MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStockphoto Relaunch Sept. 17, 2013  (Read 15749 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



ShadySue

« Reply #101 on: September 17, 2013, 13:55 »
0
http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/graphic-design/istockphoto-gets-new-logo-name/

"The push to make iStock appear to offer a more premium service"
and on the same page:
"iStock price cut sees 50% off half of its stock images".
 ::)

Ooooh, and thinly-veiled criticism, "appear to offer ..."

« Reply #102 on: September 17, 2013, 14:35 »
0
That stuff drives me crazy. I have to argue with clients to get decent money for a logo, meanwhile these companies happily spend 6 or 7 figures on logos that look like they took 20 minutes to come up with. The new Colorado logo comes to mind, too.

i could be wrong but they just used the Sans-Serif version of the Getty Company Font !

p.s.
it's not how long it takes to draw or invent a logo, it's the utter importance that a logo has for a company that matters.

there's whole science behind logos especially for IT companies, look at the logos of Lenovo, HP, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, they all give a straight clear message, they're clear, simple, professional, and much more.

now look at Google instead, what the F ?? or the new Yahoo logo, even worse.

« Reply #103 on: September 17, 2013, 14:38 »
0
Reminds me of my old days in a marketing agency. Client approached us troubled with long-term declining sales, loss on the balance sheet, unable to keep up with competing products. After months of talks our dept came up with solution "You need a new logo!"

Looking back, if they invested in better products rather then new logo, maybe they wouldn't go bust so fast  ::)

they're right, a new logo means the company did a U turn and an internal re-org and is planning new products and acknowledge they've to change.

of course if the only things they do is a new logo and new company fonts and company colors they will just crash and burn like any others.

ShadySue

« Reply #104 on: September 17, 2013, 14:40 »
0
Newsletter:
"On September 18th, we will be temporarily disabling the upload functionality on the site to work on some customer-focused promotions. Uploads will be disabled from 7am MDT, and will last for approximately 6-8 hours. Please note that the inspection of your files will continue, only the upload functionality will be disabled. "

Also - and discussed http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=356310&page=1#post6938320
twitter.com/istockneed  Lovingly created needs. Fresh from the customer - Straight to your shootlist
So, far from being an exclusive 'perk', this is going out to all comers on Twitter.
H*ll, I'm forcing myself to get on with Fb, but Twitter is a step too far.

From the forum annoucement:
"The Tweets will not replace the Creative Briefings or the Shoot Planning service that we offer Exclusive artists. This is extra!"

That's surprising: the last Creative Briefing that I can see was on 3rd April.
Looks like another 'perk' of exclusivity has gone.

« Reply #105 on: September 17, 2013, 14:55 »
+3
Yep, free ideas for everyone!  Auto parts! Hip mom!

« Reply #106 on: September 17, 2013, 16:08 »
+2
What astonishes me is the overwhelming positive reaction in the forum over there (between tasks at work at the moment and so bored I was reading them).  The structure is collapsing and the solution appears to be to hang a new sign on the door????

« Reply #107 on: September 17, 2013, 16:39 »
+1
What astonishes me is the overwhelming positive reaction in the forum over there (between tasks at work at the moment and so bored I was reading them).  The structure is collapsing and the solution appears to be to hang a new sign on the door????


George Orwell would have called it "Doublethink"

« Reply #108 on: September 17, 2013, 16:41 »
+2
What astonishes me is the overwhelming positive reaction in the forum over there (between tasks at work at the moment and so bored I was reading them).  The structure is collapsing and the solution appears to be to hang a new sign on the door????

maybe the only ones still writing in that forum are fresh newbies.

ShadySue

« Reply #109 on: September 17, 2013, 16:47 »
0
What astonishes me is the overwhelming positive reaction in the forum over there (between tasks at work at the moment and so bored I was reading them).  The structure is collapsing and the solution appears to be to hang a new sign on the door????

maybe the only ones still writing in that forum are fresh newbies.
Not quite, but presumably they are those (at whatever level) for whom iS is still doing well.
They'd probably be equally astonished at what is said here.

« Reply #110 on: September 17, 2013, 17:02 »
-1
Not quite, but presumably they are those (at whatever level) for whom iS is still doing well.
They'd probably be equally astonished at what is said here.

in that case they're not doing their homework and they deserve to be scre-wed by istock.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #111 on: September 20, 2013, 10:40 »
0
Well rebranding does have its advantages. If the old brand doesn't convey a good message anymore, a new look, logo and website design may spark renewed interest from potential buyers.

I don't dislike the logo per se, but I've yet to notice increasing sales.

« Reply #112 on: September 20, 2013, 10:51 »
0
This change is so incremental you would hardly notice it - a re-branding needs to go with some change in the business or it means nothing

ShadySue

« Reply #113 on: September 20, 2013, 10:57 »
+1
This change is so incremental you would hardly notice it - a re-branding needs to go with some change in the business or it means nothing

You'd think at the very least that when there, you'd actually be on a site called istock.com, which domain name they own.

Also if it had been me, I'd have got the site working better and faster first, then put the rebrand on top.
BTW, anyone notice the improved customer functionality they stopped uploads and edits for? Here it's still running dead slow and it's quite hard to actually get onto a file's page.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2013, 11:02 by ShadySue »

« Reply #114 on: September 20, 2013, 11:01 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:51 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #115 on: September 20, 2013, 11:10 »
+6
They need to do something quick - I've never known a September as bad as this one.

« Reply #116 on: September 20, 2013, 12:18 »
+2
"There has been a considerable amount of change already."

Yep before the "rebrand" looks like panic to me

« Reply #117 on: September 20, 2013, 12:57 »
+6
They ruined the brand by making too many changes, now they're trying to fix it by making more changes.  So many changes demotivated contributors or sent buyers to other sites.  I don't think any amount of turd polishing is going to fix that.

The way to fix istock is to go back to how it was when most contributors and buyers were happy but that's far to simple for people that have made such a mess over the past few years.

« Reply #118 on: September 20, 2013, 13:26 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:51 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #119 on: September 20, 2013, 14:41 »
+2
...iStock. lowered the price of a full sized image to almost exactly the same price as Shutterstock licenses single images.  It doesn't seem like a panic or coincidence, it was probably inevitable.  When all the sites have the exact same images with basically the exact same licensing terms the most effective way to compete is on price.

I don't know what Shutterstock you're looking at, but the US version sells 2 "full sized" images for $29 on demand. For iStock, for an XXXL main collection image you pay $31 - for one image. They're offering larger credit bundles than before, so you just can't buy an image or two inexpensively at iStock even after the price cut.

They can bleat about 7 credits all they want, but you can't buy 7 credits. If you plunk down $50 for 30 credits you can do better than $31 for that image, but you still have to spend $50 up front.

They aren't competing on price, with Shutterstock or just about anywhere else. I'm not sure if they did it would matter given how slow the site is and the various other extant bugs, but don't delude yourself that they've really eliminated consideration of the competition with their recent changes.

« Reply #120 on: September 20, 2013, 14:50 »
-1
... and if you want one image for 14.5 at SS, and you just need this image, you have to buy two and spend 29. At least, remaining credits can be used in the future, in the moment when you really need more images.



« Reply #121 on: September 20, 2013, 14:58 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:51 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #122 on: September 20, 2013, 15:22 »
0
...iStock. lowered the price of a full sized image to almost exactly the same price as Shutterstock licenses single images.  It doesn't seem like a panic or coincidence, it was probably inevitable.  When all the sites have the exact same images with basically the exact same licensing terms the most effective way to compete is on price.


I don't know what Shutterstock you're looking at, but the US version sells 2 "full sized" images for $29 on demand. For iStock, for an XXXL main collection image you pay $31 - for one image. They're offering larger credit bundles than before, so you just can't buy an image or two inexpensively at iStock even after the price cut.

They can bleat about 7 credits all they want, but you can't buy 7 credits. If you plunk down $50 for 30 credits you can do better than $31 for that image, but you still have to spend $50 up front.

They aren't competing on price, with Shutterstock or just about anywhere else. I'm not sure if they did it would matter given how slow the site is and the various other extant bugs, but don't delude yourself that they've really eliminated consideration of the competition with their recent changes.

I'm looking at the Shutterstock that licenses 5 images for $49, http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml?pos=topright that's the default amount that's checked off.  I'm not sure what you mean about eliminating consideration of the competition?  They are making the pricing more inline with other sites (namely Shutterstock) so there isn't a huge pricing incentive to go to elsewhere, trying to eliminate the competition by lowering the price would be difficult to do, Canstock has pretty much locked up the lowest possible pricing ($2.50 for full sized images).

« Reply #123 on: September 20, 2013, 15:36 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:51 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #124 on: September 20, 2013, 16:16 »
+3
I don't think its one thing eg price changes that signifies panic its the sheer number of half arsed changes that don't seem to have a coherent pattern - e.g now accepting almost anything. Yes the "relaunch" needs some significant change at the same time and some kind of strategy framework where the changes fit in


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
1799 Views
Last post September 14, 2007, 17:49
by madelaide
Sept at LO

Started by madelaide « 1 2  All » LuckyOliver.com

39 Replies
7393 Views
Last post October 03, 2007, 10:23
by Karimala
23 Replies
6891 Views
Last post December 14, 2011, 10:09
by click_click
1 Replies
1974 Views
Last post March 21, 2013, 10:13
by Mostphotos Support
4 Replies
1230 Views
Last post September 16, 2013, 15:11
by leaf

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results