MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: wiser on September 16, 2013, 14:06
-
fasten your seat belts, it's gonna be a bumpy ride..... :D
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/09/16/getty-images-develops-campaign-promote-royalty-free-picture-library-istock-rebrand (http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/09/16/getty-images-develops-campaign-promote-royalty-free-picture-library-istock-rebrand)
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=356284&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=356284&page=1)
-
/
-
yeah but it's not in the istock section, its in the general section.
Can you suggest a better title, as you are such a know it all. Any recommendation is welcome.
-
/
-
A bit scary since it's an opportunity to introduce a bunch of changes...not necessarily in favor of the contributors.
-
iStockphoto Relaunch Sept. 17, 2013 or maybe just iStock since it looks like they are dropping the 'photo'
your wish is my command.
-
There are propably about 1,000,000 posts on the internet that are anti-iStock. By changing the name they will wash away all the bad stuff. Clever.
-
I'm probably hoping for ***WAY*** to much now... but what if the new site doesn't just have a new look, but also a brand new and modern back-end instead of that ten year old mess of spaghetti code the site is built on at the moment. Imagine a new iStock where it doesn't take three minutes to reach the upload page or five seconds for the loupe images to load. If that's the case I may cry of happiness the whole day tomorrow... maybe even buy myself a little treat and celebrate.
-
/
-
Looks like they're building it around the lie of "only on istock" content. From the ad images on that page.
-
Big changes in September.
Will they even be able to manage the IT correctly?
I'm sure it'll be bad news for small contributors; but it's been bad for us for a while now.
Whatever.
-
Note the tag - "iStock by Getty Images" ... Looks like a move towards assimilation.
-
Note the tag - "iStock by Getty Images" ... Looks like a move towards assimilation.
yeah, that is the first thing I noticed. THis is probably the legal solution to the "only at istock" lie.
BTW Mr. Locke, I enjoyed reading your blog entry re: Exclusivity??? at istock. Times they are a changin'.
-
/
-
OMG ... they're changing the name on the front page! The site will probably have outages for weeks afterwards if history is anything to go by. This is very ambitious territory for developers in Calgary.
-
BTW aren't they getting rid of the "only from istock" tag?
To make an "only from istock" search filter button. Which they already have. The exclusive filter button.
-
Oops! The forum thread went poof! No ruining surprises there, lol.
-
I wish them well for everyone's sake.
I've a deep mistrust of rebranding as it often looks like someone decided a t*rd might not look like a t*rd if you present it in a nice box tied off with a pink ribbon.
-
I know buyers for billion dollar industries that buy Getty images because they trust them to be safe and even after telling them that Istock is owned by Getty they don't want to use Istock (or any other microstock image) because they worry if the rights are secured and the images are safe to use.
Probably because some Getty rep told them that iStock was unsafe, as reported often before.
-
Oops! The forum thread went poof! No ruining surprises there, lol.
H*ll, it was locked, then ten minutes later it was disappeared.
Touchy, touchy; and the news is already out anyway.
-
Oops! The forum thread went poof! No ruining surprises there, lol.
¨
Maybe they noticed that the new site is slow and buggy, and they've decided to cancel the whole thing. ;) That's usually what happens over there.
Seriously though... since I'm still exclusive (very close to leaving it) I'm really hoping for some good news.
-
Note the tag - "iStock by Getty Images" ... Looks like a move towards assimilation.
That might be a good thing for Istock depending what changes. I know buyers for billion dollar industries that buy Getty images because they trust them to be safe and even after telling them that Istock is owned by Getty they don't want to use Istock (or any other microstock image) because they worry if the rights are secured and the images are safe to use. Having Getty's name on there could be reassuring for some major buyers.
BTW aren't they getting rid of the "only from istock" tag?
I can't believe Getty would do anything that would divert buyers away from the high prices of the mothership.
-
/
-
Was there any more information in this disappearing post?
-
/
-
Their Facebook profile just changed..
-
Well, I guess this is their answer for the "search problems" they had with their 13 test subjects. My guess is they said enough is enough and pull the website from the hands of IT in Calgary and told them to adapt to this new design. Interesting who they hired to do this: "Build tasked with the logo design and campaign ethos, Steel developing the digital advertising campaign, Kepler Group handling media buying, Graphiti Associates on digital creative and the London and New York offices of Weber Shandwick developing the campaign concept, PR, social media, survey and infographic." That's five business working on this thing. Must of took a good chunk out of the $150 million credit Getty has to play with...
PS - I'm gonna guess that some of the "Getty 13" test subjects tried searching for images on istock and wound up reading the forums there instead. I wonder if they will change as well.
-
considering they are selling video, audio, and vectors - the name istockphoto was perhaps a little dated.
-
There are propably about 1,000,000 posts on the internet that are anti-iStock. By changing the name they will wash away all the bad stuff. Clever.
It's a common tactic. A major cable TV and Internet provider in the US (Comcast) was garnering a bad reputation for poor service and support so they changed their name to Xfinity. Same crappy service and support, just a new name.
It's work across various industries for ages, and Getty is betting that it will work for istock as well. Maybe it'll work and they can actually shake the negative market perceptions with a little rebranding.
-
Apparently they are just changing the logo, not the site: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=356290&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=356290&page=1)
-
I doubt if anybody will be confused by the official change from iStockphoto to iStock by Getty images. As Kelvin said, everybody has been calling it iStock for ages ... almost forever.
-
.
-
Apparently they are just changing the logo, not the site: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=356290&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=356290&page=1[/url])
What's the point of the period at the end? (no pun intended)
-
.
-
I still don't get it.
(https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1185950_10151601605200825_433517980_n.png)
The first one is a trademark symbol.
-
At least they own www.iStock.com (http://www.iStock.com) (although it doesn't load any faster than istockphoto.com :))
I'm sure the agencies paid to design all of this are happy, but I don't see any customer-focused anything that gets improved by a lick of paint on the front door.
They need to fix the slow broken things on the site, not design a new logo or slap fake hand-picked signs on batches of ingested Getty files.
-
At least they own [url=http://www.iStock.com]www.iStock.com[/url] ([url]http://www.iStock.com[/url]) (although it doesn't load any faster than istockphoto.com :))
I'm sure the agencies paid to design all of this are happy, but I don't see any customer-focused anything that gets improved by a lick of paint on the front door.
They need to fix the slow broken things on the site, not design a new logo or slap fake hand-picked signs on batches of ingested Getty files.
For me, istock just redirects to istockphoto.
-
.
-
Right. It does for me too.
I just wondered if they'd bought that domain or whether it was a porn site or Shutterstock had bought it or...
-
.
-
I'm sticking by my answer, it looks like a website with the dot in front of and behind 'istock'. But who knows, I don't get most logos. It's up on the website now.
I might buy that if they were trying to be clever and incorporate the TM like that, but the circles are different sizes, so obviously, the period doesn't relate.
-
Right. It does for me too.
I just wondered if they'd bought that domain or whether it was a porn site or Shutterstock had bought it or...
Looks like it's been redirecting to istockphoto.com for almost a decade.
Well, yes, but the point is, if you're now "iStock", then part of that "launch", should be to redirect to the domain of the same name. Not the old name. Sort of like the legal documents all say iStockphoto.
So, is it still iStockphoto, and they just chop off the "photo" bit for a logo graphic, or is it a company name change?
-
.
-
Apparently they are just changing the logo, not the site: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=356290&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=356290&page=1[/url])
What's the point of the period at the end? (no pun intended)
@ small size it looks like a period at the beginning and end of the logo.
If you are going to re brand at least do a passable job. This logo is bizarre.
-
Apparently they are just changing the logo, not the site: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=356290&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=356290&page=1[/url])
What's the point of the period at the end? (no pun intended)
I asked Sean's question on the iStock forum. We'll see.
-
.Bravo.
Wonder how many $M (coming out of our pockets) they paid for these changes?
-
.
-
Haha... I was hoping for a brand new, fast site. All I got was a new logo.
-
istock period end of story, no more istockphoto. it shows a clear break with the past.
I might buy that. But that will lose meaning over time.
-
Haha... I was hoping for a brand new, fast site. All I got was a new logo.
At least it's fast.
-
.
-
Haha... I was hoping for a brand new, fast site. All I got was a new logo.
At least it's fast.
At least it has got dots.
(Need to rebrand my avatar soon!)
-
so it's sort of like selling a 'Yugo' car under the Cadillac Brand name.... ;)
-
I guess the OP should change the title of this thread once again. ;)
"I was hoping for a better site and all I got was this lousy logo." or something like that.
-
considering they are selling video, audio, and vectors - the name istockphoto was perhaps a little dated.
how dated is fotolia then :D
-
Apparently they are just changing the logo, not the site: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=356290&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=356290&page=1[/url])
What's the point of the period at the end? (no pun intended)
www.iStock.com
An indication of their direction? A full stop.
-
The new logo sure hasn't helped my sales today.
-
.
-
The new logo sure hasn't helped my sales today.
Me too. The week has started almost as badly as last week ended.
-
istock period end of story, no more istockphoto. it shows a clear break with the past.
I might buy that. But that will lose meaning over time.
They might be trying to convey iStock "period" as if they are the only company "needed" or the only company "that matters".
-
istock period end of story, no more istockphoto. it shows a clear break with the past.
I might buy that. But that will lose meaning over time.
They might be trying to convey iStock "period" as if they are the only company "needed" or the only company "that matters".
That never occurred to me (a tad obscure), but I like your thinking. That would be a great agency pitch in the presentation of the new logo.
It also goes with the two ads. Giant white type on black background with periods at the end of full sentences.
-
I guess the OP should change the title of this thread once again. ;)
"I was hoping for a better site and all I got was this lousy logo." or something like that.
;D ;D
-
Ticking all the boxes here..
Lose the visionary guys who built it and replace with bean counters - check
Transform a really good product into something mediocre to poor - check
Don't worry about customer service - it's the new business that's important - check
Workforce and suppliers have no importance and don't impact the bottom line - check
Don't worry about the actual problems, let's re-brand - check
I worked for a couple of companies like this and have seen plenty others.
-
All I have to say is, "Show me the Money!"
-
I like it as the photo part was way to limiting and not inclusive of all that iStock offers, the Getty Images brand actually worries me because buyers will always equate Getty with $$$. Nothing earth shattering here but a good move
-
Apparently they are just changing the logo, not the site: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=356290&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=356290&page=1[/url])
What's the point of the period at the end? (no pun intended)
I actually like the new logo, but don't understand the period. Unnecessary.
-
I like it as the photo part was way to limiting and not inclusive of all that iStock offers, the Getty Images brand actually worries me because buyers will always equate Getty with $$$. Nothing earth shattering here but a good move
I have to wonder if adding the Getty name below gets istock one step closer to being absorbed as just another Getty Collection like all the other photo houses Getty has bought in the past. Their Hemera collection (previously known as StockXpert) being a prime example.
-
Here is how I would change it. This works better for ads and general promotion in communicating what they do for new customers and many may not know IS sells audio.
They can add the "by Getty Images" in the ads or text but let the logo stand alone. And kill the TM. Not needed and in the wrong place anyway.
The IS aqua for the "i" works well and makes the design more stylized.
The ads shown on that link are horrible. Is there a creative director in the house? Too much myopic thinking and assuming too much of the viewer. Most will just not get it.
Also if this is a new campaign launch, what is new? Give me reasons to want to buy from IS. What is presented as unique and different from the OLD iStockphoto we all know? They should talk about the unique "only from iStock" offering. Because all of the other microstock sites are just moving all the same content. There is no real inventory for them. Is the site faster? Easier to navigate? Better pricing? Don't give me just vague obscure meaningless headlines.
But at least Getty is making changes and I credit them for that. I would just like a little more refinement and cleaner thinking.
-
I wish them well for everyone's sake.
I've a deep mistrust of rebranding as it often looks like someone decided a t*rd might not look like a t*rd if you present it in a nice box tied off with a pink ribbon.
Ha! That's a good one. Reminds me of this cartoon I made recently:
(http://a.mp-farm.com/d/500x450.watermarks/5400000/5450008.jpg)
-
I'm certain I'm wrong, but I'd like to think of the 'period' on the iS logo as a sign of good faith to those who are in the Partners Program. As in, the Partners Program payouts should be like a regular menstrual cycle. Like, "I get my Partners Program payout on the 15th of every month, PERIOD." ;D ;D ;D
-
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.
-
.
-
So, a new logo is supposed to bring buyers back? Good luck with that......I hope it works, but I think buyers are smarter than that.
-
.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=65435&page=3833#post6938112)
-
Did they do this to go along with SS "iStuck." Ad? Sorry couldn't help the logo is good :-)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
What does "design-crush" mean?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151602794895825&set=a.433147720824.200423.20425620824&type=1&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151602794895825&set=a.433147720824.200423.20425620824&type=1&theater)
-
What does "design-crush" mean?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151602794895825&set=a.433147720824.200423.20425620824&type=1&theater (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
What does "design-crush" mean?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151602794895825&set=a.433147720824.200423.20425620824&type=1&theater (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 does "design-crush" mean?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151602794895825&set=a.433147720824.200423.20425620824&type=1&theater (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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
just made $.20 cents today thus the new logo is working! ;)
-
The 503 page I've been getting for the last 10 minutes still has the old logo ;D
-
TNW (The Next Web) (http://thenextweb.com/dd/2013/09/17/istockphoto-rebrands-as-istock-and-introduces-a-new-logo-featuring-getty/?fromcat=all)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
I suppose that technically it isn't a logo, it's a trademark, since it has the invisible TM at the beginning of it.
-
.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ::)
-
http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/graphic-design/istockphoto-gets-new-logo-name/ (http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/graphic-design/istockphoto-gets-new-logo-name/)
-
[url]http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/graphic-design/istockphoto-gets-new-logo-name/[/url] ([url]http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/graphic-design/istockphoto-gets-new-logo-name/[/url])
"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 ..."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yep, free ideas for everyone! Auto parts! Hip mom!
-
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????
-
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"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
.
-
They need to do something quick - I've never known a September as bad as this one.
-
"There has been a considerable amount of change already."
Yep before the "rebrand" looks like panic to me
-
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.
-
.
-
...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.
-
... 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.
-
.
-
...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, [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml?pos=topright[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml?pos=topright[/url]) 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).
-
.
-
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
-
.
-
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 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"
-
.
-
.
-
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?
-
.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
(whisper)Professionals Deal With Professionals(/whisper)
https://twitter.com/iStock/status/382142388661002240/photo/1
-
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.
-
.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hee hee.
-
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 (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/ (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
-
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.
-
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.