a big weeding out of the mediocre. I have a lightbox of mediocre images at IS, for my own amusement, those images should all be gone.

I agree


I totally disagree. There should be stuff available at all prices.

Sometimes I buy a cheap wine which is perfect for a sauce. Other times I am looking for something very special to serve to my friends (or drink myself). The same store done well can serve both those needs. If the really good stuff is over-priced (or not quite good enough) then I am going somewhere else. If the stuff I am probably going to cook with is not cheap enough then ditto.

That's why branding works. You can have well done store which has different ranges at different prices. It's the total experience of the store which matters.

I agree with bunhill. If IS wants to continue to raise their prices (nothing wrong with that, if they can sell the stuff) then they should take themselves out of the microstock market and start calling themselves a midstock agency. The problem is they want their cake and eat it too. They are continuing to brand their wares as microstock, but not at microstock prices. They get the buyers in under the premise that they are microstock, then try to shove midstock and trad agency prices down their throat. And the result? Exactly what is happening...buyers going somewhere else.

« Reply #941 on: February 14, 2011, 14:32 »
0
I agree with bunhill. If IS wants to continue to raise their prices (nothing wrong with that, if they can sell the stuff) then they should take themselves out of the microstock market and start calling themselves a midstock agency. The problem is they want their cake and eat it too. They are continuing to brand their wares as microstock, but not at microstock prices. They get the buyers in under the premise that they are microstock, then try to shove midstock and trad agency prices down their throat. And the result? Exactly what is happening...buyers going somewhere else.

There's content on IS from 1 credit, up to lots of credits.  All kinds of content.  Just like Walmart sells crap tvs and expensive tvs.  Etc.

« Reply #942 on: February 14, 2011, 14:33 »
0
Quote
, just to keep up with rising expections of standards.

I think personally the decision of IS to attempt to raise standards and position themselves at a quality level above other micro competitors is a good one. They attract a high standard of work, in fact I'd like it to be even higher personally, and more selective. I'm less sure about things like Vetta, it should all be great with a big weeding out of the mediocre. I have a lightbox of mediocre images at IS, for my own amusement, those images should all be gone.

I agree


I totally disagree. There should be stuff available at all prices.

Sometimes I buy a cheap wine which is perfect for a sauce. Other times I am looking for something very special to serve to my friends (or drink myself). The same store done well can serve both those needs. If the really good stuff is over-priced (or not quite good enough) then I am going somewhere else. If the stuff I am probably going to cook with is not cheap enough then ditto.

That's why branding works. You can have well done store which has different ranges at different prices. It's the total experience of the store which matters.

I agree with bunhill. If IS wants to continue to raise their prices (nothing wrong with that, if they can sell the stuff) then they should take themselves out of the microstock market and start calling themselves a midstock agency. The problem is they want their cake and eat it too. They are continuing to brand their wares as microstock, but not at microstock prices. They get the buyers in under the premise that they are microstock, then try to shove midstock and trad agency prices down their throat. And the result? Exactly what is happening...buyers going somewhere else.

Where exactly do they state that they are "microstock" ? couldn't find it mentioned anywhere.
And another question: where exactly is the border between microstock, midstock and macrostock ?
And my final question: why sell 1 product when you can sell all 3 of them ???

« Reply #943 on: February 14, 2011, 14:34 »
0
I agree with bunhill. If IS wants to continue to raise their prices (nothing wrong with that, if they can sell the stuff) then they should take themselves out of the microstock market and start calling themselves a midstock agency. The problem is they want their cake and eat it too. They are continuing to brand their wares as microstock, but not at microstock prices. They get the buyers in under the premise that they are microstock, then try to shove midstock and trad agency prices down their throat. And the result? Exactly what is happening...buyers going somewhere else.

There's content on IS from 1 credit, up to lots of credits.  All kinds of content.  Just like Walmart sells crap tvs and expensive tvs.  Etc.

My point exactly.

« Reply #944 on: February 14, 2011, 14:42 »
0
I agree with bunhill. If IS wants to continue to raise their prices (nothing wrong with that, if they can sell the stuff) then they should take themselves out of the microstock market and start calling themselves a midstock agency. The problem is they want their cake and eat it too. They are continuing to brand their wares as microstock, but not at microstock prices. They get the buyers in under the premise that they are microstock, then try to shove midstock and trad agency prices down their throat. And the result? Exactly what is happening...buyers going somewhere else.

There's content on IS from 1 credit, up to lots of credits.  All kinds of content.  Just like Walmart sells crap tvs and expensive tvs.  Etc.

My point exactly.

Is there a search filter to eliminate exclusive files? Aren't exclusive files more expensive than non-exclusive? Why do you suppose that isn't happening? Rhetorical question.  ;)

« Reply #945 on: February 14, 2011, 14:43 »
0
I agree with bunhill. If IS wants to continue to raise their prices (nothing wrong with that, if they can sell the stuff) then they should take themselves out of the microstock market and start calling themselves a midstock agency. The problem is they want their cake and eat it too. They are continuing to brand their wares as microstock, but not at microstock prices. They get the buyers in under the premise that they are microstock, then try to shove midstock and trad agency prices down their throat. And the result? Exactly what is happening...buyers going somewhere else.

There's content on IS from 1 credit, up to lots of credits.  All kinds of content.  Just like Walmart sells crap tvs and expensive tvs.  Etc.


The major problem at the moment, IMO, is not the presence of the higher priced collections but the inability for the buyer to choose what they want to look at. There is some numb skulled idea that if you just stick what you want (versus what the buyer wants) in front of them, you'll get buyers to fork out for the higher priced items.

If you make buyers climb over the expensive TVs that you've used to hide the cheaper ones, at some point they'll consider trying stores that make it easier to find what they want.

I do think it's feasible to have a range of price levels  at one site (call it micro and mid if you like, but not sure it much matters) as long as you don't have the same isolated apple priced for $250 and $5 in different sections of the collection.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #946 on: February 14, 2011, 14:49 »
0
Is there a search filter to eliminate exclusive files? Aren't exclusive files more expensive than non-exclusive? Why do you suppose that isn't happening? Rhetorical question.  ;)
Because it's about the only thing left for exclusives, plus for some, slightly or reasonably higher commission rates.
For the record, I have asked since the price-splitting began, for exclusives to have the right to nominate certain files to be priced at non exclusive rates. But I've been a lone voice shouting in the wilderness.

« Reply #947 on: February 14, 2011, 14:53 »
0
The major problem at the moment, IMO, is not the presence of the higher priced collections but the inability for the buyer to choose what they want to look at. There is some numb skulled idea that if you just stick what you want (versus what the buyer wants) in front of them, you'll get buyers to fork out for the higher priced items.

If you make buyers climb over the expensive TVs that you've used to hide the cheaper ones, at some point they'll consider trying stores that make it easier to find what they want.

Exactly. There are different priced images at DT & FT too but at least, for the price-sensitive buyer, there are means of sorting by price on FT and/or downloads at DT (which amounts to the same thing).

The other major issue IMHO is the sheer number of price increases for different images that IS customers have had to endure, particularly over the last 18 months or so. I'm not surprised that some of them are choosing to go elsewhere.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #948 on: February 14, 2011, 15:47 »
0
I agree with bunhill. If IS wants to continue to raise their prices (nothing wrong with that, if they can sell the stuff) then they should take themselves out of the microstock market and start calling themselves a midstock agency. The problem is they want their cake and eat it too. They are continuing to brand their wares as microstock, but not at microstock prices. They get the buyers in under the premise that they are microstock, then try to shove midstock and trad agency prices down their throat. And the result? Exactly what is happening...buyers going somewhere else.

There's content on IS from 1 credit, up to lots of credits.  All kinds of content.  Just like Walmart sells crap tvs and expensive tvs.  Etc.

I don't know, I think Walmart sells mostly crap everything. I would compare it more to a brand house like The Gap. You have A-store Banana Republic, B-store The Gap, and C-store Old Navy.....but all are owned and operated by the same company. and yes, the obvious in this analogy is that we're members of the sweat shop......though I don't want to trivialize the issue of sweat shops by stating that. but I know someone else will say it.

at least right now I still have the option of not contributing to the partner program which keeps my 'TVs' out of Walmart for the time being.

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #949 on: February 14, 2011, 16:17 »
0
After months of downward sales this month is proving surprisingly much better. I hope it will continue.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
17301 Views
Last post October 23, 2010, 14:12
by gbalex
18 Replies
5820 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 15:34
by lagereek
162 Replies
33345 Views
Last post May 14, 2012, 10:27
by jbryson
20 Replies
7327 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