MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock  (Read 387906 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #1350 on: July 03, 2011, 03:20 »
0
How many complaints, how long did it take for them to produce a goddam price filter? Like half a year? Thats an insult in itself, too late.

I was thinking that myself, the price filter should have been implemented such along time ago. It probably wasn't, as they probably wanted to push more expensive images. It's probably only been implemented now because they realize that it's beneficial to them to have it, as maybe they have realised they have scared off too many customers (more than they anticipated) who see high priced images pushed to the front. Lots of probablies in my sentences here, as I can only speculate. Buyers who have recently switched to other microstock sites, probably won't be aware of the price filter and even if they are, may well be unwilling to switch back, especially if they are happy with the other site or sites they have chosen.


« Reply #1351 on: July 03, 2011, 03:33 »
0


I'm annoyed with the fact that most contributors are putting up with it

"most contributors" include you and me and anybody else who still has an iStock dial showing next to their name.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #1352 on: July 03, 2011, 03:39 »
0
How many complaints, how long did it take for them to produce a goddam price filter? Like half a year? Thats an insult in itself, too late.

I was thinking that myself, the price filter should have been implemented such along time ago. It probably wasn't, as they probably wanted to push more expensive images. It's probably only been implemented now because they realize that it's beneficial to them to have it, as maybe they have realised they have scared off too many customers (more than they anticipated) who see high priced images pushed to the front. Lots of probablies in my sentences here, as I can only speculate. Buyers who have recently switched to other microstock sites, probably won't be aware of the price filter and even if they are, may well be unwilling to switch back, especially if they are happy with the other site or sites they have chosen.

Well, if you sh*t on your buyers for months, they aren't gonna come flying back just because you suddenly corrected something. They obviously refused to do this since it's not a task that would be considered a challenge for a pro coder. I had some support for IS in the past because they seemed to be demanding more for images instead of selling out for pennies, but with 12 and 8 cent commissions that crap, isn't it? ...not to mention the moblike staff : )

« Reply #1353 on: July 03, 2011, 05:45 »
0


Thanks for posting Toni.  Wish more buyers would take the time to post their experiences :)

One of the reasons you don't hear more is because whenever we do, there always seems to be some argument or snide comment by someone. >:(

Good point. If IS might have listened to buyers who complained all along, and made some attempt at resolving problems, this thread likely would have never even been started. Sometimes it's just too late, and I think some buyers are going to feel that way. Too little, too late.

« Reply #1354 on: July 03, 2011, 05:54 »
0


I'm annoyed with the fact that most contributors are putting up with it

"most contributors" include you and me and anybody else who still has an iStock dial showing next to their name.
I did spend 9 months only deleting images, not uploading any.  And yes, I'm annoyed with myself for putting up with 17% commission and uploading some new images last month.  It's not easy for me because I rely on the money from istock at the moment but I really don't see any long term future for me there.  I'm looking forward to the day I can get out.  My original plan was to just upload lots more to the other sites but I've lost my motivation with microstock, so I'm spending some time working on other ideas and hopefully that will spark my enthusiasm again.

« Reply #1355 on: December 07, 2011, 10:52 »
0
Well, here goes another one. Unhappy buyer 'tleedycorp', proudly displaying a Corporate Master badge, gives Istock both barrels in the Discussion forum;

"This site sucks now. Photo searches bring one of two possibilities, 1) 2 out of every 10 images are for editorial use only, or 2) "angry baby" appears in my search for Hong Kong. WTH?? This site is nearly useless to me now. Too bad I have 500+ credits to use. I might as well go back to Photos.com and the garbage they had there. Oh, and now practically everything is Vetta collection. Great. Another site that just wastes vast amounts of my time. But, like most things, I am sure nothing will change as a result of feedback. We will just be expected to pay more for a far less functional, and in my opinion, inferior and ineffective image search method. Too bad. This was very useful and helpful to us for a while."

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338061&page=1

Strangely, if you click on their name you arrive at the front page. Maybe their account has been closed already?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1356 on: December 07, 2011, 11:02 »
0
Well, here goes another one. Unhappy buyer 'tleedycorp', proudly displaying a Corporate Master badge, gives Istock both barrels in the Discussion forum;

"This site sucks now. Photo searches bring one of two possibilities, 1) 2 out of every 10 images are for editorial use only, or 2) "angry baby" appears in my search for Hong Kong. WTH?? This site is nearly useless to me now. Too bad I have 500+ credits to use. I might as well go back to Photos.com and the garbage they had there. Oh, and now practically everything is Vetta collection. Great. Another site that just wastes vast amounts of my time. But, like most things, I am sure nothing will change as a result of feedback. We will just be expected to pay more for a far less functional, and in my opinion, inferior and ineffective image search method. Too bad. This was very useful and helpful to us for a while."

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338061&page=1

Strangely, if you click on their name you arrive at the front page. Maybe their account has been closed already?


To be fair, although the 'customer is always right', that one clearly isn't prepared to make any effort. Which of us doesn't use some filters when on amazon, eBay, Landsend or any other large/deep site? iStock, with a few seconds thought, is no more difficult to use than any of these.
The only valid complaint they had is the silly bug/feature whereas every search seems to have a few invalid files thrown into the mix of every search result.
Anyway, iStock is hardly likely to worry if they buzz off to Photos.com - don't they want to push customers to the PP anyway?

« Reply #1357 on: December 07, 2011, 11:09 »
0
... that one clearly isn't prepared to make any effort. Which of us doesn't use some filters when on amazon, eBay, Landsend or any other large/deep site? iStock, with a few seconds thought, is no more difficult to use than any of these.

I don't agree. I do use filters on other sites, but they are labeled - and thus clear. The price slider (and KKT acknowledged as much in that interview he gave a month or two back when he said in UI tests, buyers just didn't see the price slider) has an awful UI in my opinion. I want to exclude Vetta and Agency but I see a bunch of dots and some number of items that go away if I exclude those dots. It's indirect.

The price checkboxes or sliders at other sites are labelled with amounts of money, or you get ways to include/exclude collections by name (sellers on amazon.com for example).

I think the issue is that if you're already ticked off, making a buyer work that hard to do a simple thing is just one more irritant. And even if the buyer is a lazy ba3t*rd don't you want their money anyway? Only hardworking puritans are wanted as iStock buyers and the rest of you shuffle off somewhere else?

« Reply #1358 on: December 07, 2011, 11:21 »
0
Anyway, iStock is hardly likely to worry if they buzz off to Photos.com - don't they want to push customers to the PP anyway?

I don't think they stated an intention to go back to Photos.com. I think they were saying that Istock has become as 'useless' as them.

helix7

« Reply #1359 on: December 07, 2011, 11:35 »
0
To be fair, although the 'customer is always right', that one clearly isn't prepared to make any effort. Which of us doesn't use some filters when on amazon, eBay, Landsend or any other large/deep site? iStock, with a few seconds thought, is no more difficult to use than any of these.
The only valid complaint they had is the silly bug/feature whereas every search seems to have a few invalid files thrown into the mix of every search result.
Anyway, iStock is hardly likely to worry if they buzz off to Photos.com - don't they want to push customers to the PP anyway?

There was a time when not so many filters were needed at istock. That's probably more to the point of what the buyer was trying to express. And at other sites a search can still be easily accomplished with few (if any) filters.

This is what istock doesn't seem to understand. They cut the collection into all of these different pieces, price points, etc., which makes it harder to find images at the price you want to pay. So they add a filter, but the filter is not easy to find or use. And they add in limited filters for Vetta/Agency/Exclusive. So from their perspective istock is saying, "Look, we gave you all of these different collections and then we gave you these extra things to filter through collections! Yay us!" But what the buyer sees is added levels of complexity, tools that allow filtering but take time to use to tweak the search to match what they are looking for, and sometimes the complexity results in total failure like we've seen many times. Site and search complexity means code complexity, which means increased likelihood of bugs and site crashes.

« Reply #1360 on: December 07, 2011, 11:55 »
0
Any five years old would understad how it works the slider, it's not rocket sciencie.

lagereek

« Reply #1361 on: December 07, 2011, 12:05 »
0
Thats not the point!  even if a 2 year old could work it, not the point!  point is, Why make buyers, having to work for it?  I have seen many of them in action, stood behind their shoulders, all they want to do, is tap in a keyword or two, thats it. Its internet based sites for Gods sake, it should work to perfection, quick, effectivly and most important, easy. "Keep it simple"  one of the most fundamental rules of business and engineering.

Now if this buyer is right,  why do they mix editorials with commercials?  a commercial clients nightmare, are editorials,  have always been. Ask Magnum. I tell you,  this site has gone bonkers, behaving like dizzy little bewildered school girls.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 12:07 by lagereek »

« Reply #1362 on: December 07, 2011, 12:07 »
0
Any five years old would understad how it works the slider, it's not rocket sciencie.

Taking a disparaging attitude towards unhappy customers (buyers, not contributors) make for lousy customer service.

« Reply #1363 on: December 07, 2011, 12:09 »
0
That's not the point, the point is that I can't understand someone having difficulties understanding how the slider works. Is graphic, intuitive and very simple.

lagereek

« Reply #1364 on: December 07, 2011, 12:26 »
0
That's not the point, the point is that I can't understand someone having difficulties understanding how the slider works. Is graphic, intuitive and very simple.

Hi!

In any event, they call it price-slider but really it gives a disguised message of a quality-slider and many buyers, Im sure is experiencing just that BUT, without any higher quality ofcourse.

« Reply #1365 on: December 07, 2011, 12:30 »
0
That's not the point, the point is that I can't understand someone having difficulties understanding how the slider works. Is graphic, intuitive and very simple.

The mechanics of it are pretty simple (it's a slider that gives you price ranges), but the results that it gives you can be a little confusing. Especially for illustrations. The price ranges for illustrations on each dot can vary $10 to $20. Which makes it kind of useless if you have a real budget.

« Reply #1366 on: December 07, 2011, 12:38 »
0
That's not the point, the point is that I can't understand someone having difficulties understanding how the slider works. Is graphic, intuitive and very simple.

Maybe the buyers just don't want the slider. Maybe they want images all priced the same __ just like they used to be.

« Reply #1367 on: December 07, 2011, 14:06 »
0
That's not the point, the point is that I can't understand someone having difficulties understanding how the slider works. Is graphic, intuitive and very simple.

The mechanics of it are pretty simple (it's a slider that gives you price ranges), but the results that it gives you can be a little confusing. Especially for illustrations. The price ranges for illustrations on each dot can vary $10 to $20. Which makes it kind of useless if you have a real budget.

It's not clear to me what the dots mean (presumably price, but what price?) and the places at which the slider stops do not correspond to the position of the dots.

I think that the slider should move to the same position as the dots, and when you move the slider or if you hover the cursor over the dots, there should be a popup text which explains what they mean - for example, 4 dots ("Include all"), 3 dots ("Exclude images costing more than 10(XS) to 100 (XXXL) credits"), and so on.  The images should also have dots to identify their price category.  THEN there would be no excuse for people not to understand how it works.  Right now I think it's somewhat confusing.

I don't know if actual customers feel the same way about the slider.  I don't know if IS did tests/focus groups of the slider with actual customers (not insiders, contributors or reviewers) ... but if they haven't then they should.

helix7

« Reply #1368 on: December 07, 2011, 14:20 »
0
Any five years old would understad how it works the slider, it's not rocket sciencie.

That's the istock attitude. Ignore the real problem and simply point to the slider as the answer to the complaint about prices.

There shouldn't be a need for a slider in the first place. That's the point.

Buyers are saying that there are too many collections, too many price variations, images are too expensive, and istock is offering the slider as the solution rather than addressing the problem and simplifying pricing.

Matter of fact they tend to go the other way and keep introducing new ways to alter pricing. E+, P+, etc. It's that same old "We'll tell you what you want instead of listening to what you're asking for" mentality.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 14:27 by helix7 »

« Reply #1369 on: December 07, 2011, 14:44 »
0
SOME buyers are saying that. Others don't say anything and buy E+ Vetta and Agency and base files.

« Reply #1370 on: December 07, 2011, 14:55 »
0
SOME buyers are saying that. Others don't say anything and buy E+ Vetta and Agency and base files.

As in, it doesn't matter to a company if it loses some customers, as long as there are other customers that it doesn't lose?

That's would be an interesting theory to research for an MBA thesis.

« Reply #1371 on: December 07, 2011, 15:05 »
0
SOME buyers are saying that. Others don't say anything and buy E+ Vetta and Agency and base files.

As in, it doesn't matter to a company if it loses some customers, as long as there are other customers that it doesn't lose?

That's would be an interesting theory to research for an MBA thesis.

It is a fairly well-established business practice, to concentrate on a particular segment of the market, especially with higher priced goods or services. Trouble is that's unlikely to work in 'microstock' as there are already higher priced options at the traditional agencies. I'd have thought most microstock buyers are there because they want cheap images. I'm staggered at just how far Getty have dragged Istock away from their roots __ with fairly obvious consequences.

« Reply #1372 on: December 07, 2011, 15:11 »
0
SOME buyers are saying that. Others don't say anything and buy E+ Vetta and Agency and base files.

As in, it doesn't matter to a company if it loses some customers, as long as there are other customers that it doesn't lose?

That's would be an interesting theory to research for an MBA thesis.

It is a fairly well-established business practice, to concentrate on a particular segment of the market, especially with higher priced goods or services. Trouble is that's unlikely to work in 'microstock' as there are already higher priced options at the traditional agencies. I'd have thought most microstock buyers are there because they want cheap images. I'm staggered at just how far Getty have dragged Istock away from their roots __ with fairly obvious consequences.

It depends. You earn ten times more selling 10 at 100 than 100 at 1.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 15:13 by loop »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1373 on: December 07, 2011, 15:35 »
0

That's the istock attitude. Ignore the real problem and simply point to the slider as the answer to the complaint about prices.
There shouldn't be a need for a slider in the first place. That's the point.

Buyers are saying that there are too many collections, too many price variations, images are too expensive, and istock is offering the slider as the solution rather than addressing the problem and simplifying pricing.
Matter of fact they tend to go the other way and keep introducing new ways to alter pricing. E+, P+, etc. It's that same old "We'll tell you what you want instead of listening to what you're asking for" mentality.

That particular buyer seemed not to like the one price of Photos.com either, as he thinks their photos are 'garbage', yet doesn't want to pay more for better. As I've said before, what do you think would happen if I went into e.g. Gucci and said I didn't like their prices? Do they care if I don't buy anything there? Are they reducing their prices so that I'll become a customer?

Not long ago, buyers were asking for a way of getting rid of expensive files from searches. That was provided. True, it would be better if the 'stops' for the slider were level with the dots. The dots perhaps aren't ideal, but otherwise it would require a lot of different sliders putting the equivalent of - in all different currencies (people outwith America don't always like to see $$$ [1])

Many different price points are common in all walks of life. I went into a hardware store today, and everything from nails and lightbulbs to fully-fitted kitchens came in at a wide variety of prices. It's normal.

Let's imagine I want to buy a top on Landsend (UK).
Go to the site. I can choose from the top ten categories. Ignoring the ones that don't apply, I can choose Women, Offers or Clearance. (There are also 17 different categories down the left hand side).
Let's say I choose Women. There are 12 choices in the dropdown. I want a top, so I have to choose between tops, shirts and blouses or knitwear.
Choose tops, and I have a choice between petite, regular, plus or tall sizes.
Choose tops, I now have a choice between polotops, shirts and blouses (again), Jersey tops, cardigans, tunics, polo necks and roll necks or 'shop by fit'. Underneath that, I can refine my choice by sleeve length, fabric or style.
Once I've got that all chosen, I can then choose to sort by most popular, recommended, Price low to high, or price high to low.
Price points: For women's regular short sleeved tops, prices range from 6 to '35 reduced to 30'.

Filtering and different price points are a fact of online business. Unless you're selling only a very, very few products.

Actually, I don't think there's an easy way for a buyer to find the Dollar Bin from the first page, unlike LandsEnd, who has Clearance and Offers right on the top line of the home page. As far as I can see, it's not even accessible from the Site Map, Search Tips or FAQs, or Search FAQs. I think someone here did point out where it is, but it's certainly not easy to find.

[1] When Landsend first came to the UK, they somehow traded on their American-ness, got loads of complaints about that, which they printed in their catalogue, apologised and adapted very quickly.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 15:59 by ShadySue »

« Reply #1374 on: December 07, 2011, 15:39 »
0
It depends. You earn ten times more selling 10 at 100 than 100 at 1.

Good theory __ just doesn't work in practice. My portfolio makes nearly twice as much money for me at SS as it does at IS although the images at the latter are more expensive. I suspect that SS has just gained a new 'Corporate Master' buyer today too.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
17299 Views
Last post October 23, 2010, 14:12
by gbalex
18 Replies
5818 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 15:34
by lagereek
162 Replies
33339 Views
Last post May 14, 2012, 10:27
by jbryson
20 Replies
7325 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