Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391625 times)

lthn · « **Reply #1075 on:** April 21, 2011, 03:21 »

Quote from: sharpshot on April 21, 2011, 01:44

Suppliers don't have to walk away from istock. Just stop uploading until the site has been sold or until they realize they need us. That might be enough to tip the scales now. They aren't going to do anything until they see its going to hit their profits. If everyone just complains but carries on using the site as normal, we are going to just see more of the same.

They make most of their money on pics that are already popular, and basicaly 'old', the whole system is geared to promote those, so they hardly have any need for any of you, unless you remove stuff. They can live off the 10+ million images they have for years if they want to. They might even realize that without having the need to expand their strage they would make more money! Just look at what dreamstime is doing....

sharpshot · « **Reply #1076 on:** April 21, 2011, 06:37 »

^^^That's partially true but I still think buyers like to see new images. Their old collections would start to look dated after a while. I just think its something that a lot of people could do, instead of complaining and carrying on uploading as normal.

lthn · « **Reply #1077 on:** April 21, 2011, 07:00 »

Quote from: sharpshot on April 21, 2011, 06:37

^^^That's partially true but I still think buyers like to see new images. Their old collections would start to look dated after a while. I just think its something that a lot of people could do, instead of complaining and carrying on uploading as normal.

Some probably do, but if buyers liked new images so much, how do the sales pile up, and how did the '80% income from 20% of the port' come to be the standard? I support your cause, but this will not hurt them at all. Removal would... or maybe ppl just shouldn't have given their shots in the first place. Their moves are pretty radical, they can only be countered by equally radical moves on your side. Imho, crowd sourcing will always become crowd shafting, because each contributor in the crowd is expandable. It's just a matter of time untill they start to abuse that. : /

bunhill · « **Reply #1078 on:** April 21, 2011, 07:26 »

Instead of the generic orange juice shopping analogy try it with olive oil instead.

When I go to the supermarket looking for olive oil - well I might be after something quite cheap to use for roasting or as a base for a sauce. But then again I might be after something very expensive with a particular distinct flavor which I am going to want to actually taste. I expect to find both products in the store at different prices. Most likely the expensive stuff will be at eye level. Because not everything can be at eye level.

I tend to avoid the stores which only sell cheap stuff because both products are important.

I get the impression here sometimes than some people can only see the negatives. And yet it seems obvious to me that getting the right mix of stuff in front of clients is something for continual tweaking. The same as shops get rearranged and the windows re dressed regularly.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1079 on:** April 21, 2011, 07:34 »

^^^ What have these last few posts got to do with the subject of the thread, 'Buyers Bailing on Istock'?

ShadySue · « **Reply #1080 on:** April 21, 2011, 08:34 »

Quote from: sharpshot on April 21, 2011, 06:37

^^^That's partially true but I still think buyers like to see new images.

You'd think, but if so, why would the buyers be complaining about the V/A issue when they could just sort by age?

gostwyck · « **Reply #1081 on:** April 22, 2011, 14:36 »

Looks like buyer 'Louddoor' is slamming the door, so to speak, on his way out too;

"There seems to be some misunderstanding of who a buyer is. Some posts in this thread have implied that there are "Vetta Buyers" and "regular buyers". Now, I can only speak of the buyers that I know personally but I don't think this is the case. I think that there are just BUYERS.

So when it is said that "One Vetta Buyer offsets 30 regular buyers" I can't help but chuckle a little bit. Doesn't anyone realize that they "regular buyers" that are leaving are also a percentage of your Vetta Buyers? I buy both. I know when I am here for one vs. the other. But let's say I finally say enough is enough and I start using a different site for my "regular" purchases. What if I realize that the niche content on said site is 90% as nice as the niche content that Vetta is for, and still costs significantly less?

Do you think I'd come back here just to make a Vetta purchase?

To ignore the need for categorization and drill-down search filtering is to stand on the bow of the Titanic and claim the ship isn't sinking. I'll use the Cars.com analogy again -- They know better than to try to sell me a Mercedes if I'm searching for Volkswagens."

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325652&page=8#post6329902

Snowball · « **Reply #1082 on:** April 22, 2011, 14:58 »

Great points made by Louddoor. Thanks for posting them Gostwyck.

This sums it up perfectly:

"Doesn't anyone realize that they "regular buyers" that are leaving are also a percentage of your Vetta Buyers? I buy both. I know when I am here for one vs. the other. But let's say I finally say enough is enough and I start using a different site for my "regular" purchases. What if I realize that the niche content on said site is 90% as nice as the niche content that Vetta is for, and still costs significantly less?"

@bunhill, your olive oil analogy only holds up if there is a big difference between the expensive oils vs. the lower cost ones. Lots of V/A is not any better than the regular collection at IS or on the other sites. 60-70% of IS contribs are not eligible for V/A at all. Lise and Sean are there, but not Yuri, Monkeybusiness, or Andres...

bunhill · « **Reply #1083 on:** April 22, 2011, 15:25 »

it's not a perfect analogy but really I was reponding to the orange juice metaphor. Also, more than that, it's about branding.

And when we go in a shop - the thing which costs the most isn't always necessarily these best fit in all cases. No system is perfect.

Personally I can very much see the point of branding different images within different collections, lightboxes etc. When the collection is so huge especially there needs to be other ways of drilling down interestingly. It is definitely the way I would go if I was running the shop. Maybe the way in which those images get presented needs to be continually reviewed. And iStockphoto do more or less say that it is under continual review.

The people (eta: buyers I mean) I talk to are still saying that they think iStockphoto is great. This whole debate since last September has completely passed them by. And they like Vetta. Also - 1 of those people is someone I also shoot pictures for regularly. I can say for certain that one of the smallest costs of any project is still the images (to the extent that on occassions she has more or less told me to quote higher for jobs).

RacePhoto · « **Reply #1084 on:** April 22, 2011, 16:43 »

Quote from: bunhill on April 21, 2011, 07:26

Instead of the generic orange juice shopping analogy try it with olive oil instead.

Actually both are good and OJ isn't all the same. Some comes from reconstituted, some from frozen, some is fresh squeezed, some from different oranges, some end of the year, some fresh prime and plump. Olive oil? First, second or later pressings. They are both good examples of the same basic products marketed at different levels with subtle differences. The consumers decide what level they want and need from a broad selection. Thus grocery store shelf and multiple levels of photos at one site. (no opinion of what's Vetta and what's not, just that they have those Getty, and ThinkStock as well.)

I tend to think the whole "buyers bailing" is wishful thinking because some people are bitter about the path IS/Getty have been taking over the past year.

People may care about some foods at the grocery store, but lets use the two above. How many people care about the orange growers and juice production? Does anyone buy one brand of olive oil over another because of the growers and harvest methods? No? Well many buyers don't care if we are getting the short end, having commissions cut or best match changes. All they want is the picture they want, at the price point that's in their budget. By the way, the FL orange growers dump oranges and use it for pig feed, to uphold the price structure. They are essentially price fixing by limiting what the members of the Assn. can sell, for how much and we pay in the end. Don't know about CA but I can assume it's the same cartel tactics.

The 80/20 part works for just about every business with a product and customers. The rest of the product line, the 80% that seems to waste space for only a small part of the sales, needs to be there to support the needs of customers. Otherwise if you went to a grocery store (we're back on food again?) And they only sold the profitable items and the ones that brought in most of the money and business, we'd have limited choices, and in the end, shop at a full service store. Imagine going to the store and finding only 20% of what you shop for, because they only sell the most profitable items? You would go someplace else!

For the same reason, the stock sites can't just say, we'll only sell what people buy and throw out the rest. It would be like an agency saying, we'll only take the photos from large contributors and the small ones and go fly a kite, we don't need them. Or maybe something as silly as, we don't have space for the little portfolios, because we have to take only the big ones. Kind of a contradiction in logic isn't it? It's a mistake to assume the 20% that brings in the 80% of sales, is enough to please the buyers.

cathyslife · « **Reply #1085 on:** April 22, 2011, 17:46 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on April 22, 2011, 16:43

Quote from: bunhill on April 21, 2011, 07:26
Instead of the generic orange juice shopping analogy try it with olive oil instead.

Actually both are good and OJ isn't all the same. Some comes from reconstituted, some from frozen, some is fresh squeezed, some from different oranges, some end of the year, some fresh prime and plump. Olive oil? First, second or later pressings. They are both good examples of the same basic products marketed at different levels with subtle differences. The consumers decide what level they want and need from a broad selection. Thus grocery store shelf and multiple levels of photos at one site. (no opinion of what's Vetta and what's not, just that they have those Getty, and ThinkStock as well.)

I tend to think the whole "buyers bailing" is wishful thinking because some people are bitter about the path IS/Getty have been taking over the past year.

People may care about some foods at the grocery store, but lets use the two above. How many people care about the orange growers and juice production? Does anyone buy one brand of olive oil over another because of the growers and harvest methods? No? Well many buyers don't care if we are getting the short end, having commissions cut or best match changes. All they want is the picture they want, at the price point that's in their budget. By the way, the FL orange growers dump oranges and use it for pig feed, to uphold the price structure. They are essentially price fixing by limiting what the members of the Assn. can sell, for how much and we pay in the end. Don't know about CA but I can assume it's the same cartel tactics.

The 80/20 part works for just about every business with a product and customers. The rest of the product line, the 80% that seems to waste space for only a small part of the sales, needs to be there to support the needs of customers. Otherwise if you went to a grocery store (we're back on food again?) And they only sold the profitable items and the ones that brought in most of the money and business, we'd have limited choices, and in the end, shop at a full service store. Imagine going to the store and finding only 20% of what you shop for, because they only sell the most profitable items? You would go someplace else!

For the same reason, the stock sites can't just say, we'll only sell what people buy and throw out the rest. It would be like an agency saying, we'll only take the photos from large contributors and the small ones and go fly a kite, we don't need them. Or maybe something as silly as, we don't have space for the little portfolios, because we have to take only the big ones. Kind of a contradiction in logic isn't it? It's a mistake to assume the 20% that brings in the 80% of sales, is enough to please the buyers.

I don't see how you can say it's "wishful thinking" when posts both here AND on the IS forum state otherwise. It surely isn't my negative thinking (or anyone elses) making these buyers leave istock. It's no surprise to me that buyers have a brain of their own, can see the hassles, and are making their own decision.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1086 on:** April 22, 2011, 18:18 »

Quote from: cclapper on April 22, 2011, 17:46

I don't see how you can say it's "wishful thinking" when posts both here AND on the IS forum state otherwise. It surely isn't my negative thinking (or anyone elses) making these buyers leave istock. It's no surprise to me that buyers have a brain of their own, can see the hassles, and are making their own decision.

... and of course, as pretty much every significant independent contributor is reporting, there is the plain statistical evidence of buyers steadily migrating away from Istock and towards SS.

Maybe it's got something to do with all images at SS being the same low price (just like at Istock back when they were doing so well), a search engine that actually works and gives accurately weighted results, the lack of a stupid CV, no site downtime, the choice of PPD or a subscription, etc, etc, etc.

Wishful thinking? My arse.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #1087 on:** April 22, 2011, 18:24 »

Maybe I didn't phrase that clearly. Are the buyers actually leaving?

The part about wishful thinking would apply to people who think that a majority of the buyers give a hoot if we get stabbed, cut up and fed to the sharks. They just want the pictures they need. I can't see buyers bailing in large numbers because of our commissions getting cut?

If there's some evidence besides sales being down, which doesn't prove that it's less buyers. It may be dilution of sale from more available and newer images, competition and marketing from other agencies possibly some other reasons. But maybe someone can point out how I should come to the conclusion that "buyers are bailing" based on something more than people who have been banned from the IS forums, people who have had commissions cut, people who don't like the CV or the way IS is fiddling with the search, or those unhappy about ThinkStock subscriptions?

I don't expect IS to open their books and show me, but any sort of factual evidence would go a long way past disgruntled artists who are unhappy with the way Getty is ruining site in the opinion of most of us. I'm just trying to be fair, without letting my emotions rule my conclusions. (silly me as usual

)

Quote from: cclapper on April 22, 2011, 17:46

Quote from: RacePhoto on April 22, 2011, 16:43
Quote from: bunhill on April 21, 2011, 07:26
Instead of the generic orange juice shopping analogy try it with olive oil instead.

Actually both are good and OJ isn't all the same. Some comes from reconstituted, some from frozen, some is fresh squeezed, some from different oranges, some end of the year, some fresh prime and plump. Olive oil? First, second or later pressings. They are both good examples of the same basic products marketed at different levels with subtle differences. The consumers decide what level they want and need from a broad selection. Thus grocery store shelf and multiple levels of photos at one site. (no opinion of what's Vetta and what's not, just that they have those Getty, and ThinkStock as well.)

I tend to think the whole "buyers bailing" is wishful thinking because some people are bitter about the path IS/Getty have been taking over the past year.

People may care about some foods at the grocery store, but lets use the two above. How many people care about the orange growers and juice production? Does anyone buy one brand of olive oil over another because of the growers and harvest methods? No? Well many buyers don't care if we are getting the short end, having commissions cut or best match changes. All they want is the picture they want, at the price point that's in their budget. By the way, the FL orange growers dump oranges and use it for pig feed, to uphold the price structure. They are essentially price fixing by limiting what the members of the Assn. can sell, for how much and we pay in the end. Don't know about CA but I can assume it's the same cartel tactics.

The 80/20 part works for just about every business with a product and customers. The rest of the product line, the 80% that seems to waste space for only a small part of the sales, needs to be there to support the needs of customers. Otherwise if you went to a grocery store (we're back on food again?) And they only sold the profitable items and the ones that brought in most of the money and business, we'd have limited choices, and in the end, shop at a full service store. Imagine going to the store and finding only 20% of what you shop for, because they only sell the most profitable items? You would go someplace else!

For the same reason, the stock sites can't just say, we'll only sell what people buy and throw out the rest. It would be like an agency saying, we'll only take the photos from large contributors and the small ones and go fly a kite, we don't need them. Or maybe something as silly as, we don't have space for the little portfolios, because we have to take only the big ones. Kind of a contradiction in logic isn't it? It's a mistake to assume the 20% that brings in the 80% of sales, is enough to please the buyers.

I don't see how you can say it's "wishful thinking" when posts both here AND on the IS forum state otherwise. It surely isn't my negative thinking (or anyone elses) making these buyers leave istock. It's no surprise to me that buyers have a brain of their own, can see the hassles, and are making their own decision.

caspixel · « **Reply #1088 on:** April 22, 2011, 18:51 »

Actually, in life outside of stock photo land, I'm seeing a lot of buyers that DO care about how businesses conduct themselves, treat their workers, manufacture their products. Whether they are actually doing something about it is debatable. But eventually there will be a tipping point. I think it shortchanges buyers to think they are so unaware or so callous that they don't care about what's happening with corporations and how they are treating people. Because that kind of business ethic always trickles up, down, and sideways. What's done to suppliers is eventually done to buyers and vice versa.

cathyslife · « **Reply #1089 on:** April 22, 2011, 19:14 »

Well, this could be debated from now until forever because none of us know the actual truth, but I personally believe, judging by my own personal sales on other sites, that there are indeed buyers actually bailing. If you don't believe it, that's ok with me, no skin off my teeth!

RacePhoto · « **Reply #1090 on:** April 22, 2011, 19:30 »

Quote from: cclapper on April 22, 2011, 19:14

Well, this could be debated from now until forever because none of us know the actual truth, but I personally believe, judging by my own personal sales on other sites, that there are indeed buyers actually bailing. If you don't believe it, that's ok with me, no skin off my teeth!

I'll bite on that one.

But that's the whole question. Is there anything showing us that buyers are leaving, other than our own personal experience and opinions?

Gostwiyck:

"... and of course, as pretty much every significant independent contributor is reporting, there is the plain statistical evidence of buyers steadily migrating away from Istock and towards Shutterstock." Can you show me a link or some of this statistical evidence? Maybe the significant independent contributors way of seeing iStocks buyers count. Buyers could be down because their market is down along with the economy? Sales could be down because there are new artists and new images, millions more every year. Where are these reports you are referring to, I'd like to read them.

It's obvious that the Earth is the center of the universe, everything revolves around use. A simple fool can look up at the night sky or the Sun and see this.

Observation without evidence is not always as simple as the obvious conclusions.

SK · « **Reply #1091 on:** April 22, 2011, 21:09 »

I can only speak for myself ... I was a buyer at iStock (a small one) and I bailed and won't come back. At some point you have to stand up and say enough is enough.

Freedom · « **Reply #1092 on:** April 22, 2011, 21:54 »

I think Race is making sense. My sales have been going up steadily in 2011. I have no doubt some buyers are leaving, but others are likely staying and joining.

I disagree with what they did in September. But if I think that all buyers would be leaving, then I would be wishful thinking. Personally I hope they are not leaving because it will hurt me more than it does iStock.

sharpshot · « **Reply #1093 on:** April 23, 2011, 00:38 »

Its really hard to tell how many buyers are bailing on istock. It looks like a large proportion of contributors are carrying on as normal with istock, frightened that they might lose some earnings if they stop uploading. If so many contributors are unwilling to do anything, I find it hard to believe that enough buyers will move to the other sites to make a big difference.

There might be a big change if the buyers that have left istock have a better experience with other sites and tell other buyers about it. I'm amazed how far istock can push their contributors and buyers.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1094 on:** April 23, 2011, 02:05 »

Racephoto, what are you talking about? Observations ARE evidence. So are posts by disgruntled buyers saying they are leaving and for every one who bothers to post there are probably 100 others who pack their tent and leave without saying a word. Maybe there are hundreds of others signing up to replace them. Maybe the overall "spend" from people switching to V/A and away from the non-elite is boosting iStock's profits. I don't know. But I do know that this is the first time in the company's history that quite a number of different buyers have come forward to protest about the service that they are getting.

And why would contributors continuing to upload make buyers less ticked off about having searches flooded with Vetta and Agency? Contributors are uploading everywhere else, too, and some of the top contributors upload a lot more to other sites than they do to iStock.

You're absolutely right that Getty will never let us see its books while it is a private company. But to go on from that to argue that therefore we shouldn't be saying anything because we don't have access to any evidence is just plain wrong. It's exactly like the Church telling people not to speculate about how the solar system works just because the official geocentric model is causing difficulties with the calculations (these observed difficulties aren't evidence of anything, are they?).

It's not just Shutterstock that is up, either. 123 is already up to its monthly average for me, with a third of the month to go. Canstock sales in the last three months have been well above the long-term average (so far, my number of files sold this month is 36% above the total for all of last April). Sales at both these sites would be more sensitive indicators of movement than Shutterstock, since their markets have been quite small.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1095 on:** April 23, 2011, 03:55 »

Quote from: caspixel on April 22, 2011, 18:51

Actually, in life outside of stock photo land, I'm seeing a lot of buyers that DO care about how businesses conduct themselves, treat their workers, manufacture their products. Whether they are actually doing something about it is debatable. But eventually there will be a tipping point. I think it shortchanges buyers to think they are so unaware or so callous that they don't care about what's happening with corporations and how they are treating people. Because that kind of business ethic always trickles up, down, and sideways. What's done to suppliers is eventually done to buyers and vice versa.

To be fair, though, while it is certainly true in the UK that Fair Trade goods are growing in consumer awareness and some shops are getting the message at last, that also involves a willingness for the customer to pay more (realistic prices).
To bring the Fair Trade argument into the micro table, the prices would have to rise much higher than they are just now. At the moment, only a few contributors are making reasonable living wages out of micro - even some of the full timers are supported by spouse's income etc.
You yourself were a regular complainer when prices rose on iStock, even from the derisory levels they were back when I started. Are buyers willing to meet the real costs of shooting images, when you take everything into consideration? Again, while some contributors pay models, many brag that they don't, so again, the buyers are getting their cheap images on an unrealistic, unsustainable and arguably unfair/exploitative model ("my sister/girlfriend/mother doesn't mind modelling for free and doesn't care what their pics might be used for").
(I know this has nothing to do with percentages over which I'm as p*ssed off as anyone else, as my canister turned to iron pyrites this weekend, and I'll be lucky to retain even a silver %age next year if dls continue to dwindle as they are. But if you're going to bring a Fair Trade argument in, you have to see things from all the angles.)

Difydave · « **Reply #1096 on:** April 23, 2011, 04:42 »

I'dhazard a guess that if regular buyers were leaving in large numbers then something would be done about it. Who can really tell what is happening there these days though?
I like the comment about your canister turning "iron pyrites" ShadySue" Congratulations on that. Mine should be turning "paste" some time soon. I too was wondering whether or not I'd get to keep my present "aluminium foil" level of royalties if things kept going the way they have been.

cathyslife · « **Reply #1097 on:** April 23, 2011, 05:10 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 23, 2011, 03:55

To be fair, though, while it is certainly true in the UK that Fair Trade goods are growing in consumer awareness and some shops are getting the message at last, that also involves a willingness for the customer to pay more (realistic prices).
To bring the Fair Trade argument into the micro table, the prices would have to rise much higher than they are just now. At the moment, only a few contributors are making reasonable living wages out of micro - even some of the full timers are supported by spouse's income etc.
You yourself were a regular complainer when prices rose on iStock, even from the derisory levels they were back when I started. Are buyers willing to meet the real costs of shooting images, when you take everything into consideration? Again, while some contributors pay models, many brag that they don't, so again, the buyers are getting their cheap images on an unrealistic, unsustainable and arguably unfair/exploitative model ("my sister/girlfriend/mother doesn't mind modelling for free and doesn't care what their pics might be used for").
(I know this has nothing to do with percentages over which I'm as p*ssed off as anyone else, as my canister turned to iron pyrites this weekend, and I'll be lucky to retain even a silver %age next year if dls continue to dwindle as they are. But if you're going to bring a Fair Trade argument in, you have to see things from all the angles.)

But buyers, at this point in time, can stand behind Fair Trade and STILL get reasonable prices. There is an alternative for buyers besides istock. It seems to me like you are saying that it's istock or nobody. Since contributors like lisafx, yuri arcurs and many other big name independents are contributors on many sites, there are quality images, using paid models, done on a professional basis, on many other sites, at less expensive prices than istock's. I'm not understanding why you are saying that in order for buyers to care about other people, they have to pay more. I think that's what all contributors would like to see happen, but that's not where it's at right now.

It's almost like there has been a renewed effort over in istockland to spread this propaganda that istock is the ONLY game in town and everyone else just sucks. As if that they keep repeating the mantra to themselves and everyone else, it will become true. It's not.

bunhill · « **Reply #1098 on:** April 23, 2011, 06:26 »

With respect, the 'fair trade' argument is inappropriate in this context IMO. We are not starving farmers or the exploited with no other options.

rubyroo · « **Reply #1099 on:** April 23, 2011, 06:35 »

I don't think anyone's honestly trying to compare the plight of microstockers with poverty in developing nations. But if the term 'fair trade' is considered to be pre-defined solely for that purpose, let's just find another term.

'Reasonable Royalties'
'Considerate Commissions'

I can't think of anything punchy, but maybe someone else can?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391625 times)

lthn

sharpshot

lthn

bunhill

gostwyck

ShadySue

gostwyck

Snowball

bunhill

RacePhoto

cathyslife

gostwyck

RacePhoto

caspixel

cathyslife

RacePhoto

SK

Freedom

sharpshot

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

Difydave

cathyslife

bunhill

rubyroo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors