Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391584 times)

Eyedesign · « **Reply #975 on:** February 16, 2011, 08:22 »

Funny sh*t on this site

cathyslife · « **Reply #976 on:** February 16, 2011, 08:25 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 16, 2011, 08:12

Quote from: cclapper on February 16, 2011, 08:10
Uh oh, another wave of IS exclusives/cheerleaders trying to prove all the other sites are inferior. Too funny.

So, a buyer actually comes in to say something, and he's just an "exclusive/cheerleader" ?

Kind of like the same treatment the buyer/contributors get over at the IS forum, huh?

He has pointed out garbage on other sites, as if IS has none. Come on. Please. And look at you, jumping in here, putting me down. You don't ever see garbage on IS? Why do you think there is a dollar bin? So you pull my comment out and choose to say something about it, making me look stupid, but you won't comment on the fact that this person, who by the way is a new member here with 4 posts, most of which are right here in this thread, doesn't think there is any garbage on IS?

If this person is a buyer, that's great! If this person loves IS, that's great! But there are still buyers leaving IS, and there is still garbage on IS, too. His post is very transparent.

edited: same for EyeDesigns posts...a little transparent

ShadySue · « **Reply #977 on:** February 16, 2011, 08:38 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 16, 2011, 08:01

Eight of iStock's first 19 (best match search) are from independents ...

Isn't that interesting, considering the buyers who complain that all the best match results are agency/Vetta/Exc+/Exc, so too high in price.
That is a pretty 'commercial' search string, and there are 27899 results.
I always wondered, if "all the top searches are Agency and Vetta", and buyers "can't find value images" as is so often claimed, how come Yuri keeps getting sales on iStock!

cathyslife · « **Reply #978 on:** February 16, 2011, 08:57 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 16, 2011, 08:38

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 16, 2011, 08:01
Eight of iStock's first 19 (best match search) are from independents ...
Isn't that interesting, considering the buyers who complain that all the best match results are agency/Vetta/Exc+/Exc, so too high in price.
That is a pretty 'commercial' search string, and there are 27899 results.
I always wondered, if "all the top searches are Agency and Vetta", and buyers "can't find value images" as is so often claimed, how come Yuri keeps getting sales on iStock!

I just did the search for laptop man and sorted by best match. Of the first 60, 14 are from independents. Of those 14, 6 are videos. That leaves 8. Of those 8, a couple are very new uploads. And the sort by best match just means the keywords are spot on. And 3 are from Yuri and Monkey Business, which means they have megadownloads. If a buyer is looking for something fresh, that leaves 5 images to choose from, out of 60. Now, if they could just sort by independents only, they could truly find value images. I think that's why buyers complain.

ShadySue · « **Reply #979 on:** February 16, 2011, 09:08 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 16, 2011, 08:57

If a buyer is looking for something fresh, that leaves 5 images to choose from, out of 60. Now, if they could just sort by independents only, they could truly find value images. I think that's why buyers complain.

If the buyer wants something 'fresh', they should sort by age.
If they could sort by independents only, that would be yet another promise broken to exclusives. I'm not sure how much they want to keep exclusives 'exclusive' nowadays, though.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #980 on:** February 16, 2011, 09:20 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 16, 2011, 08:25

If this person is a buyer, that's great! If this person loves IS, that's great! But there are still buyers leaving IS, and there is still garbage on IS, too. His post is very transparent.

Yeah, it's transparent. It's clear that he stated why he likes IS. You're the one reading conspiracy into something you don't agree with.

cathyslife · « **Reply #981 on:** February 16, 2011, 09:53 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 16, 2011, 09:20

Quote from: cclapper on February 16, 2011, 08:25
If this person is a buyer, that's great! If this person loves IS, that's great! But there are still buyers leaving IS, and there is still garbage on IS, too. His post is very transparent.

Yeah, it's transparent. It's clear that he stated why he likes IS. You're the one reading conspiracy into something you don't agree with.

caspixel · « **Reply #982 on:** February 16, 2011, 09:54 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 16, 2011, 08:25

If this person is a buyer, that's great! If this person loves IS, that's great! But there are still buyers leaving IS, and there is still garbage on IS, too. His post is very transparent.

He probably works for iStock. Remember that blog post that had a bunch of "users" leaving comments, only they all came from the same IP address, and that IP address was one of iStock's computers. Someone check his IP address, quick.

Edit: Apparently he doesn't work for iStock, but he is a contributor who is planning on going exclusive ASAP. So it seems he is an iStock "exclusive/cheerleader". So yup. Post is very transparent.

cathyslife · « **Reply #983 on:** February 16, 2011, 09:59 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 16, 2011, 09:08

Quote from: cclapper on February 16, 2011, 08:57
If a buyer is looking for something fresh, that leaves 5 images to choose from, out of 60. Now, if they could just sort by independents only, they could truly find value images. I think that's why buyers complain.
If the buyer wants something 'fresh', they should sort by age.
If they could sort by independents only, that would be yet another promise broken to exclusives. I'm not sure how much they want to keep exclusives 'exclusive' nowadays, though.

I agree about sorting by age, or by downloads. I never sorted by best match.

I understand about the promise to exclusives, but I'm just commenting on how the sort might be helpful for buyers looking for the least expensive images.

hoi ha · « **Reply #984 on:** February 16, 2011, 10:07 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 16, 2011, 08:12

Quote from: cclapper on February 16, 2011, 08:10
Uh oh, another wave of IS exclusives/cheerleaders trying to prove all the other sites are inferior. Too funny.

So, a buyer actually comes in to say something, and he's just an "exclusive/cheerleader" ?

Sorry Sean - this guy is NOT a real buyer - my guess is he is an exclusive IS contributor. I would be willing to put money on it. He has probably gone rogue (I am not saying IS put him/her up to it) but a realy buyer he or she ain't. The amount of "bad" content is about the same at DT, SS, Fotolia and IS (most of it legacy from years ago). The quality of what is available on the top sites is very similar. Where IS has the advantage and the edge still is in its wider choice of good imagery because it has the exclusives and the indepenents. Anyone who is a real buyer knows this.

I shop at the other sites because 90% of the time they have what I need at a cheaper price - if I cannot find it I go to IS as a lost resort because chances are they will have whatever it is I am looking for. But that's the only time I go there to buy these days.

hoi ha · « **Reply #985 on:** February 16, 2011, 10:09 »

Quote from: caspixel on February 16, 2011, 09:54

Quote from: cclapper on February 16, 2011, 08:25

If this person is a buyer, that's great! If this person loves IS, that's great! But there are still buyers leaving IS, and there is still garbage on IS, too. His post is very transparent.

He probably works for iStock. Remember that blog post that had a bunch of "users" leaving comments, only they all came from the same IP address, and that IP address was one of iStock's computers. Someone check his IP address, quick.

Edit: Apparently he doesn't work for iStock, but he is a contributor who is planning on going exclusive ASAP. So it seems he is an iStock "exclusive/cheerleader". So yup. Post is very transparent.

lol Cas you beat me to it ...

caspixel · « **Reply #986 on:** February 16, 2011, 10:13 »

BTW, I did a search for "laptop man" on DT and I did not see the photos that he linked to on any of the first three pages of my search with the search results set to 200. So I have to wonder what other filters he was using or how far back he went in his search.

Most of the results on DT looked very similar to the results that came up on iStock...except none of them cost $100+. I'd like to see the justification for the price of this Agency photo: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13873914-laptop.php

gaja · « **Reply #987 on:** February 16, 2011, 10:27 »

Quote from: caspixel on February 16, 2011, 10:13

Most of the results on DT looked very similar to the results that came up on iStock...except none of them cost $100+. I'd like to see the justification for the price of this Agency photo: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13873914-laptop.php

He has a green tie.

loop · « **Reply #988 on:** February 16, 2011, 10:28 »

Assuming any customer that says that he prefers buying at istock is an impostor is plain ludricous. That many people prefer istock is clear just looking at the sheer volume of downloads there, and the customer base, probably in the ten of thousands, at all prince ranges. Others will prefer SS or DT or whatever, no doubt, but I wouldn't never infere that someone that says is buying at SS or elsewhere is an impostor.

caspixel · « **Reply #989 on:** February 16, 2011, 10:29 »

Quote from: gaja on February 16, 2011, 10:27

He has a green tie.

That occurred to me! Along with the thought that they probably changed the color in Photoshop. All that post-processing MUST account for the premium price tag. Not to mention the expensive shooting location.

disorderly · « **Reply #990 on:** February 16, 2011, 10:35 »

Quote from: caspixel on February 16, 2011, 10:29

Quote from: gaja on February 16, 2011, 10:27
He has a green tie.

That occurred to me! Along with the thought that they probably changed the color in Photoshop. All that post-processing MUST account for the premium price tag. Not to mention the expensive shooting location.

Naw, it was the cost of the model. Models charge a lot to let you cut off their heads, what with the lost income from no longer having one.

gostwyck · « **Reply #991 on:** February 16, 2011, 10:48 »

Quote from: gaja on February 16, 2011, 10:27

Quote from: caspixel on February 16, 2011, 10:13
Most of the results on DT looked very similar to the results that came up on iStock...except none of them cost $100+. I'd like to see the justification for the price of this Agency photo: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13873914-laptop.php

He has a green tie.

Not only does the man have a green tie but it also nearly matches the green of the grass. Almost anyway. If the tie and grass almost matching doesn't put $200's worth of added value to an image ... well, frankly I don't know what will.

Oh no, just a thought, maybe it's simply the blue camera logo indicating 'Agency'? And nothing else at all really.

SNP · « **Reply #992 on:** February 16, 2011, 11:09 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 16, 2011, 08:12

Quote from: cclapper on February 16, 2011, 08:10
Uh oh, another wave of IS exclusives/cheerleaders trying to prove all the other sites are inferior. Too funny.

So, a buyer actually comes in to say something, and he's just an "exclusive/cheerleader" ?

that seems to be the rule around here.....if the buyer had come in here bashing istock, than his/her perspective would have been golden. iStock has made all of my photography better, even my work that isn't stock. buyers I speak to have said the same thing that iStock is well beyond other micros. that's one of the many reasons I've remained exclusive.

jamirae · « **Reply #993 on:** February 16, 2011, 11:20 »

it seems to me that istock has some excellent marketing. with that they have built a large, loyal buyer and contributor base. I would venture to guess that many folks have been convinced from some really good marketing that iStock has the best images without actually downloading and reviewing files from other sites. It's kind of like the microsoft v. apple or canon v. nikon -- both are good in their own right and people will believe what they want to believe.

I don't think that the likes of Yuri, MonkeyBusiness and LisaFX only upload their best stuff to iStock and their crap work (if they actually had any!) to the other sites. If a buyer wanted to find quality images on other sites I am sure they will find them.

perhaps the inspections at other sites (non-istock) had lower standards sometime back, but in my recent experience, I would say they are pretty much on par with istock. I've had images rejected from the other SS, DT and FT that were accepted by iStock.

bunhill · « **Reply #994 on:** February 16, 2011, 11:37 »

Kind of seems as if it is unfashionable here to be positive or even neutral about iStockphoto

But surely it's more useful to be neutral. I'm neutral. I think there are some other great sites too. I also love flickr. So there. Despite the economy it's still a vibrant market.

Caspixel says she uses the site for various reasons - one being that it has the content she wants at lower prices. That's useful buyer info. There is someone who is quite definitely not an iStockphoto cheerleader saying something which seems to very much contradict the idea that people would be 'bailing' because it is too expensive etc.

That's anecdotal feedback worth not ignoring. Even though it seems to contradict the meme being propagated here. So there are obviously lots of issues. But it seems that the rumour that iStockphoto is necessarily more expensive is potentially bogus.

lisafx · « **Reply #995 on:** February 16, 2011, 11:52 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 16, 2011, 11:37

That's anecdotal feedback worth not ignoring. Even though it seems to contradict the meme being propagated here. So there are obviously lots of issues. But it seems that the rumour that iStockphoto is necessarily more expensive is potentially bogus.

You are absolutely right. There is still lots of reasonably priced work on Istock. The problem is that with the search the way it is now, most buyers aren't FINDING it.

If Istock can get it's site glitches sorted, and they implement some way to sort by price, I imagine there will be a lot fewer buyers pulling up stakes. Problem is that they are taking forever and a day to get the site fixed, and they haven't expressed any intention to ever allow sorting by price...

cathyslife · « **Reply #996 on:** February 16, 2011, 12:02 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 16, 2011, 11:37

Kind of seems as if it is unfashionable here to be positive or even neutral about iStockphoto But surely it's more useful to be neutral. I'm neutral. I think there are some other great sites too. I also love flickr. So there. Despite the economy it's still a vibrant market.

Caspixel says she uses the site for various reasons - one being that it has the content she wants at lower prices. That's useful buyer info. There is someone who is quite definitely not an iStockphoto cheerleader saying something which seems to very much contradict the idea that people would be 'bailing' because it is too expensive etc.

That's anecdotal feedback worth not ignoring. Even though it seems to contradict the meme being propagated here. So there are obviously lots of issues. But it seems that the rumour that iStockphoto is necessarily more expensive is potentially bogus.

Well, I have read MANY posts over on the IS forum from contributors and buyers who DON'T come here that say plenty of negative things. So I don't think it's true to make the statement that it is unfashionable here to be positive or neutral about IS. The fact is, there are a lot of negative things going on at istock and they are going to be talked about everywhere, including twitter and facebook.

I don't think anyone here has said that ALL buyers and ALL contributors are bailing. This thread was started as a reporting site for all the buyers who were posting on the istock forum that were leaving IS. We're all not sitting over here making the stuff up! It's copied from there and pasted here.

And I know for a fact that it is not just rumor that istock is more expensive...all you have to do is look! I have anecdotal feedback, too. I used to be a buyer from istockphoto and a contributor to istockphoto. Fact is, in the last couple of years, I did not buy from IS anymore because their prices were too high. My clients are not ad agencies or Fortune 500 companies (unfortunately). Their budgets just couldn't handle the price increases. But my comments and anecdotal feedback will be dismissed, like so many others, because I was a contributor, too. Because those who dismiss me seem to think that I am making the fact up that IS is more expensive just because I am unhappy as a contributor. How silly is that?

jamirae · « **Reply #997 on:** February 16, 2011, 12:12 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 16, 2011, 11:37

Kind of seems as if it is unfashionable here to be positive or even neutral about iStockphoto But surely it's more useful to be neutral. I'm neutral. I think there are some other great sites too. I also love flickr. So there. Despite the economy it's still a vibrant market.

Caspixel says she uses the site for various reasons - one being that it has the content she wants at lower prices. That's useful buyer info. There is someone who is quite definitely not an iStockphoto cheerleader saying something which seems to very much contradict the idea that people would be 'bailing' because it is too expensive etc.

That's anecdotal feedback worth not ignoring. Even though it seems to contradict the meme being propagated here. So there are obviously lots of issues. But it seems that the rumour that iStockphoto is necessarily more expensive is potentially bogus.

I think you mis-read her post. here is the follow-up she posted:

Quote from: caspixel on February 15, 2011, 13:34

Quote from: bunhill on February 15, 2011, 13:26
So people saying that iStockphoto is too expensive but actually you're shopping there because it's less expensive.

No, I'm not saying they are less expensive than other agencies. In general they aren't, because the credits are across the board more expensive than at other agencies. What I am saying is that the non-exclusive files are less expensive than the exclusive one.

See my previous post that clarifies how I might purchase an image.

BTW, one of the main reasons I also don't want to pay a lot for stock is because I don't really buy images that require big studio set-ups and models. Mostly I buy a lot of textures and things like that. I don't see a need to plunk down a hundred bucks for stuff like that. When things were really tight last year (and iStock's prices kept rising) I actually just started making my own background textures.

bunhill · « **Reply #998 on:** February 16, 2011, 12:36 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 16, 2011, 12:02

those who dismiss me seem to think that I am making the fact up that IS is more expensive

As Lisafx has pointed out, it's true that currently you have to search deeper to find the lower priced content (lots of retailers are like that too - you have to search for the bargains).

Sure there are going to be examples which contradict this but in many cases it does seem to be that the same content can be bought for less at iStockphoto. That doesn't mean it's bargain basement.

ETA: and if everything was uniformly the same price then there would not be any competition. Which would not be in anyone's interests.

caspixel · « **Reply #999 on:** February 16, 2011, 12:58 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 16, 2011, 11:37

Caspixel says she uses the site for various reasons - one being that it has the content she wants at lower prices. That's useful buyer info. There is someone who is quite definitely not an iStockphoto cheerleader saying something which seems to very much contradict the idea that people would be 'bailing' because it is too expensive etc.

The problem with this is that you are making it look like it is the only place I shop because the prices are lower, and that's only the case in very rare circumstances.

The only time iStock content is cheaper is if it is NON-EXCLUSIVE and available at other sites at a higher price point. Otherwise, it is generally more expensive across the board. Credits are more expensive and the images cost more credits.

I want to make it very clear, that iStock is my LAST resort now when shopping (and an option that I don't even consider, really). In general, I can find all the content I want at lower prices at other sites.

EDIT: Oh, I see jamierae has also tried to clear up the misunderstanding. I would again like to make it clear that I do not think iStock is the less expensive option, lest it keep being misquoted. The part about less expensive had more to do with the non-exclusive content being cheaper than exclusive content (and in rare cases, where Dreamstime photos are Levels 3 and up). But then I look on StockFresh first.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391584 times)

Eyedesign

cathyslife

ShadySue

cathyslife

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

cathyslife

caspixel

cathyslife

hoi ha

hoi ha

caspixel

gaja

loop

caspixel

disorderly

gostwyck

SNP

jamirae

bunhill

lisafx

cathyslife

jamirae

bunhill

caspixel

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors