MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStockphoto Relaunch Sept. 17, 2013  (Read 15750 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: September 20, 2013, 16:25 »
-2
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:50 by Audi 5000 »


mlwinphoto

« Reply #126 on: September 20, 2013, 18:23 »
+4
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
It seems coherent to me, changes to compete better with Shutterstock.  Shutterstock has many millions more files than Thinkstock and they want to close that gap.  Exclusives could already upload as many as they liked (pretty much, I'm sure there was an exception or two but over a year probably not many) so the change really only allowed nonexclusives to upload more.  Those images go straight to the Partner Program (at least they are supposed to), upload limits had limited how fast Thinkstock could grow and with the subscription model you need a large volume of new files.

If they want to compete better with SS by amassing a large volume of files then why are they now preventing exclusives from participating in the PP?   And, why aren't they transferring existing files over to the PP at a faster clip (I have 86 of 519 transferred).  Yes, they have done away with upload limits and quality standards so independents can now flood iS with files to be transferred over to the PP but at the same time they have diminished the desire of nons to upload anything by cutting our file prices and paying out an insulting royalty percentage. 
You may be right in that they want to be more competitive with SS but they don't seem competent enough to be able to do so.

« Reply #127 on: September 20, 2013, 18:39 »
+4
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
It seems coherent to me, changes to compete better with Shutterstock.  Shutterstock has many millions more files than Thinkstock and they want to close that gap.  Exclusives could already upload as many as they liked (pretty much, I'm sure there was an exception or two but over a year probably not many) so the change really only allowed nonexclusives to upload more.  Those images go straight to the Partner Program (at least they are supposed to), upload limits had limited how fast Thinkstock could grow and with the subscription model you need a large volume of new files.

Istock are still f*^ked IMHO. With their buggy, slow site which takes forever to do anything (it doesn't work at all with IE8 for example) then price pretty much becomes irrelevant. They won't be getting any new content from the independent contributors that actually matter either. It'll be a slow death ... but the writing is already on the wall and the situation is virtually irreversible.

They've massively reduced prices for Main Collection, which has significantly increased volume for independent contributors ... whilst also reducing their (and Istock's) revenue by 40% ... and that volume increase for independents has to be impacting exclusives' sales and income. Guess what's going to happen next?

Looks to me like Yuri has hitched his horse to the wrong cart at the worst possible moment. "PDWP"

« Reply #128 on: September 20, 2013, 19:24 »
+3
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:50 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #129 on: September 20, 2013, 19:29 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:49 by Audi 5000 »

mlwinphoto

« Reply #130 on: September 20, 2013, 19:31 »
+1
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
It seems coherent to me, changes to compete better with Shutterstock.  Shutterstock has many millions more files than Thinkstock and they want to close that gap.  Exclusives could already upload as many as they liked (pretty much, I'm sure there was an exception or two but over a year probably not many) so the change really only allowed nonexclusives to upload more.  Those images go straight to the Partner Program (at least they are supposed to), upload limits had limited how fast Thinkstock could grow and with the subscription model you need a large volume of new files.

If they want to compete better with SS by amassing a large volume of files then why are they now preventing exclusives from participating in the PP?   And, why aren't they transferring existing files over to the PP at a faster clip (I have 86 of 519 transferred).  Yes, they have done away with upload limits and quality standards so independents can now flood iS with files to be transferred over to the PP but at the same time they have diminished the desire of nons to upload anything by cutting our file prices and paying out an insulting royalty percentage. 
You may be right in that they want to be more competitive with SS but they don't seem competent enough to be able to do so.
I'm glad they are preventing exclusives from being in the Partner Program, that is one of the best things I've heard from iStock. in a long time.  Subs devalue our work and I'm glad they made the change (I still wouldn't be surprised if Main collection exclusive content goes over there at some point, or some portion does). 
Can't tell you why they haven't made transferred your files over there, you were exclusive and maybe that has something to do with it, bad timing on your part?  I think new files are going over there aren't they?
I don't know if they've diminished the desire of nons, it looks like a lot of files are still being uploaded.  Not as much as when it was first changed but still more than prior to the change.

Thing is they didn't prevent exclusives from being in the PP, just from contributing new images to it;  exclusive images that were in the PP at the time the change was made are allowed to remain there; kind of devalues the whole concept doesn't it?

« Reply #131 on: September 20, 2013, 19:35 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:49 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

« Reply #132 on: September 20, 2013, 19:43 »
+2
I think people that spent time picking and choosing which files to put in there would have been upset if they just took them out, it's a compromise solution that doesn't anger contributors too much.
That'll be a first!

« Reply #133 on: September 21, 2013, 01:52 »
+8
Gostwyck: "With their buggy, slow site which takes forever to do anything then price pretty much becomes irrelevant."

A lot of people don't like change, hence they will stay with a more expensive bank or utilities provider to avoid upheaval - or remain patrons of an expensive grocery store just for convenience.

However, as I've experienced in the IT industry when price is not a deal breaker, not being valued and having your time wasted most certainly is. Site performance should have been much higher on their To Do List.

« Reply #134 on: September 21, 2013, 06:05 »
+6
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
It seems coherent to me, changes to compete better with Shutterstock.  Shutterstock has many millions more files than Thinkstock and they want to close that gap.  Exclusives could already upload as many as they liked (pretty much, I'm sure there was an exception or two but over a year probably not many) so the change really only allowed nonexclusives to upload more.  Those images go straight to the Partner Program (at least they are supposed to), upload limits had limited how fast Thinkstock could grow and with the subscription model you need a large volume of new files.
The problem is that Shutterstock have standards, by accepting virtually every upload, Thinkstock is going to get filled with low commercial value junk.  I think that's more likely to send buyers to Shutterstock.  When you also take in to account the fact that a lot of the best independents aren't uploading to istock anymore but will carry on supplying Shutterstock, the difference in the quality of the collections is just going to increase.

So Thinkstock will end up like alamy, a massive collection of mostly low commercial value images.  Earnings are likely to get severely diluted, as that has happened with all the other sites that have had a huge increase in the collection size.  At least with alamy, the occasional sale makes them just about worth using.  I don't think the tedious isock upload is going to be worth it for a decreasing amount of Thinkstock subs commissions.

« Reply #135 on: September 23, 2013, 09:02 »
+1
(whisper)Professionals Deal With Professionals(/whisper)
https://twitter.com/iStock/status/382142388661002240/photo/1

ShadySue

« Reply #136 on: September 23, 2013, 19:13 »
0
Indeed. I know so little about Twitter that I can't get the link bwlow to work, but they posted there 36m ago: "Heads up! We've scheduled some site work at around 8 pm (Mountain) / 10 pm (Eastern). The outage should last about 30 - 60 minutes."

No mention of it on the Announcements page. I hope they emailed existing buyers - I know I'm not the only boring old person who doesn't like Twitter.

« Reply #137 on: September 23, 2013, 20:32 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:47 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

« Reply #138 on: September 24, 2013, 03:06 »
0
Indeed. I know so little about Twitter that I can't get the link bwlow to work, but they posted there 36m ago: "Heads up! We've scheduled some site work at around 8 pm (Mountain) / 10 pm (Eastern). The outage should last about 30 - 60 minutes."

No mention of it on the Announcements page. I hope they emailed existing buyers - I know I'm not the only boring old person who doesn't like Twitter.
I got an email telling me there is going to be an outage, maybe check your spam folder?
I do have it now; it was timed about an hour after the Twitter post (after I'd gone to bed).

« Reply #139 on: September 24, 2013, 15:54 »
0
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
It seems coherent to me, changes to compete better with Shutterstock.  Shutterstock has many millions more files than Thinkstock and they want to close that gap.  Exclusives could already upload as many as they liked (pretty much, I'm sure there was an exception or two but over a year probably not many) so the change really only allowed nonexclusives to upload more.  Those images go straight to the Partner Program (at least they are supposed to), upload limits had limited how fast Thinkstock could grow and with the subscription model you need a large volume of new files.
The problem is that Shutterstock have standards, by accepting virtually every upload, Thinkstock is going to get filled with low commercial value junk.  I think that's more likely to send buyers to Shutterstock.  When you also take in to account the fact that a lot of the best independents aren't uploading to istock anymore but will carry on supplying Shutterstock, the difference in the quality of the collections is just going to increase.

So Thinkstock will end up like alamy, a massive collection of mostly low commercial value images.  Earnings are likely to get severely diluted, as that has happened with all the other sites that have had a huge increase in the collection size.  At least with alamy, the occasional sale makes them just about worth using.  I don't think the tedious isock upload is going to be worth it for a decreasing amount of Thinkstock subs commissions.
100% agree.  What has happened there is tantamount to vandalism.  None of this has any impact on me personally but I get really annoyed to see such poor decision making, followed up by poorer execution and everyone, contributors, staff and shareholders all lose out.

« Reply #140 on: November 02, 2013, 11:48 »
+3
I've just notice that they scrapped the new logo that they paid an agency to design for them. So much for the massive effort spent in putting together a new brand. For those who missed it, the original new logo had the letters tm appearing as a dot in front of iStock. so it looked like .iStock.   The TM has now been shifted (in a more legible form) to the end of the second line.
The revision does look better but it's not very impressive that they go through the entire redesign process, no doubt with lots of corporate signing-off on the design, launch the thing and then quietly rejig it because it wasn't very good.

« Reply #141 on: November 02, 2013, 11:54 »
0
Hee hee.

« Reply #142 on: November 02, 2013, 14:44 »
+1
If you look at this article, the logo redesign included a version without the TM, so they haven't really scrapped the work he did:

http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logo_for_istock_by_build.php#.UnVT_5TF36A

Although lots of the press about the new logo included only the version with the oddly placed TM

http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/graphic-design/istockphoto-gets-new-logo-name/

I find most of their fiddling with the look of the site to be half-baked. They have the black of the new logo area and some dark blue-greens from the previous look, some turquoise from who knows where. For a site that's about visual things, it's a shame it looks so designed-by-committee

lisafx

« Reply #143 on: November 02, 2013, 15:18 »
+3

I find most of their fiddling with the look of the site to be half-baked. They have the black of the new logo area and some dark blue-greens from the previous look, some turquoise from who knows where. For a site that's about visual things, it's a shame it looks so designed-by-committee

Well, to quote one of Gostwyck's favorite similies, it's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. 

« Reply #144 on: November 02, 2013, 15:19 »
0
Not really, Jo Ann. The Brand link show's the word iStock. but only as an element, not as a finished logo. The finished logo was the one with the "oddly placed TM" and the "by Getty Images", and that is the one that Lobo posted emblazon on a photo in the iStock thread as an example, it wasn't just external sites that were displayed it. Nobody at that time or since (to my knowledge) has shown the current one as an alternative option. It just appeared.


 

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