are you saying that Andresr didnt upload his "flight crew on a plane" series on DT?  

Quote from: dreamstock on May 09, 2012, 15:34

then what? do I need to open an IS account now? or buy it straight from DT account where the similar high quality image is there for cheaper?  

Point being there is no "similar" image on DT.  Cheaper or not.

Aww, they're so cute.
I wonder who writes this stuff for IS? The Pink Fairy?
And I wonder, will they be sending this email to Caspixel?
Perhaps together with an apology for the way they treated her?

I don't quite understand this philosophy of "someting similar and cheaper will do". At least at the book publishing industry, my experience is that presented with several alternatives for a print book cover, the client (the editor, and often the author) want what they think it is the best image possible, and from plain indepedent to Vetta, let's say for (5$ to 120$ or so) they don't doubt a moment to choose what they think more adequate, regardless of the price. By the way, some of them tend to infer that high price adds value to the image ("if it's more expensive it should be better"). Of course, this is not necessarily true, but it's human nature too.

Quote from: loop on May 09, 2012, 16:10

I don't quite understand this philosophy of "someting similar and cheaper will do". At least at the book publishing industry, my experience is that presented with several alternatives for a print book cover, the client (the editor, and often the author) want what they think it is the best image possible, and from plain indepedent to Vetta, let's say for (5$ to 120$ or so) they don't doubt a moment to choose what they think more adequate, regardless of the price. By the way, some of them tend to infer that high price adds value to the image ("if it's more expensive it should be better"). Of course, this is not necessarily true, but it's human nature too.

The point is that buyers will generally not be "presented with several alternatives" at different sites, they will be using one site and will choose what they think is the best among the images they see there. Would you present 10,000 different pictures to a client, in three or four different binders, and ask them to choose? Or would you go through a few hundred, pick out half-a-dozen of the best and get them to choose from those?

Quote from: dreamstock on May 09, 2012, 15:57

are you saying that Andresr didnt upload his "flight crew on a plane" series on DT?  

I'm saying there are material ... differences ... between the two ... that would make one more desirable to a buyer looking for something ... particular.

okay.. not to drag all of you back on to the main topic...  but thought I'd share some more with you about the survey.  I did complete it.  It is geared towards buyers.  Basically they asked about what other agencies I buy from and how often I bought from iStock last year as well as whether or not I would be buying more this year.  

Then based on my responses of the other agencies I bought from last year they had me compare them.  some of the questions included these below.  I am copying them verbatim (i did a few screenshots).  You'll see references to StockFresh and Dreamstime because aside from the one image I bought at iStock last year, I purchased images from those other two agencies last year.  oh and the caps and format is exactly as it was in the questions (you'll see what I mean below):

Quote

What would improve the variety of iStock images?  (choose up to 3 of these):

• more local/regional images
• more images from individual contributors
• more images from professional photographers
• make it easier to find unique and intersting content
• more curated collections
• more current and contemporary images
• here's another idea:  (with empty box to fill in your comments)

What else could we do to make iStock more convenient for you? (choose up to 3 of these)

• allow cash purchase
• push pictures to me that i might want to use
• improve key-wording
• there are too many image sizes to choose from; give me fewer size choices
• offer more customer support
• there are too many image collections to choose from; fewer collections would be better

• let me make a lightbox without having to register
• here's another idea:  (with empty box to fill in your comments)

Some stock companies are more hip and fresh than others.  How COOL are iStock, StockFresh and Dreamstime?
(beneath this there was a scale bar for each agency where you pick between a range of "not at all cool; 180 degrees from cool" to "One of the coolest stock companies out there")

What could we do to increase iStock's cool quotient? (choose up to 3 of these)

• Too late - iStock used to be cool but it's not anymore
• Emphasize contributors
• Change the look of the site - it needs updating
• Improve the contents; add more hip, fresh images
• Here's something else iStock could do: (empty box to add comments)

I answered it honestly and truthfully as a buyer.  At the end when they asked for additional suggestions I basically told them what they should already know - that this may be too little too late and that their biggest loyal customers and biggest marketing feature used to be their contributors.  but the treatment they have given to them has caused many buyer/contributors, like me, to shop elsewhere.  not to mention the increase in the prices.  I also mentioned that they could be more respectful and professional towards anyone (contributors and buyers) in the public forums.  

so there you have it. I didn't include all the questions, obviously, there were about 25 of them but I think you get the gest of it from what I posted above.  It was okay but really all this stuff they should know already.  

oh, and they must have hired some firm to do this research. the logo that was pasted at the top of the generic looking page was very crappy looking!  not very professional looking for iStock, if you ask me. but hey, maybe it's COOL!

okay.. not to drag all of you back on to the main topic...  but thought I'd share some more with you about the survey.  I did complete it.  It is geared towards buyers.  Basically they asked about what other agencies I buy from and how often I bought from iStock last year as well as whether or not I would be buying more this year.  

Then based on my responses of the other agencies I bought from last year they had me compare them.  some of the questions included these below.  I am copying them verbatim (i did a few screenshots).  You'll see references to StockFresh and Dreamstime because aside from the one image I bought at iStock last year, I purchased images from those other two agencies last year.  oh and the caps and format is exactly as it was in the questions (you'll see what I mean below):

Quote

What would improve the variety of iStock images?  (choose up to 3 of these):

• more local/regional images
• more images from individual contributors
• more images from professional photographers
• make it easier to find unique and intersting content
• more curated collections
• more current and contemporary images
• here's another idea:  (with empty box to fill in your comments)

What else could we do to make iStock more convenient for you? (choose up to 3 of these)

• allow cash purchase
• push pictures to me that i might want to use
• improve key-wording
• there are too many image sizes to choose from; give me fewer size choices
• offer more customer support
• there are too many image collections to choose from; fewer collections would be better

• let me make a lightbox without having to register
• here's another idea:  (with empty box to fill in your comments)

Some stock companies are more hip and fresh than others.  How COOL are iStock, StockFresh and Dreamstime?
(beneath this there was a scale bar for each agency where you pick between a range of "not at all cool; 180 degrees from cool" to "One of the coolest stock companies out there")

What could we do to increase iStock's cool quotient? (choose up to 3 of these)

• Too late - iStock used to be cool but it's not anymore
• Emphasize contributors
• Change the look of the site - it needs updating
• Improve the contents; add more hip, fresh images
• Here's something else iStock could do: (empty box to add comments)

I answered it honestly and truthfully as a buyer.  At the end when they asked for additional suggestions I basically told them what they should already know - that this may be too little too late and that their biggest loyal customers and biggest marketing feature used to be their contributors.  but the treatment they have given to them has caused many buyer/contributors, like me, to shop elsewhere.  not to mention the increase in the prices.  I also mentioned that they could be more respectful and professional towards anyone (contributors and buyers) in the public forums.  

so there you have it. I didn't include all the questions, obviously, there were about 25 of them but I think you get the gest of it from what I posted above.  It was okay but really all this stuff they should know already.  

oh, and they must have hired some firm to do this research. the logo that was pasted at the top of the generic looking page was very crappy looking!  not very professional looking for iStock, if you ask me. but hey, maybe it's COOL!

That COOL question really worries me too.
Are they targetting teens or professionals?

Quote from: loop on May 09, 2012, 16:24

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 09, 2012, 16:19

Quote from: loop on May 09, 2012, 16:10

I don't quite understand this philosophy of "someting similar and cheaper will do". At least at the book publishing industry, my experience is that presented with several alternatives for a print book cover, the client (the editor, and often the author) want what they think it is the best image possible, and from plain indepedent to Vetta, let's say for (5$ to 120$ or so) they don't doubt a moment to choose what they think more adequate, regardless of the price. By the way, some of them tend to infer that high price adds value to the image ("if it's more expensive it should be better"). Of course, this is not necessarily true, but it's human nature too.

The point is that buyers will generally not be "presented with several alternatives" at different sites, they will be using one site and will choose what they think is the best among the images they see there. Would you present 10,000 different pictures to a client, in three or four different binders, and ask them to choose? Or would you go through a few hundred, pick out half-a-dozen of the best and get them to choose from those?

Not 10.000, of course, but easily between 10 at 25.

Then you are adopting the philosophy of "good enough will do" because somewhere among the other 9,990 there may be hidden something that the end user would think was an absolute gem. It's just not rational to spend hours and hours hunting for something that might not be there - and after you've trawled through hundreds of images and picked out 10 or 25 at the agency you normally use (say DT), why would you think "oh, I'd better go and check iS because there might be something there that's better"? And if you did think and do that, why wouldn't you then go on to do the same with SS, in case they have something even better? And what if it's really at DT, but not in the first 500 matches, somewhere in the next 4,000? Before you know it you are again wasting huge amounts of time looking for something that may not - quite probably doesn't - exist.