MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStockphoto Relaunch Sept. 17, 2013  (Read 15755 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

« Reply #75 on: September 17, 2013, 03:10 »
+1
Maybe it was just put on there to get creatives to talk about what the meaning of the period is.  Seems like a brilliant move if this forum is representative of the buyers iStock. is trying to attract.
Yeah, great move.
Get people talking about the meaning of your dots rather than buying images.
The TM could have gone into the dot after the word if they felt it was needed to balance the dot on the i. Coming before the word is just messy. IMO.


« Reply #76 on: September 17, 2013, 05:49 »
0
Rebranding isn't just a new logo.


It appears to be, though.

Boy, it sure looks terrible as a watermark:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=65435&page=3833#post6938112
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 05:51 by Sean Locke Photography »

« Reply #77 on: September 17, 2013, 05:53 »
0
Did they do this to go along with SS "iStuck." Ad?  Sorry couldn't help the logo is good :-)

« Reply #78 on: September 17, 2013, 07:26 »
+2
Rebranding isn't just a new logo.

You know that, I know that, but I doubt Getty knows that.  they have fumbled the ball so many times that it is perfectly logical to think that their interpretation of re-branding is merely changing the logo.

Shelma1

« Reply #79 on: September 17, 2013, 08:16 »
+3
I think the period at the end of the logo is meant to represent a bug.

After all, now that they've "relaunched" the site is even more full of them.

« Reply #80 on: September 17, 2013, 08:36 »
+1
I can't believe Getty would do anything that would divert buyers away from the high prices of the mothership.

I believe they're forced to make this step, they have access to real time sales data that will be never available to the public, we'll never know what's really going on at Getty but using reverse engineering we can get a rough idea.

If they're pushing iStock ahead of their own RF collection, it must be the signal that their own RF sales are tanking and they're making more net profits with iStock.

If that's true the natural next step could be a merge between their collections and istock, or they will just do more trial and error to see what sticks on the wall and then merge anyways.

Another option, that would better explain the new branding, is they're planning to sell istock or to make it a public company to compete directly with SS.




ShadySue

« Reply #82 on: September 17, 2013, 08:46 »
0
What does "design-crush" mean?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151602794895825&set=a.433147720824.200423.20425620824&type=1&theater

It'll be a spin on the neologism 'girl-crush', which is used nowadays if you're a heterosexual female but think some other woman is goodlooking.

EmberMike

« Reply #83 on: September 17, 2013, 08:51 »
+2
I wonder how much the logo cost them. I'll bet it wasn't cheap even though it could have been produced by the office junior.

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.

« Reply #84 on: September 17, 2013, 08:57 »
+3
Silly me. I'd hoped the rebrand might include a turbo charged site performance to go with the slick new font - but no.

Someone should have pointed out a new paint job does not make the wheels go faster or provide for a more refined driving experience.

« Reply #85 on: September 17, 2013, 09:14 »
0
What does "design-crush" mean?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151602794895825&set=a.433147720824.200423.20425620824&type=1&theater

It'll be a spin on the neologism 'girl-crush', which is used nowadays if you're a heterosexual female but think some other woman is goodlooking.

How trendy.

« Reply #86 on: September 17, 2013, 09:22 »
+6
What does "design-crush" mean?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151602794895825&set=a.433147720824.200423.20425620824&type=1&theater

It'll be a spin on the neologism 'girl-crush', which is used nowadays if you're a heterosexual female but think some other woman is goodlooking.

How trendy.


What they deserve is a ball-crush.

EmberMike

« Reply #87 on: September 17, 2013, 09:31 »
+3

Anyone else think they should have left any mention of Getty out of the logo? If they're looking to rebrand and ditch the perception that they are overpriced (I'm assuming that's part of this since they made an effort to lower prices and let buyers know about it), why tie in to Getty so clearly, when Getty is known among designers as a more expensive option?

travelwitness

« Reply #88 on: September 17, 2013, 09:48 »
0

Anyone else think they should have left any mention of Getty out of the logo? If they're looking to rebrand and ditch the perception that they are overpriced (I'm assuming that's part of this since they made an effort to lower prices and let buyers know about it), why tie in to Getty so clearly, when Getty is known among designers as a more expensive option?

I have a friend who is marketing manager at a large firm and he refers to Getty as a 'proper stock house', they use iStock for filler shots. SS and the like are not even on the radar for these places as they won't risk anything going awry with their ad campaigns.

Blue Chip companies have tons of regulations they have to follow, higher priced agencies have perceived legal protection for purchased images.

It won't do them any harm.

tab62

« Reply #89 on: September 17, 2013, 09:50 »
+2
just made $.20 cents today thus the new logo is working!  ;)



« Reply #90 on: September 17, 2013, 09:50 »
+2
The 503 page I've been getting for the last 10 minutes still has the old logo  ;D

« Reply #91 on: September 17, 2013, 09:58 »
0
TNW (The Next Web)

The image used is credited to Shutterstock. Alongside a de facto advert for Shutterstock which reads "We would like to thank our partner Shutterstock for graciously covering all costs for this article and keeping it #AdFree". Which obviously it isn't.

Ron

« Reply #92 on: September 17, 2013, 10:01 »
0
I wonder how much the logo cost them. I'll bet it wasn't cheap even though it could have been produced by the office junior.

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 cant find it back but I remember watching a talk show on TV about the Windows 7 orb logo start button design, that it took them two years to design it. Point is, creating a logo can be a very long process for big companies. I am not a graphic designer, but that is my understanding.

« Reply #93 on: September 17, 2013, 10:09 »
+2
Point is, creating a logo can be a very long process for big companies. I am not a graphic designer, but that is my understanding.

It's not making the thing that takes a long time, it's all the committee meetings and referrals and everybody having to tweak something to try to show that they are actually worth the salaries they get paid (not to mention then referring it up to somebody else in order to shift the blame if anything goes wrong later on). I've seen it in action. It's basically corporate time-wasting.

« Reply #94 on: September 17, 2013, 10:13 »
+1

Anyone else think they should have left any mention of Getty out of the logo? If they're looking to rebrand and ditch the perception that they are overpriced (I'm assuming that's part of this since they made an effort to lower prices and let buyers know about it), why tie in to Getty so clearly, when Getty is known among designers as a more expensive option?

It also doesn't look very good when squeezed down to a tiny icon in the top left of the site pages.  Do "logos" really have statements like "by Getty Images" as part?

« Reply #95 on: September 17, 2013, 10:15 »
0
I suppose that technically it isn't a logo, it's a trademark, since it has the invisible TM at the beginning of it.

« Reply #96 on: September 17, 2013, 10:18 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 10:01 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #97 on: September 17, 2013, 10:45 »
-1
At least the iStock un-logo simply says who they are and who they are part of. Perhaps in time they will be able to further simplify and de-brandify it.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 11:42 by bhr »

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #98 on: September 17, 2013, 12:05 »
0
Or the period is a smudged trademark symbol because they laid down too much ink on the screen.

I think the period balances out the dot on the i in the front.
perhaps also subtly tries to imply that you don't have to look any farther for what you are looking for.  istock - period.

Harvepino

« Reply #99 on: September 17, 2013, 12:49 »
+3
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  ::)


 

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
7395 Views
Last post October 03, 2007, 10:23
by Karimala
23 Replies
6894 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