MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Customers not happy with changes  (Read 5474 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 18, 2014, 08:09 »
+6
If any of you are curious as to what customers think of the latest changes, look no further than IS's FB page. What a train wreck. I was cautiously optimistic about these changes, but after reading many of the comments, that optimism is gone. Nice going Getty. You've just about killed off iStock.

https://www.facebook.com/istock


« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2014, 08:25 »
+3
Yep, people discussing going over to DPC :-(

« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2014, 08:31 »
+4
Yep, people discussing going over to DPC :-(
I also don't like the credits from a customer standpoint. It's like they're trying to hide something. And to make each credit 8-15? what? Who are they kidding?

Valo

« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2014, 08:36 »
+7
Total car wreck and the responses from Istock are like a deer caught in headlights.

« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2014, 08:41 »
+5
Yep, people discussing going over to DPC :-(

This is the most disgusting part of it all.

« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2014, 08:50 »
+6
Sometimes the best thing that can happen is a total disaster. The person who made this and perhaps some of the other hapless decisions will be given his ten million dollar bonus and asked to leave.

« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2014, 08:51 »
+22
This is a significant point from FB:
(Kerstin Gerhardt)... and whats about this possibility: buyers can buy the largest size - maby XXXL because its the same price. They put them on a webpage - because they dont have photoshop or similar - and anybody can download the "free" XXXL size from the page. We all know, there are a lot of people without knowledge about programming homepages or the law about internet. Thats impossible with XS sizes... but now...

ShadySue

« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2014, 08:55 »
+5
I also don't like the credits from a customer standpoint. It's like they're trying to hide something.

They're not 'trying' to hide something, it's deliberately obfuscatory.
The morality of revaluing existing credits is despicable. I wonder if it's even legal, but I have no idea of Canadian Law.
It's not like shops putting up prices. If they shot up enormously, you could just walk out and try elsewhere. People with existing credits were trapped.
People who previously bought a lot of very large size images and Vetta or S+ files are quids in, but only a few have posted, one being:
"The other side of it is that XXL Images that were once VERY expensive are now very reasonable. So if you only need smaller images, you cant get them for super cheap, but if you need Large/High Res or even Vectors you now get them for MUCH less than before."
Some of the quotes on the other side:
"after finding the images I *was* going to purchase at iStock at 123rf.com at old iStock prices.. I don't care about moving away from iStock. Shame on you iStock... you broke rule #1"

OK, some other posts there promoting other companies and a bizarre one allegedly by a buyer saying more-or-less, 'I suggest you use Google Search to find the images you need' have been deleted.

There have been a few of posts complaining about having lots of credits in hand and only wanting small images for blogs/web. The reply to them was to phone an 0800 number to get sorted out, which brought the obvious reply of 'why not tell us what the 0800 number will tell them?'

One might hope that they have really done the number crunching with scrupulous accuracy to see how many existing buyers they will lose compared to how many they hope to get in. But they don't have a good history of this, hence the constant see-saw changes in the past couple of years.

Neither buyers nor sellers can make any plans with a site with prices so totally volatile and apparently changing on a whim.

Over on the iS forum, Abzee posted:
"I'm struggling to find the business logic behind a process that has the customers rushing to exit at the front door and and the suppliers in revolt at the back door and the managment proclaiming 'But hey guys we've made things so simple ' to an empty shop."

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7047905

My sales and $$ are up a little this week, so  :) but as my port was previously heading rapidly to flatline on zero, my experience is nothing significant statistically.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #8 on: September 18, 2014, 08:56 »
+19
Customers aren't happy? Should contributors be happy with getting peanuts from customers like this?

"Deborah Dorchak - Also, the larger images sizes made no difference to me. I have a plugin on my Photoshop that allows me to blow up an image to any size without losing the resolution. I saved a lot of money over the years buying 1 credit images and then blowing them up as needed."

I really think it's getting to be time to yank most of my images out of micro. Subscriptions that mostly benefit the agency. License models that don't make financial sense to buyers or sellers. There's no control over anything. Can't control usage, piracy, nothing. I haven't had an extended license in I cant remember when. Most people probably don't know anything about licensing terms. Download and do whatever the h3ll you want with the image. And for the ones who know, they probably don't care because they know there's no way to track violations and even if they're found there's no recourse.

If people are going to do whatever they want with my images I may as well be getting hundreds of dollars not a handful.

What a mess.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2014, 09:00 by PaulieWalnuts »

« Reply #9 on: September 18, 2014, 09:06 »
+5
"Deborah Dorchak - Also, the larger images sizes made no difference to me. I have a plugin on my Photoshop that allows me to blow up an image to any size without losing the resolution. I saved a lot of money over the years buying 1 credit images and then blowing them up as needed."

thanks for the laugh Deborah ;D

ShadySue

« Reply #10 on: September 18, 2014, 09:09 »
+1
Customers aren't happy? Should contributors be happy with getting peanuts from customers like this?

"Deborah Dorchak - Also, the larger images sizes made no difference to me. I have a plugin on my Photoshop that allows me to blow up an image to any size without losing the resolution. I saved a lot of money over the years buying 1 credit images and then blowing them up as needed."

At least she was honest enough to lose any sympathy she might have got on her previous post.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2014, 09:19 by ShadySue »

« Reply #11 on: September 18, 2014, 09:16 »
+4
"Deborah Dorchak - Also, the larger images sizes made no difference to me. I have a plugin on my Photoshop that allows me to blow up an image to any size without losing the resolution. I saved a lot of money over the years buying 1 credit images and then blowing them up as needed."

thanks for the laugh Deborah ;D

Obviously, they're not going to be the quality she thinks they are, but there's nothing that says she can't modify the image as needed.  There's no licensing terms that say an image has to be used at or below the size licensed.

« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2014, 09:29 »
+2
there is a new post by BlueLevel, an ex-customer, looks like it's already blocked....they're just censoring evidences

Uncle Pete

« Reply #13 on: September 18, 2014, 10:01 »
+7
You see this is part of their plan. Keep moving the target and make everyone unhappy with some new hairbrain scheme.

My only hope is, that next September for the change of the year, they will decide that Money will replace credits. Maybe you'll find some happy people on both sides, buyers and artists.

ShadySue "They're not 'trying' to hide something, it's deliberately obfuscatory." I think that covers it. Seems like every time we get one of these exciting improvements, it's a cover-up of what really happened. (let me make it clear, lower commissions for most artists)

And with the RC, the levels changes, commission cuts, the many other additions or changes, it just looks like clowns at the circus, running into each other, pretending to put out a fire, as they they only fan the flames.

Hey IS, you need to step back and see how you've taken the biggest agency in the world and made it into a slapstick comedy. Sorry, another wave of futility and fruitless changes. Someone needs to take control and look at the buyers and what they need and want, not what IS can conjure up to trick them or some slight of hand adjustments.


If any of you are curious as to what customers think of the latest changes, look no further than IS's FB page. What a train wreck. I was cautiously optimistic about these changes, but after reading many of the comments, that optimism is gone. Nice going Getty. You've just about killed off iStock.

https://www.facebook.com/istock

« Reply #14 on: September 18, 2014, 10:14 »
+1
"Deborah Dorchak - Also, the larger images sizes made no difference to me. I have a plugin on my Photoshop that allows me to blow up an image to any size without losing the resolution. I saved a lot of money over the years buying 1 credit images and then blowing them up as needed."

thanks for the laugh Deborah ;D

Obviously, they're not going to be the quality she thinks they are, but there's nothing that says she can't modify the image as needed.  There's no licensing terms that say an image has to be used at or below the size licensed.

Actually, she's technically correct. She isn't GAINING any resolution but she isn't losing any, either. In practical terms there is also something to be said for her position, since a good 6MP image will produce a respectable 30x20 inch print (100ppi is still pretty sharp) and from there on the more you blow it up the further back you have to stand to see it, so the image degradation isn't likely to be a big problem.

« Reply #15 on: September 18, 2014, 10:23 »
+3
"Deborah Dorchak - Also, the larger images sizes made no difference to me. I have a plugin on my Photoshop that allows me to blow up an image to any size without losing the resolution. I saved a lot of money over the years buying 1 credit images and then blowing them up as needed."

thanks for the laugh Deborah ;D

Obviously, they're not going to be the quality she thinks they are, but there's nothing that says she can't modify the image as needed.  There's no licensing terms that say an image has to be used at or below the size licensed.

Actually, she's technically correct. She isn't GAINING any resolution but she isn't losing any, either. In practical terms there is also something to be said for her position, since a good 6MP image will produce a respectable 30x20 inch print (100ppi is still pretty sharp) and from there on the more you blow it up the further back you have to stand to see it, so the image degradation isn't likely to be a big problem.
An image can be up-resed a fair amount before it starts to fall apart. As for "saving" money? You got to be kidding. Images are one of cheapest, highest value items they can buy.

« Reply #16 on: September 18, 2014, 10:40 »
+4
An image can be up-resed a fair amount before it starts to fall apart. As for "saving" money? You got to be kidding. Images are one of cheapest, highest value items they can buy.


Hmmm, now any size is 1 or 3 credits, who cares. God bless me for the right decision 2 years ago.

« Reply #17 on: September 18, 2014, 10:45 »
+1
I also don't like the credits from a customer standpoint. It's like they're trying to hide something.
They're not 'trying' to hide something, it's deliberately obfuscatory.

Credit packs, like subscriptions, make good practical sense in most user cases. The people using the pictures are very often not going to have permanent hands-on use of the company plastic.

Maybe there is still a case for a credit pack which addresses the needs of people who only need occasional web sized images. Only the people analysing the company numbers know how much that business is still worth today. My guess would be that most people requiring large amounts of web images are going to be better served by subscription.

As always, I doubt that social media noise is a representative cross section of actual opinion and sentiment.

Valo

« Reply #18 on: September 18, 2014, 11:03 »
+8
Those people on Facebook is exactly the market they will lose. Big company designers wont be complaining on Facebook.

A) They got the better deal
B) Its not their money they need to spend

Subscriptions is not a solution for those people either for the same reason, they don't budget 799 dollar, or whatever, for a subscription, and they don't need that many images.

Istock made a choice to cut off these customers, why is anybody's guess.

« Reply #19 on: September 18, 2014, 11:10 »
+4
Istock made a choice to cut off these customers, why is anybody's guess.
To compete against Shutterstock, it's clear.  Shutterstock is advertising that they always had every size image at the same price, now it's not an advantage for them.  Both companies now see that as the most profitable way to do business.  I'm glad they aren't trying to compete with the likes of DPC.

« Reply #20 on: September 18, 2014, 11:13 »
+3
Yep, people discussing going over to DPC :-(

To their credit, DPC has been doing a nice job of responding to disgruntled iStock customers on Twitter and inviting them over to try DPC. Maybe we need to invite some of these customers to try better options if they are intent on leaving iStock.

« Reply #21 on: September 18, 2014, 11:16 »
+1
To their credit, DPC has been doing a nice job of responding to disgruntled iStock customers on Twitter and inviting them over to try DPC.

That's cheap of them.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #22 on: September 18, 2014, 11:59 »
+1
Istock made a choice to cut off these customers, why is anybody's guess.
To compete against Shutterstock, it's clear.  Shutterstock is advertising that they always had every size image at the same price, now it's not an advantage for them.  Both companies now see that as the most profitable way to do business.  I'm glad they aren't trying to compete with the likes of DPC.

I hope iS gain traction with this and wake up the other micros. They are now competing on a level playing field with the advantage of selling into a higher end collection (which none of the other micros do particularly successfully) and mirroring over at Getty.

In recent years its gone way too far down the road of making images almost worthless.

« Reply #23 on: September 18, 2014, 12:09 »
+7
It's not really a "higher end" collection, though.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #24 on: September 18, 2014, 12:53 »
0
It's not really a "higher end" collection, though.

True its a mixed bag as it is, whether they sort it into a curated collection to make sense of the pricing and give them a proper edge remains to be seen.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
28 Replies
10925 Views
Last post October 26, 2008, 22:19
by louoates
13 Replies
2429 Views
Last post November 28, 2011, 20:33
by Pixart
19 Replies
4723 Views
Last post February 16, 2017, 07:48
by skysense
13 Replies
1996 Views
Last post March 29, 2017, 16:44
by Zalee
1 Replies
599 Views
Last post August 12, 2019, 14:29
by SuperPhoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results