I'm guessing that loop is an exclusive over at istock. He sounds like one of the group that are on a mission to come here and try to disspell the notion that buyers are leaving istock; to convince us all that all is well in istockland; and that all exclusives over at istock are making a TON of money, because istock is taking care of them. istockholm syndrome.  

More evidence of buyers bailing:

HOWEVER, I am a BUYER for the company I work for (we buy a lot of travel and lifestyle images) and they WANT an "exclude Vetta/Agency" option. We will buy E+, Vetta or Agency when we are looking for a cover or glamour shot. But the majority of our purchases are spot images.

We had a couple of incidents where designers "accidentally" purchased Vetta images (albeit without looking) which screwed up the budget. So my bosses (in a knee-jerk reaction) purchased a years subscription (not from Thinkstock) instead of buying more credits with IS. I tried to talk them out of it, but their response to me was "until I can guarantee that I can turn off the more expensive stuff" a subscription at SS is more cost effective and "avoids the inadvertent purchase of high priced images".

Perhaps we are the only company turning away from IS because of their "insistence of shoving high priced stuff down my throat" (a quote from the VP) but somehow I doubt that my company is alone in this opinion.

I don't think the OP's suggestion is better than an "V/A off" switch but I might be able to talk my company off the ledge if there was SOMETHING that immediately visually identified a V/A image so the designers would know it was off limits for the spot illustrations we need so many of.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325652&page=8#post6334532

Quote from: Snowball on April 23, 2011, 16:34

Quote from: loop on April 23, 2011, 16:26

At about 200 or 300 photographer's comments coming from about 40-50 photographers. That is precisely my point, thanks for highlighting it.

You are still just making up numbers, so from what I can see you are proving my point that you haven't done your research and don't know what you are talking about:

That's his MO. Make accusations supported by zero evidence. It's just some sh*t that he makes up in his head. And then when called on it he usually says something to the effect, "Well, I don't have time to research [or back up his claims with proof]. I have a life!"

Desperate exclusive suffering from istockholm syndrome sounds about right. Don't mind it, but this talks a lot about you, and not about me.

You already called me "deranged" several days ago. Now you talk about "the sh*t out of my head". Dont mind it, but that talks about you, not about me.

Thanks for posting Carolyn.  This trickle seems to be turning into a flood.  I can't understand why anyone would not find this trend worrying. 

More evidence of buyers bailing:

HOWEVER, I am a BUYER for the company I work for (we buy a lot of travel and lifestyle images) and they WANT an "exclude Vetta/Agency" option. We will buy E+, Vetta or Agency when we are looking for a cover or glamour shot. But the majority of our purchases are spot images.

We had a couple of incidents where designers "accidentally" purchased Vetta images (albeit without looking) which screwed up the budget. So my bosses (in a knee-jerk reaction) purchased a years subscription (not from Thinkstock) instead of buying more credits with IS. I tried to talk them out of it, but their response to me was "until I can guarantee that I can turn off the more expensive stuff" a subscription at Shutterstock is more cost effective and "avoids the inadvertent purchase of high priced images".

Perhaps we are the only company turning away from IS because of their "insistence of shoving high priced stuff down my throat" (a quote from the VP) but somehow I doubt that my company is alone in this opinion.

I don't think the OP's suggestion is better than an "V/A off" switch but I might be able to talk my company off the ledge if there was SOMETHING that immediately visually identified a V/A image so the designers would know it was off limits for the spot illustrations we need so many of.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325652&page=8#post6334532

one of the group that are on a mission to come here and try to disspell the notion that buyers are leaving istock;

Do you really believe that there is a group who come here to try to dispel any notions about iStockphoto? Seriously ?

You seem to be implying that anyone who expresses any opinion different to your own can be dismissed as some sort of propagandist.

People who choose to be exclusive at iStockphoto are not brainwashed minions. It's a 30 day contractual commitment which people choose based on deciding whether or not it works for them at the time. That's it. It really does not turn people into mindless automatons.

It's quite divisive and IMO unnecessary this continually trying to create division between people based on what agencies they choose to be with at any particular time.

Quote from: cclapper on April 23, 2011, 16:41

one of the group that are on a mission to come here and try to disspell the notion that buyers are leaving istock;

Do you really believe that there is a group who come here to try to dispel any notions about iStockphoto? Seriously ?

You seem to be implying that anyone who expresses any opinion different to your own can be dismissed as some sort of propagandist.

People who choose to be exclusive at iStockphoto are not brainwashed minions. It's a 30 day contractual commitment which people choose based on deciding whether or not it works for them at the time. That's it. It really does not turn people into mindless automatons.

It's quite divisive and IMO unnecessary this continually trying to create division between people based on what agencies they choose to be with at any particular time.

Nope, not anyone. Just exclusives who rarely show up here, hardly ever contribute to any other threads, but only try and dispel what are facts.

What elvinstar said.

Proof?

Worst month in three years at IS so far this month.  That following the second and third worst months in the previous two.  Two BMEs at SS, one BME at DT and good showings at FT in the same period.  Proof enough for me.

 As the old master said to grasshopper, " you must make a friend of change".

Indeed you must.  But do you want to befriend destruction, too?  The cheese hasn't just been moved - it's been taken away.   

We all see that microstock is sinking and we want an alternative - some new way to market our skill.  We're just not seeing one yet.  It's hard to accept that this skill and knowledge just doen't have much value anymore.  I keep thinking - hoping - that things will change somehow.

^^ +1

What we really need is for someone to come up with a way to get our images in front of more people than just designers. With all of the blogging, school projects, personal websites, etc. out there, a huge market doesn't even know that we exist!

^^ +1

What we really need is for someone to come up with a way to get our images in front of more people than just designers. With all of the blogging, school projects, personal websites, etc. out there, a huge market doesn't even know that we exist!

Most of them just pinch the pictures, anyway. I know they do at my daughter's school and any observations about it are brushed aside with remarks about it all being available from the internet.

4 posts have just been removed from this thread for juvenile name calling.

While some people may steal images no matter how affordable they are, there are still large numbers of people that need images that don't even know that microstock exists. If even a small percentage of them started buying our work, how could it hurt?

So true!  After 6 years doing this, the vast majority of people I talk to about my job have never even heard of Stock photography!  Much less microstock. 

What a fine example for the kids.  At the same time the school districts are going nuts over inappropriate Facebook posts, they're showing the kids their complete disregard for intellectual property laws.

I know that this is happening at a lot of schools, but I just wanted to add that at the college I go to, the Exit Portfolio class requires the purchase of GAG Handbook and Ethical Guidelines. We had several class discussions about copyright laws, intellectual property and contracts. When we discuss projects, the teacher recommends istockphoto (I need to take him aside and explain how unethical in their treatment of contributors they are) for stock photos. I am glad that he is setting a good example and he never suggests anyone just goes and grabs images. He also instills the fact that they are graduating with a good skill set and that is of some worth, and not to give themselves away for free.

I hope that other colleges, and I would hope that school districts as well, are doing this. But it can't happen if the teachers themselves are ignorant of the stock companies out there. sigh.

But anyway, I am a little off topic. Back to the regularly scheduled program of buyers bailing.