Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391702 times)

SNP · « **Reply #1375 on:** December 07, 2011, 15:45 »

Quote from: loop on December 07, 2011, 12:09

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.

yeah. I think more disparaging to buyers is how stupid some posters here make them sound...

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1376 on:** December 07, 2011, 16:13 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 07, 2011, 15:39

Quote from: loop on December 07, 2011, 15:11
It depends. You earn ten times more selling 10 at 100 than 100 at 1.

Good theory __ just doesn't work in practice.

Reality would be rather more messy, say one at $70 and three at $20 instead of 10 at $10. If you push it beyond a certain point the balancing act would become incredibly sensitive and any miscalculation or shift in the market might knock off the one $70 sale you rely on to make the equation work. That is a vulnerability that doesn't exist in the low-price model, so it is introducing a lot of risk into the system.

Maybe today they managed to keep the one at $70 but lost two at $20. Suddenly a $30 gain would turn into a $10 loss - and that's through cheesing-off a mid-price buyer, not the top-price buyer.

All completely speculative, of course, but it does indicate how different kinds of risk could affect such a system.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #1377 on:** December 07, 2011, 16:25 »

is this the "biggest" topic ever?

- topic started on September 09, 2010, 10:06
- around 1375 posts (0.33/day)
- read 83394 times

loop · « **Reply #1378 on:** December 07, 2011, 16:34 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 07, 2011, 15:39

Quote from: loop on December 07, 2011, 15:11
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.

No idea why, nor if you have the same number of photos in both sides etc. Regarding what we were talkin about, what Iknow as a fact is that,without being my photos nothing very special, I sell E+ Vetta, Agency on a daily basis. That's a fact, for me. If I would make more selling elsewhere is just guess work.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1379 on:** December 07, 2011, 16:35 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 07, 2011, 16:25

is this the "biggest" topic ever?

- topic started on September 09, 2010, 10:06
- around 1375 posts (0.33/day)
- read 83394 times

Yes on replies, no on views. Check the stat's here;

http://www.microstockgroup.com/stats/

gostwyck · « **Reply #1380 on:** December 07, 2011, 16:53 »

Quote from: loop on December 07, 2011, 16:34

Regarding what we were talkin about, what Iknow as a fact is that,without being my photos nothing very special, I sell E+ Vetta, Agency on a daily basis. That's a fact, for me. If I would make more selling elsewhere is just guess work.

Check out this thread in it's entirety, the traffic stat's and the IS sales threads. Truth is Istock's policies are losing them buyers by the bus load and no-one knows if and when that trend may stop. That's 'a fact' for me. You can shut your eyes and hide under the duvet clutching your little crown tightly to your bosom but it won't change the reality of the situation.

markrhiggins · « **Reply #1381 on:** December 07, 2011, 17:00 »

it seems to me that IS thinks the contributors should deal with customer relations and how to operate the site through their forums. Good luck with that strategy.
It also seems that the site is being defrauded again. Lots of refunds . No arguing this time.If it is credit card fraud they do not care. Take back the royalty, leave the file downloaded with the customer or theif and ignore complaint.
   The site appears to be trying to maintain profit by getting more through dwindling sales and selling through other sites that do not annoy the customer as much as IS does. Good luck with that as a long term strategy.
   Much has been said about variety and yet IS keeps accepting multiple similar images from exclusives and putting them in searches. It also pushes down cheaper files (irrespective some cryptic/confusing dots sliders to try to overcome exclusive/P+/vetta) Good luck as that as a long time marketing tool.
   It has allowed many popular images that were at the site to be withdrawn with bailing contributors and many do not bother to upload there any more ( wilst uploading to all the other major sites).
Oh yes they have exclusives will that save them?
   Operationally they cannot fix bugs/deal with valid complaints or keep goodwill with contributors. Not sure who runs their strategic management (if it exists) but it is a fail in my view.

loop · « **Reply #1382 on:** December 07, 2011, 17:26 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 07, 2011, 16:53

Quote from: loop on December 07, 2011, 16:34
Regarding what we were talkin about, what Iknow as a fact is that,without being my photos nothing very special, I sell E+ Vetta, Agency on a daily basis. That's a fact, for me. If I would make more selling elsewhere is just guess work.

Check out this thread in it's entirety, the traffic stat's and the IS sales threads. Truth is Istock's policies are losing them buyers by the bus load and no-one knows if and when that trend may stop. That's 'a fact' for me. You can shut your eyes and hide under the duvet clutching your little crown tightly to your bosom but it won't change the reality of the situation.

I see you seem to fancy crowns, but that's not my case. That's not about little crowns (why some independents are so obsseded with crowns?? It's just a silly graphic!) , that's about business and money. And nothing that you don't know for sure can never be a fact, obviously. I know how much money comes every week to bank account (another fact) I know what is my RPI and I have compared it with RPIs published here by independents. I haven't blind faith in anything, istock included, and if some day I have to change I would do it. Not yet, for sure, that's what my most important facts say to me rigth now.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1383 on:** December 07, 2011, 18:07 »

Quote from: markrhiggins on December 07, 2011, 17:00

it seems to me that IS thinks the contributors should deal with customer relations and how to operate the site through their forums.

That buyer chose to express his rant through the forums, which isn't necessarily the same thing.

lagereek · « **Reply #1384 on:** December 07, 2011, 18:17 »

Funny this. Why is it a general trend to call buyers complaining or jumping ship, stupid or unintelligent? then there must be thousands of stupid buyers. Die-hard IS members will always dismiss the buyers as just plain stupid, in this case because they cant use a slider, well maybe this buyer simply did not WANT, to use the moronic slider?

I cant remember ever seeing a client-complaint at the IS forum, being met in a civil and nice manner, let alone an appology, not even a logic explanation as to why things go wrong, pricings or whatever.

No wonder Bruce took his well earnt money and ran for his life, never to look back, he probably had the foresight to know exactly where this pharaphernalia was heading.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1385 on:** December 07, 2011, 18:37 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 07, 2011, 18:17

Funny this. Why is it a general trend to call buyers complaining or jumping ship, stupid or unintelligent? then there must be thousands of stupid buyers. Die-hard IS members will always dismiss the buyers as just plain stupid, in this case because they cant use a slider, well maybe this buyer simply did not WANT, to use the moronic slider?

What happens at any other site if a buyer doesn't like or WANT to use a slider, drop down, filter or any other search feature?

Quote

I cant remember ever seeing a client-complaint at the IS forum, being met in a civil and nice manner, let alone an appology, not even a logic explanation as to why things go wrong, pricings or whatever.

Did you read the one mentioned on this thread?
Whiteway suggested using the slider, and to untick Editorial if he didn't want to see them.
(Note that this buyer didn't say he didn't want to use a slider. He didn't seem to know it was there.)
Sean confirmed this and admitted there was a search bug which is putting a few irrelevant files into every search.
Kelvin put in a screenshot to show how it's done.

How would you have answered this buyer, the one who seems to think that "practically everything" is Vetta. 16 of the top 42 files are Vetta by best match. Admittedly that's a much higher percentage than most searches were returning before the best match shake last Friday, but it isn't even half.

(Side note: I wonder why they've gone back to pushing Vetta so much, since it was generally noted as unpopular? They must have discovered that in fact pushing the Vettas, contrary to our suppositions, was actually working well for them. Or it's just a mistake.)

Perry · « **Reply #1386 on:** December 07, 2011, 18:47 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 07, 2011, 18:37

What happens at any other site if a buyer doesn't like or WANT to use a slider, drop down, filter or any other search feature?

Well, most of other sites doesn't have a price slider because it is not necessary because all the files cost the same. But it they encounter a site that is difficult to use, they go to the next one. But they won't be coming back to iStock.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1387 on:** December 07, 2011, 19:00 »

Quote from: Perry on December 07, 2011, 18:47

Quote from: ShadySue on December 07, 2011, 18:37
What happens at any other site if a buyer doesn't like or WANT to use a slider, drop down, filter or any other search feature?

Well, most of other sites doesn't have a price slider because it is not necessary because all the files cost the same. But it they encounter a site that is difficult to use, they go to the next one. But they won't be coming back to iStock.

When I go to Amazon, nothing costs the same. You seem to think that just because something is made of pixels, it costs the same as the next. Well, it doesn't. Life is rough. Use the filter like a big boy.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1388 on:** December 07, 2011, 19:04 »

Quote from: Perry on December 07, 2011, 18:47

Quote from: ShadySue on December 07, 2011, 18:37
What happens at any other site if a buyer doesn't like or WANT to use a slider, drop down, filter or any other search feature?

Well, most of other sites doesn't have a price slider because it is not necessary because all the files cost the same. But it they encounter a site that is difficult to use, they go to the next one. But they won't be coming back to iStock.

I really meant any other online sales site, not necessarily stock sites.

I agree that what gets in and doesn't get in to Vetta and Agency is often arbitrary and unexplicable/indefensible, but I guess they wanted to encourage photographers to spend more for higher production shoots and be recompensed for it. Of course like you and everyone else, I could point out many Agency photos that have no more expense/production values, just have lensflare, 'cross-processing' and stuff. But that was the stated theory. Vetta, well, they changed the goalposts after launching it.

I really can only imagine that buyer doesn't use any other ecommerce sites (outside stock). Fair enough, but that can't be the norm.

True story: I've got a friend who is, unfortunately and embarassingly, a serial complainer. Example: once we went to a restaurant which she wanted to try for some reason. The minute we went in I knew it wasn't for us. Everyone else was in their 20s or early 30s, and there was more drinking than eating going on. The music was unknown to me, loud and not to my taste. Fair enough. I'd have thought, "Whoops, this isn't for me" and left. Not my friend (aged the other side of 70). She marched right up to the barman and said, "That music's far too loud. You'll need to turn it down".

The customer is always right? You have to cater to every market sector? I don't think so!

ShadySue · « **Reply #1389 on:** December 07, 2011, 19:18 »

Quote from: Perry on December 07, 2011, 18:47

Quote from: ShadySue on December 07, 2011, 18:37
What happens at any other site if a buyer doesn't like or WANT to use a slider, drop down, filter or any other search feature?

Well, most of other sites doesn't have a price slider because it is not necessary because all the files cost the same. But it they encounter a site that is difficult to use, they go to the next one. But they won't be coming back to iStock.

Hmmm- take Shutterstock. First I have to decide whether I want to buy a subscription package then which one I want or I can choose options of images on demand.
True, there isn't a price slider, but there are plenty of filters down the left hand column which the buyer can use or ignore as they choose.
And it takes one more click to switch 'off' editorial - first you have to click the word Editorial then you can click on the box to have only Editorial or only non-editorial if you choose.

Each site has its own quirks, like any other real or online retailler; you just have to get used to them. Or indeed, move on.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1390 on:** December 07, 2011, 19:32 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 07, 2011, 19:00

When I go to Amazon, nothing costs the same. You seem to think that Judy because something is made of pixels, it costs the same as the next. Well, it doesn't. Life is rough. Use the filter like a big boy.

Actually I'd say that comparative products do roughly cost the same at Amazon. There is a 'going rate' for a standard paperback, hardbacks cost more, newer popular products are heavily discounted, etc, etc. The price differences that exist are largely logical and understandable.

I did the 'Hong Kong' search that the leaving buyer quoted. There's a very ordinary horizontal image of a 'junk ship' that is a Vetta and then the vertical version which is not. Does it cost 5x more (or less) for the photographer to have turned his wrists 90'?

I'm all for the photographer to earn more from exceptionally good, high production cost shoots or niche market stuff __ but why should Istock earn so much more from the sales of them? They're not doing any more work or incurring any more costs. Istock could double the cost of the image to the buyer, say, but give all the additional proceeds to the artist if that's what the higher prices were supposed to compensate for.

markrhiggins · « **Reply #1391 on:** December 07, 2011, 19:38 »

form shady sue
"True story: I've got a friend who is, unfortunately and embarassingly, a serial complainer. Example: once we went to a restaurant which she wanted to try for some reason. The minute we went in I knew it wasn't for us. Everyone else was in their 20s or early 30s, and there was more drinking than eating going on. The music was unknown to me, loud and not to my taste. Fair enough. I'd have thought, "Whoops, this isn't for me" and left. Not my friend (aged the other side of 70). She marched right up to the barman and said, "That music's far too loud. You'll need to turn it down".

The customer is always right? You have to cater to every market sector? I don't think so!"

Well if your friend had been a loyal customer and she found that the price were all up 50%. The menu was new with lots of expensive stuff she doesn't like and the whole feel of it had changed.?? Maybe the restaurant did not want her as a customer??? We are not talking about new customers but rather existing. New customers will dine down the road at SS, Fotolia etc. Maybe there is a crowd that was itching for the new "dining" experience but many are turned off by it and the other resaurants are cheaper with more variety and easier to read menus.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #1392 on:** December 07, 2011, 19:43 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 07, 2011, 16:25

is this the "biggest" topic ever?

- topic started on September 09, 2010, 10:06
- around 1375 posts (0.33/day)
- read 83394 times

The thread will finish once they've all bailed. ETD...

ShadySue · « **Reply #1393 on:** December 07, 2011, 19:54 »

Quote from: markrhiggins on December 07, 2011, 19:38

Well if your friend had been a loyal customer and she found that the price were all up 50%. The menu was new with lots of expensive stuff she doesn't like and the whole feel of it had changed.?? Maybe the restaurant did not want her as a customer??? We are not talking about new customers but rather existing. New customers will dine down the road at SS, Fotolia etc. Maybe there is a crowd that was itching for the new "dining" experience but many are turned off by it and the other resaurants are cheaper with more variety and easier to read menus.

That happens too. When I was a student, my 'home' pals had a favourite pub, and I went with them whenever I went home. Out of the blue, I got a letter from one of them to tell me that to their astonishment it was now a Gay bar. They weren't exactly banned, but they weren't exactly welcome either. As the only Gay Bar in the area at that time, I'd imagine they did very well.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1394 on:** December 07, 2011, 20:04 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 07, 2011, 19:00

... You seem to think that just because something is made of pixels, it costs the same as the next. Well, it doesn't. Life is rough. Use the filter like a big boy.

I'm not the person at whom the comment was directed, but I think the point you're missing is that this "take your medicine and don't complain" approach might work if a buyer had no choices, but when you have one (or several) working sites from which to choose, why would you stick with the site whose interface is confusing, or annoying or both?

iStock has not defined some wonderful new UI paradigm with the price slider; even the people who suggest it should be used don't generally praise it. It's a rather unfortunate compromise design that is based more on what iStock wanted to steer buyers to (after 6 months or more of just ignoring requests to be able to filter out Vetta and Agency images).

Those of you taking a "pro slider" position can argue all you like with buyers or other contributors about how good you think it is and how buyers should just stop fussing, but as long as Getty hasn't bought up all the competition, buyers can shop elsewhere if they don't like what iStock's offering. I just don't see how this wilful dismissal of buyer complaints can lead anywhere good.

Given the buyer had 500+ credits still to use, I find it hard to believe he closed his account - doesn't anyone wonder why it's gone away?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1395 on:** December 07, 2011, 20:07 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 07, 2011, 19:54

... I got a letter from one of them to tell me that to their astonishment it [favorite pub] was now a Gay bar. They weren't exactly banned, but they weren't exactly welcome either. As the only Gay Bar in the area at that time, I'd imagine they did very well.

Can I now quote you saying that iStock is now just like a Gay Bar?

Lobo will never let you back then...

gostwyck · « **Reply #1396 on:** December 07, 2011, 20:08 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 07, 2011, 19:54

When I was a student, my 'home' pals had a favourite pub, and I went with them whenever I went home. Out of the blue, I got a letter from one of them to tell me that to their astonishment it was now a Gay bar. They weren't exactly banned, but they weren't exactly welcome either. As the only Gay Bar in the area at that time, I'd imagine they did very well.

So you think that 'buyers are bailing on istock' because it has turned into a Gay site or something? Not quite sure I follow your logic.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1397 on:** December 07, 2011, 20:09 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 07, 2011, 20:07

Quote from: ShadySue on December 07, 2011, 19:54
... I got a letter from one of them to tell me that to their astonishment it [favorite pub] was now a Gay bar. They weren't exactly banned, but they weren't exactly welcome either. As the only Gay Bar in the area at that time, I'd imagine they did very well.

Can I now quote you saying that iStock is now just like a Gay Bar? Lobo will never let you back then...

ShadySue · « **Reply #1398 on:** December 07, 2011, 20:15 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 07, 2011, 20:08

Quote from: ShadySue on December 07, 2011, 19:54
When I was a student, my 'home' pals had a favourite pub, and I went with them whenever I went home. Out of the blue, I got a letter from one of them to tell me that to their astonishment it was now a Gay bar. They weren't exactly banned, but they weren't exactly welcome either. As the only Gay Bar in the area at that time, I'd imagine they did very well.

So you think that 'buyers are bailing on istock' because it has turned into a Gay site or something? Not quite sure I follow your logic.

Not at all. Just pointing out that some businesses choose a certain market sector.
Making no value judgement on such a choice, and the anecdote was a reply to Mark's post, not my explanation for buyers baling.

H*ck I don't want to turn into an iStock rabid, but I do think that particular buyer was either being deliberately provocative, didn't want to try, has no experience of ecommerce in general or as someone earlier suggested, was h*cked off about something else but morphed it into that complaint.

What's the site to do: apparently many buyers asked for a way to filter out V/A files. The slider is clumsy, but it works for its purpose. One buyer complains about it. What's iStock meant to do - remove it altogether?

gostwyck · « **Reply #1399 on:** December 07, 2011, 20:54 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 07, 2011, 20:15

H*ck I don't want to turn into an iStock rabid, but I do think that particular buyer was either being deliberately provocative, didn't want to try, has no experience of ecommerce in general or as someone earlier suggested, was h*cked off about something else but morphed it into that complaint.

What's the site to do: apparently many buyers asked for a way to filter out V/A files. The slider is clumsy, but it works for its purpose. One buyer complains about it. What's iStock meant to do - remove it altogether?

I think you, or more importantly Istock, should take the buyer at face value. But of course they won't.

They could have some very simple buttons/filters similar to FT. Istock made it very clear that 'the slider' was only brought in under duress and after months of prevarication and delay. Belatedly they relunctantly did the bare-arse minimum to provide the facility that buyers demanded whilst deliberately making it as unintuative and awkward to use as they could possibly devise. Now they are paying the price for refusing to willingly do what their customers asked for. Not difficult to understand is it?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 391702 times)

SNP

BaldricksTrousers

luissantos84

loop

gostwyck

gostwyck

markrhiggins

loop

ShadySue

lagereek

ShadySue

Perry

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

ShadySue

gostwyck

markrhiggins

Microstock Posts

ShadySue

Jo Ann Snover

Jo Ann Snover

gostwyck

ShadySue

ShadySue

gostwyck

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors