Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 395535 times)

Pixart · « **Reply #1150 on:** April 25, 2011, 11:27 »

My son is in grade 4 and doing a project on Western Manitoba. His assignment this weekend was to scour the Internet for photos. We live in Central Manitoba so I have my own library of wildlife and plants which are found across the plains - so I was lucky I could send him off to school today with a few pages that weren't stolen. I guess I should really discuss this with teacher.

Then my 6 year old wrote and illustrated a fairy book this weekend and when she signed the last page she put the copyright symbol and 2011 beside her name. Made me laugh - I have no idea where she got that idea from, wonder if she knows what it is. Maybe she'll be a copyright advocate when she is doing this same project in grade 4.

cathyslife · « **Reply #1151 on:** April 25, 2011, 11:39 »

Quote from: Pixart on April 25, 2011, 11:27

My son is in grade 4 and doing a project on Western Manitoba. His assignment this weekend was to scour the Internet for photos. We live in Central Manitoba so I have my own library of wildlife and plants which are found across the plains - so I was lucky I could send him off to school today with a few pages that weren't stolen. I guess I should really discuss this with teacher.

Then my 6 year old wrote and illustrated a fairy book this weekend and when she signed the last page she put the copyright symbol and 2011 beside her name. Made me laugh - I have no idea where she got that idea from, wonder if she knows what it is. Maybe she'll be a copyright advocate when she is doing this same project in grade 4.

Good for her! It's never too early to teach them.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1152 on:** April 25, 2011, 11:51 »

Quote from: Pixart on April 25, 2011, 11:27

My son is in grade 4 and doing a project on Western Manitoba. His assignment this weekend was to scour the Internet for photos.

And the kids whose parents can't afford a computer and don't live near enough a public library with free internet access were to ... ?
(For kids who do have computer access, Good Practice would be to get them to look up lists of species found in Manitoba and try to get them on ARKive (399 Canadian species), and/or teach them to search filter for CC images on Flickr.)

BTW, in the UK, all pupils and teachers have access to GLOW, which inter alia has over a million images which have been cleared for use in schools. I have no idea how they did the clearing, but there's a lot of blurb about copyright in the site. And no use looking: I was kicked off GLOW three days after I left teaching, although I'm still fully paid up and registered. The photos are adequate to very good - certainly fine for school projects.

stockastic · « **Reply #1153 on:** April 25, 2011, 12:22 »

Sure it's ok if young kids grab photos off the internet to use in school projects. What I object to is the teachers essentially telling them that "if it's on the internet it's free". If they're showing the kids how to go to IS, search for an image, download a "comp" and use it for nothing, that's not right.

lisafx · « **Reply #1154 on:** April 25, 2011, 12:51 »

Quote from: cclapper on April 25, 2011, 11:12

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.

This is very good to hear. My daughter is taking art and design classes at college and her design teacher also requires the students to license the images, or else get permission from the copyright owners to use them.

I think this is probably commonplace, because I have gotten a number of requests over the years from "poor struggling students" to use my images for free. My standard reply is that the images cost money to create and I can't afford to give them away for free. Then I send them to a site where they can get what they need for a dollar or two. Even a poor student can afford $1-2.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1155 on:** May 01, 2011, 16:08 »

... and 'Exit stage left' from RealOnlineMarketing, a customer since 2005;

"Back when, I thought the whole Vetta re-brand was a bit of a forced shank to the customer base, but seeing how as nearly every decent photo on the site costs 55 credits for a small-sized photo, I can't really support this service any more.
Good luck."

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=328266&page=1

What you just have to love is the suggested 'workarounds' by PCC et al. They really, really don't get it do they?

cathyslife · « **Reply #1156 on:** May 01, 2011, 16:23 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 01, 2011, 16:08

... and 'Exit stage left' from RealOnlineMarketing, a customer since 2005;

"Back when, I thought the whole Vetta re-brand was a bit of a forced shank to the customer base, but seeing how as nearly every decent photo on the site costs 55 credits for a small-sized photo, I can't really support this service any more.
Good luck."

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=328266&page=1

What you just have to love is the suggested 'workarounds' by PCC et al. They really, really don't get it do they?

But wait, I though istock wanted the non-ad agency, small potatoes, non-Vetta-purchasing buyers to leave. That's sure what it seems like to me these past months!

Yeah, the workarounds that are being posted are too funny.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #1157 on:** May 01, 2011, 16:51 »

funny, but from my stats I guess buyers already found an easier "workaround": it's called Shutterstock

cathyslife · « **Reply #1158 on:** May 01, 2011, 16:57 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on May 01, 2011, 16:51

funny, but from my stats I guess buyers already found an easier "workaround": it's called Shutterstock

Yeah, I so wanted to post that on the istock forum. It will get deleted immediately though, since PCC is in the house.

lisafx · « **Reply #1159 on:** May 01, 2011, 17:21 »

I don't blame the exclusives for posting workarounds. What else can they do when their agent is making it so hard for buyers to find their images?

But yes, my sales at SS would certainly indicate that is the most popular and effective workaround.

caspixel · « **Reply #1160 on:** May 02, 2011, 01:20 »

And inevitably...thread locked.

RT · « **Reply #1161 on:** May 02, 2011, 04:39 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 01, 2011, 17:21

What else can they do when their agent is making it so hard for buyers to find their images?

It doesn't help when their agent has a featured lightbox on the landing of a well known common industry term but then doesn't include that term in their CV!

iStockphoto latest lightbox 'Blank slate', but of course 'blank slate' isn't known to the iStockphoto CV

I would really hate to be a regular buyer trying to find things there.

lagereek · « **Reply #1162 on:** May 02, 2011, 05:27 »

Right! they dont find it anymore! read my thread from saturday! a mail saying they cant find my oil-pipeline shots they had seen a few months back. So whats the point telling them about some stupid best match change.
Sold them the shots myself! 6 files, 20 bucks a piece, according to the size they wanted.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1163 on:** May 02, 2011, 10:38 »

Quote from: RT on May 02, 2011, 04:39

I would really hate to be a regular buyer trying to find things there.

Just how many buyers does Istock have to lose before it finally dawns on them that they have to do what the buyers want, not the other way around? If anything Istock appear to be hardening in their mentality they are are doing the buyers a favour by allowing them to license images at all.

IMHO Istock are now descending in a tailspin that they have no chance of recovering from without a complete u-turn in their attitude and probably a revision of their pricing structure too. A straw-poll of Diamond level contributors on Istock's 'April Stat's' thread suggests a loss of about 25-30% revenue over the last year and, what's worse, the downward trend didn't even start until after August/Sept. At this rate of decline sales might be down 50% by September 2011. No wonder they're holding off publishing the RC targets!

Staggering how greed can virtually destroy a $1B dot-com business within a few months. Getty destroyed their macro business by refusing to acknowledge changing technologies and now they've screwed their dominance of microstock too.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1164 on:** May 02, 2011, 10:54 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 02, 2011, 10:38

A straw-poll of Diamond level contributors on Istock's 'April Stat's' thread suggests a loss of about 25-30% revenue over the last year and, what's worse, the downward trend didn't even start until after August/Sept. At this rate of decline sales might be down 50% by September 2011. No wonder they're holding off publishing the RC targets!

I don't know if my pattern is typical, but for me the rot really set in on April 20 (with one very good day since then and the rest of them being rubbish). If the averages for those ten days turn out to be what happens throughout May, I will be down around 50% this month compared with last, and April was already down 30% on last year.

For where I'm sitting, a 50% year-on-year drop might look really good. 70% could be closer to the mark.

lagereek · « **Reply #1165 on:** May 02, 2011, 10:55 »

To put it into perspective. I alone, know 2 diamond exclusives who has quit exclusivity and 3 diamond independants who are leaving the ship before its sinking.
Thats just my knowledge, what about all the rest?

They dont care, the IS admin are petrified of loosing their jobs, you know wife, kids and all that, they would say yes to anything right now and their little runarounds, forum-moderators, etc, well they have just faded away, dont dare to open their mouth in case they get smacked on the buttocks.

Me? well I recon they have done me a favour really, I have just sold another 2, Tif-files as a matter of fact, just because they couldnt find them in low-res and over the years I have a personal contact with at least 60 buyers who at one time or another have bought my files.

caspixel · « **Reply #1166 on:** May 02, 2011, 14:15 »

ABDESIGN reports on the stats thread:

After buying thousands of images from this place over the years for the company I work for, we have finally moved on to other stock agencies and I think it shows that other buyers are moving on as well. Sad times here at istock.

Risamay · « **Reply #1167 on:** May 02, 2011, 15:54 »

Quote from: caspixel on May 02, 2011, 14:15

ABDESIGN reports on the stats thread:

After buying thousands of images from this place over the years for the company I work for, we have finally moved on to other stock agencies and I think it shows that other buyers are moving on as well. Sad times here at istock.

Not surprising. I'm recommending the company I work for move stock shops, as well. After having to spend time on the site as a buyer, I found the experience so frustrating and unsavory that I think it's worth finding a new source for our images.

Time is money, and the way iStock's search works, they clearly don't value that of the buyer on either point. But on time in particular.

Risamay · « **Reply #1168 on:** May 02, 2011, 16:03 »

Spot on:

Quote

Posted By KW400:
I think this is what happens when you take a simple concept like selling stock photography at a good price and then, make it as complicated as humanly possible by a large number of price points and a horrible search.

Source:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=328242&page=10

caspixel · « **Reply #1169 on:** May 02, 2011, 16:39 »

Quote from: Risamay on May 02, 2011, 15:54

Quote from: caspixel on May 02, 2011, 14:15
ABDESIGN reports on the stats thread:

After buying thousands of images from this place over the years for the company I work for, we have finally moved on to other stock agencies and I think it shows that other buyers are moving on as well. Sad times here at istock.

Not surprising. I'm recommending the company I work for move stock shops, as well. After having to spend time on the site as a buyer, I found the experience so frustrating and unsavory that I think it's worth finding a new source for our images.

Time is money, and the way iStock's search works, they clearly don't value that of the buyer on either point. But on time in particular.

Couldn't agree more. After having to search on there for a client (would love to get them to switch as well) I finally had to use a different search option because I was getting so irritated with the number of V/A files.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1170 on:** May 02, 2011, 17:21 »

BTW, for those of you who do have to search on iStock for work/clients, and who use Firefox or Chrome try Sean's collapse-o-matic greasemonkey script that will let you keep the V/A files out of the way as you search. You're looking for IS_search_collectionSections.user.js

It's not a solution, but it makes things less painful in the meantime...

lisafx · « **Reply #1171 on:** May 03, 2011, 15:44 »

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but it seems to explain why buyers are leaving and why sales stats are so bad at IS now.

Two posts from the IS April stats threads:

Lostinbids:

Is it any suprise that sales numbers are down when regualar images can't be seen. For the keyword baby there is only 67 regular (non-exclusive, exclusive and E+) images in the first 1000 search results. The majority is agency and vetta which will not sell as much because of the price.

ABDesign:

Wow, try do a search for landscape and filter by photos only. I only found 23 total images that weren't Agency, Vetta, or Exclusive Plus out of the first 1000 results. That means that only 2% of the search results out of the first 1000 were normal priced images. Unbelievable.

I went on and continued to search the next 1000 results for landscape and found out that only 52 out of the first 2000 results weren't Agency, Vetta, or Exclusive plus. Buyers are surely put off by this.

It certainly would explain why most of us are seeing such hideous drops in sales.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1172 on:** May 03, 2011, 16:14 »

And presumably they are hard at work trying to pump more and more V and A priced files into the searches to displace the surviving ordinary-priced ones.

wiser · « **Reply #1173 on:** May 03, 2011, 18:53 »

As a buyer I have NEVER sorted by best match - as it was always skewed towards exclusive content first, keywords second. So the current best match has no meaning to me. I sort first by downloads, which rarely shows any V or A files in the front of the search. And if it is a subject that I search for frequently I sort by file date (to see the newest stuff first).

I will not pay for a Vetta, Agency or even an E+ file. If I want to spend that kind of money I will go to Corbis, Alamy, Estock, AGE or even Getty. IS is microstock and it really pisses me off that there are so many price points and I have to look at camera icons before I can even look at the photo.

However, I wonder how many buyers have actually stopped buying from IS or if they are like me and ONLY buy regular priced images. How many buyers even know about the forums, let alone post in them. I find it hard to fathom that IS would blithely just go about shoving V+A down buyers throats if their attrition rate was more serious than the dozen buyers who have posted displeasure in the forums.

I guess what this long drone on post is about is, how bad can things be at IS if they just keep on keeping on with their move to midstock? I have read all the suppositions from others here but surely Getty/IS must have some kind of marketing research done that makes them think the move to midstock is good.

I am sure someone here will enlighten me, cuz I am too stoopid to see their (IS) logic. Why eff up a good thing?

cathyslife · « **Reply #1174 on:** May 03, 2011, 18:57 »

Quote from: wiser on May 03, 2011, 18:53

snip
As a buyer I have NEVER sorted by best match - as it was always skewed towards exclusive content first, keywords second. So the current best match has no meaning to me. I sort first by downloads, which rarely shows any V or A files in the front of the search. And if it is a subject that I search for frequently I sort by file date (to see the newest stuff first).

That's exactly how I always search but apparently there must be a lot of buyers that do use the best match search. I can't imagine why...it's not about best match to the best image anymore, but best match to the best price that Getty/IS wants to make from an image.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 395535 times)

Pixart

cathyslife

ShadySue

stockastic

lisafx

gostwyck

cathyslife

microstockphoto.co.uk

cathyslife

lisafx

caspixel

RT

lagereek

gostwyck

BaldricksTrousers

lagereek

caspixel

Risamay

Risamay

caspixel

Jo Ann Snover

lisafx

BaldricksTrousers

wiser

cathyslife

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors