MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: jamirae on May 08, 2012, 16:01

Title: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: jamirae on May 08, 2012, 16:01
anybody else get one of these invitations to complete a buyer survey?  I haven't done the survey yet, but probably will later when I have 10-12 minutes to spare. 

Seems a little bit of "too little, too late" if you ask me. 

here's the text from the email:

Quote
We <3 you (that's a heart emoticon in case no one's ever sent you one) and what you do with images.

Now maybe you've been going somewhere other than iStock for images; could you take 10-12 minutes, tell us what you see in these other companies and give us the chance to fix things between us?

We just want you to be happy and if that means we have to change, by gum, that's what we'll do. So please, tell us how we compare to others and we swear, this one's dedicated to you!

unique link to survey removed

Thanks for your participation! Love,
The iStock Customer Research Team
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: gostwyck on May 08, 2012, 16:14
Interesting. As if they have no idea what the issues are. They only have to read their own forums. They could make a good start by reinstating the original commission structure. Their most loyal buyers were often their own contributors __ and they tried to screw them both ways. That was a bad, bad business decision.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Karimala on May 08, 2012, 16:35
Love, huh?  (http://forum.realityfanforum.com/Smileys/classic/dramasmileyf.gif)
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lisafx on May 08, 2012, 16:36
Having a site that works consistently would be a good start.  Not raising prices 3 times in 6th months would be another important issue.  But they know this already.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: click_click on May 08, 2012, 16:48
A man goes to a bar, walks up to a woman and asks her: Please have sex with me right now.

I think I haven't seen a more desperate attempt of a company (to try) to find out why buyers are shopping elsewhere.

This is so sad.

Initially I thought this was a joke but I assume it's for real.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: click_click on May 08, 2012, 16:49
Oh... and the mature way of communicating with their customers just blows me away - unless their main customer base are third graders...
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 08, 2012, 17:04
Sigh.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on May 08, 2012, 17:12
So did you take the survey Jami? I didn't get the e-mail, but then I've only ever had promotional credits, vs. any purchased ones, in my account.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: click_click on May 08, 2012, 17:24
Having a site that works consistently would be a good start.  Not raising prices 3 times in 6th months would be another important issue.  But they know this already.
Do they?
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Karimala on May 08, 2012, 17:30
A man goes to a bar, walks up to a woman and asks her: Please have sex with me right now.

I think I haven't seen a more desperate attempt of a company (to try) to find out why buyers are shopping elsewhere.

This is so sad.

Initially I thought this was a joke but I assume it's for real.

LOL  It also reminds me a lot of an abusive relationship where the abuser returns to the abused begging them to take 'em back and promising to change.  Yeh, right.  They'll be good for a while and then, like clockwork, will go back to their old, abusive ways.   
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: ShadySue on May 08, 2012, 17:39
What do they expect:
1. Reduce prices
2. Clean up search.
Will they then revoke their recent price hike and trumpet how well they listen to their buyers?
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: KarenH on May 08, 2012, 17:41
It will probably do about as much good as their contributor survey did. 
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: kelby on May 08, 2012, 17:42
ouch
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Microstock Posts on May 08, 2012, 18:05
That invitation must be for people who haven't made a purchase in a long time, surely? I got an email the other day saying something like 'come back to adwords, spend 10 pounds and we'll give you 100'. Now that's an idea for you istock.  :)
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Fran on May 08, 2012, 18:24
Inspired marketing move.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Eireann on May 08, 2012, 18:46
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?
In any case, I haven't used IStock in ages, but this is what I want:
- back to 20% commission minimum for independents
- 0.30 cent/sale ThinkStock
- do away with RC system, be fair and keep your canister promises
- do away with complicated CV searches
- stop clogging searches with expensive but mediocre files
- diversify the collection. It's getting thinner and thinner ...
XOXO IStock.
Forever hearts.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: jamirae on May 08, 2012, 18:53
haven't taken the survey yet.. been busy trying to hack some javascript code and learning everythign I never wanted to know about javascript and HTML forms along the way.. lol!

I may take it tonite, we'll see.

when I do, though, I'll take notes on the questions and let you all know the kinds of things they are asking.  And maybe I did get it becuase I have a seller account and a contributor account.  I haven't bought anything from the seller account in ages and don't intend to, either.  I'm one of those that was loyal to them when they were loyal to me.  obviously that is no longer the case.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: gostwyck on May 08, 2012, 19:21
I'm one of those that was loyal to them when they were loyal to me.  obviously that is no longer the case.  

That's all the information they need to absorb __ if it weren't obvious enough.

Istock couldn't have done a worse job over the last 20 months or so if they were hell-bent on sabotaging their own own business. It was the easiest business in the world to run. My cat could have done a better job as COO __ literally __ even though he died a couple of years back. That's how little needed to be actually done to ensure it's continued success. Despite all that they really did manage to break it. Amazing.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Mantis on May 08, 2012, 19:32
Oh... and the mature way of communicating with their customers just blows me away - unless their main customer base are third graders...

I was think the same thing.  How about a seriously toned email?  All this does in my opinion is make it laughable with no intention to use the data other than celebrate the 1% of good feedback they might get from it.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: helix7 on May 08, 2012, 19:57

Guess they didn't like the results of the previous survey, so they're doing another one hoping the outcome might be different.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: cathyslife on May 08, 2012, 21:34
by gum, what on earth possessed them to use that saying in a business email? yikes.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Elenathewise on May 08, 2012, 22:19
This can't be real. Why are they talking to customers like they are five year olds? I guess their idea of fixing things is to insult people's intelligence...
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: helix7 on May 08, 2012, 22:49
This can't be real. Why are they talking to customers like they are five year olds?...

I think it's an attempt to sound young and hip and quirky. Which istock was, at one time. Today, they're far from it. You can't pretend to be this small, hip, quirky company while you're owned by a behemoth and act like one, squeezing ever additional dollar out of your customers that you can.

Funny related story:

I was on the phone with a client today and we got to talking about stock. He asks if I still sell at istock, and I tell him I do, but far less than I used to and don't upload there anymore. He says, "Well Getty is taking over, right?" I ask what he means. He says, "There's all of these Getty images on there now, $100 images. That's Getty stuff, right? Getty owns istock. They're moving their stuff over to istock."

How's that for buyer perception of the company today. istock is trying to remain istock and still act like that quirky little company, but to buyers, istock is becoming high-priced Getty.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lagereek on May 08, 2012, 23:41
Jeez!  a bit late in the day, isnt it?  maybe two years back. Having a site, search, CV, and not a million collections,  would ofcourse be a good start. Oh yes, nearly forgot,  looking after your life-support, namely the contributors wouldnt be a bad idea.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on May 09, 2012, 00:29
I'd think it was a spoof if I hadn't seen the cr@p they spout at people. The funniest bit is that after the uber-hip intro they then use "by gum", which hasn't been hips since before hips evolved.

But, by Jove, I think it's spiffing of them to inquire of the hoi polloi, what? Presuming, that is, that this isn't some cad's merry jape. What bricks they are!
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Fran on May 09, 2012, 00:41
Jeez!  a bit late in the day, isnt it?  maybe two years back. Having a site, search, CV, and not a million collections,  would ofcourse be a good start. Oh yes, nearly forgot,  looking after your life-support, namely the contributors wouldnt be a bad idea.

Surely, insulting and threatening contributors in their private communication isn't helping them, is it?
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: ARTPUPPY on May 09, 2012, 00:46
This may be a case of "too little, too late" marketing. It's funny, remember back in 2010/11 when all the changes took place? And how a few customers closed their accounts and left on the forums? It was easy for Istock to say only a few accounts were closed, it was "business as usual, nothing to see here folks" and that was true. What they are discovering now is there a lot of open istock accounts with no credits. People spent what they had and are not buying any more. That lag time is now catching up with them so they are sending out "Hey we missed you!" emails.  I hope buyers will complain of the Getty images now populating the site and want a better filter for searches.

On a bit of the plus side, they are listening. I believe that the results of the contributor survey was one of the reasons some staff members were fired.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: rubyroo on May 09, 2012, 02:28
I'd think it was a spoof if I hadn't seen the cr@p they spout at people. The funniest bit is that after the uber-hip intro they then use "by gum", which hasn't been hips since before hips evolved.

But, by Jove, I think it's spiffing of them to inquire of the hoi polloi, what? Presuming, that is, that this isn't some cad's merry jape. What bricks they are!

 :D

When I read 'by gum', I immediately thought of The Goodies in oversized flat caps singing 'Black Pudding Bertha' back in the 1970s.  I hope that's not a new trend in Calgary...
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: JPSDK on May 09, 2012, 02:41
interesting survey.
Because it tells us that they are having an internal debate and someone needs hard numbers to make his point.

it also shows us that they are living in a fantasy world of their own, but we knew that already.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Microstock Posts on May 09, 2012, 02:52
The 'by gum', made me cringe. I think I may have heard it in old American black and white movies, not that the films weren't good, they were jolly good as some people would say in a by gum gone era.  ;D

I remember how they spoke to me once.

Q. How do I say no to the new ASA?
A. Contact artists @istockphoto.com to close your account.

I was like, who are these people??
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: rubyroo on May 09, 2012, 03:09
Oh I never heard it in an American accent (or Canadian).  I'll probably hear it everywhere now you've said that.

That response you received was as if they viewed you as a complete time-waster.  Short, arrogant, dismissive.  Just so rude - and with what possible justification?  I wonder if this new survey means they have changed or will change that attitude.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: JPSDK on May 09, 2012, 03:11
arrogance is their trademark.

And I would not say this, had I not been treated so badly for such long time that it has built up a craving for vengance.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Microstock Posts on May 09, 2012, 03:17
That response you received was as if they viewed you as a complete time-waster.  Short, arrogant, dismissive.  Just so rude..

Sorry, I wasn't clear before. It was their words in their forum, so actually addressed to all of us. But yes, when I read it 'arrogant' was the first adjective which sprung to mind.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Karimala on May 09, 2012, 04:52
I wonder if this new survey means they have changed or will change that attitude.

No.  And would a change in attitude or pricing or whatever even matter at this point?  No...at least not from this indie's point of view.   
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: JPSDK on May 09, 2012, 05:04
They will not change the attitude.

Because they lulled themselves, their exclusives and their costumers into a belief that the provide the worlds best material.
Problem is that they dont, and it gets worse and worse.
There is now a  great difference between the exclusive IS material and what is provided globally via other agencies.

They live in a glass bowl.
There are cracks in it.

They are 3 years behind the global micro market. The mechanisms compare to those of the former east block, before the wall fell:
Refusing to face facts.
Arrogance towards the people.
Issuing false propaganda.
All laws only benifit the party.
All implemented actions only goes one way.
Resistance is erased and subdued.

Same old story.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: antistock on May 09, 2012, 09:14
They will not change the attitude.

Because they lulled themselves, their exclusives and their costumers into a belief that the provide the worlds best material.
Problem is that they dont, and it gets worse and worse.
There is now a  great difference between the exclusive IS material and what is provided globally via other agencies.

They live in a glass bowl.
There are cracks in it.

They are 3 years behind the global micro market. The mechanisms compare to those of the former east block, before the wall fell:
Refusing to face facts.
Arrogance towards the people.
Issuing false propaganda.
All laws only benifit the party.
All implemented actions only goes one way.
Resistance is erased and subdued.

Same old story.

fully agree and i witnessed the same scenario in a few corporations i worked for years ago.

the issue is all about outselling the competition and their sales force is usually encouraged to live in a fantasy world and push the boundaries, no matter if the product is a pile of sh-it, their salesmen think if a product doesnt sell as expected the sales force is to blame, not the product itself, which can be true or not in many situation, as the pricing is dictated by the sales manager for instance, and so all the other promotions and obviously the contributors fees.

there cant be any negativity in a sales force, the sales force must be always kept in a positive mood with insane and wildly optimistic scenarios and especially with huge bonuses and career advances.

whoever "resist" is quickly blackmailed and finally fired at the first occasion, see istock's former CEO.

do you think these guys read istock forums ? no way, and if they ever do they would say we're just bad apples, not representative of their contributors.

now they're clueless about slumping sales and guess what, they will blame the recession and the former managers for not being aggressive enough.
i can tell you, if they do change something it will be more cuts in royalty fees and a jump in pricing of maybe 20-30%.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: jsmithzz on May 09, 2012, 09:57
Excuse my French, but what a bunch of f'ing morons. If they need a survey (which will probably not result in any meaningful changes anyway as other posters have mentioned) to figure out what's wrong then they truly are clueless. 

Prices are too high compared to other sites. Simple supply and demand. Who gives a crap about exclusivity? There's no value add in it for most buyers (and yes, I know a few buyers). Whether an image has been sold 1000 times on iStock or 1000 times across multiple sites really makes no difference.

I also used to buy things from iStock myself from time to time for small projects, and I now go elsewhere along with lots of others like me who made iStock what it was in its heyday. Everyone I know who's left to buy from competitors cited the ridiculous and frequent price increases as the primary reason not to mention the inept IT department they must have that can't seem to keep the site running smoothly. How quickly Getty forgets and how quickly greed has taken over. Such a shame.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: traveler1116 on May 09, 2012, 11:09
Who gives a crap about exclusivity? There's no value add in it for most buyers (and yes, I know a few buyers). Whether an image has been sold 1000 times on iStock or 1000 times across multiple sites really makes no difference.
IS exclusive files can only be found at IS, if you need a file that an exclusive artist made then you cannot get it from SS.  Prices can be higher because there is different content.  Prices remain low at the other sites because they all offer essentially the same product and compete by keeping prices low.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Microstock Posts on May 09, 2012, 11:25
Who gives a crap about exclusivity? There's no value add in it for most buyers (and yes, I know a few buyers). Whether an image has been sold 1000 times on iStock or 1000 times across multiple sites really makes no difference.
IS exclusive files can only be found at IS, if you need a file that an exclusive artist made then you cannot get it from SS.  Prices can be higher because there is different content.  Prices remain low at the other sites because they all offer essentially the same product and compete by keeping prices low.

How different are the exclusive files at istock or anywhere else? Can't similar non-exclusive files be found elsewhere? Exclusive images are still downloaded many times, so buyers don't have an edge over competitors, competitors are buying the same images too.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: traveler1116 on May 09, 2012, 11:38
How different are the exclusive files at istock or anywhere else? Can't similar non-exclusive files be found elsewhere? Exclusive images are still downloaded many times, so buyers don't have an edge over competitors, competitors are buying the same images too.
You'll have to do a search, there are some very unique exclusive artists though.  Similar images elsewhere might be an option for some but if a buyer finds the perfect exclusive image then they might choose it over a similar but not perfect for them nonexclusive image.  I'm not sure about the argument that exclusive images are downloaded lots so there is no advantage.  By that logic non exclusive files which are spread out over many sites including subscription sites have been downloaded many more times and would be even less of a value to buyers.  I don't think anyone has claimed that exclusive files are not allowed to be downloaded many times or that buyers think that's what it means.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: cthoman on May 09, 2012, 11:46
IS exclusive files can only be found at IS, if you need a file that an exclusive artist made then you cannot get it from SS.  Prices can be higher because there is different content.  Prices remain low at the other sites because they all offer essentially the same product and compete by keeping prices low.

I would have said this is untrue a couple years ago, but since I've been more carefully controlling the flow of my new images, there is something to be said for customers buying images that aren't available elsewhere. Not necessarily because the images are unique or special, but because when they find the image that they think is perfect, they buy it. If that image is only in limited places, they can only buy it there.

That said, IS's catalog is probably missing as much stuff (rare or otherwise) as it has exclusive content.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on May 09, 2012, 11:48

IS exclusive files can only be found at IS...

Once upon a time that was true. Now, you find exclusive content all over the place in the Getty family, and some of the images from Getty (that got there via iStock exclusives' stuff being mirrored) on other sites as "Ocean". Then there's all the Getty wholly owned content (EdStock) and a bunch of material that's marked as iStock exclusive, but (like RubberBall) is sold on their own site, other sites and Getty.

Part of Getty hosing iStock exclusives was breaking the tight link between the site and certain content. While exclusive I was vehemently opposed to exclusives putting their images into the Partner Program - that was an own goal by contributors which helped Getty out. The waters are now so muddy that I don't think there is a clear notion for buyers what that "exclusive" crown really means any more.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: antistock on May 09, 2012, 11:53
IS exclusive files can only be found at IS, if you need a file that an exclusive artist made then you cannot get it from SS.  Prices can be higher because there is different content.  Prices remain low at the other sites because they all offer essentially the same product and compete by keeping prices low.

i've always had mixed feelings about this.

first of all, are we sure buyers even know about exclusivity ?
secondly, do buyers even care to look the name of the photographer ?

third, if what they're searching for is hard to find on the micros, what about buying on getty/corbis/alamy ?
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: antistock on May 09, 2012, 11:59
The waters are now so muddy that I don't think there is a clear notion for buyers what that "exclusive" crown really means any more.

exactly !

microstock is not a boutique stock agency, it's the cheapest, rock bottom.
what's the reason for exclusivity as long as the only microstocker with a name in the industry is Yuri Arcurs ?

no micro buyers will ever search for our names or buy a picture because we give a somewhat added value, there's simply no added value at all, they couldn't care less who is the photographer and yes i'm sure they never also heard about exclusives and exclusivity, and why should they after all ?
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: helix7 on May 09, 2012, 11:59
IS exclusive files can only be found at IS, if you need a file that an exclusive artist made then you cannot get it from SS.  Prices can be higher because there is different content.  Prices remain low at the other sites because they all offer essentially the same product and compete by keeping prices low.

I'm a buyer, a subscriber at SS, and there is nothing I've found at istock that I can't find a suitable replacement/similar for at SS. I've had clients refer to specific images at istock that they want to use, and I've always been able to find an equally effective (sometimes more effective) high-quality image at SS. I've never had to use istock for anything. Exclusivity only means I'd be paying more for something I can find an alternative for elsewhere.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: JPSDK on May 09, 2012, 12:05
Exclusivity is only in the interest of the agency, so they can claim they have unique pictures when they try to sell their pool.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: traveler1116 on May 09, 2012, 12:09
IS exclusive files can only be found at IS, if you need a file that an exclusive artist made then you cannot get it from SS.  Prices can be higher because there is different content.  Prices remain low at the other sites because they all offer essentially the same product and compete by keeping prices low.

I'm a buyer, a subscriber at SS, and there is nothing I've found at istock that I can't find a suitable replacement/similar for at SS. I've had clients refer to specific images at istock that they want to use, and I've always been able to find an equally effective (sometimes more effective) high-quality image at SS. I've never had to use istock for anything. Exclusivity only means I'd be paying more for something I can find an alternative for elsewhere.
So if every image you could possibly want is already on SS I guess the game is over for all of us.  I don't think it is though and new, better, or different content will be produced, some by exclusives.  I just did a quick search on SS of some of the more unique travel locations I've been to and a few places had no images on SS.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: traveler1116 on May 09, 2012, 12:11
Exclusivity is only in the interest of the agency, so they can claim they have unique pictures when they try to sell their pool.
Obviously that's not true. 
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Microstock Posts on May 09, 2012, 12:17
How different are the exclusive files at istock or anywhere else? Can't similar non-exclusive files be found elsewhere? Exclusive images are still downloaded many times, so buyers don't have an edge over competitors, competitors are buying the same images too.
You'll have to do a search, there are some very unique exclusive artists though.  Similar images elsewhere might be an option for some but if a buyer finds the perfect exclusive image then they might choose it over a similar but not perfect for them nonexclusive image.  I'm not sure about the argument that exclusive images are downloaded lots so there is no advantage.  By that logic non exclusive files which are spread out over many sites including subscription sites have been downloaded many more times and would be even less of a value to buyers.  I don't think anyone has claimed that exclusive files are not allowed to be downloaded many times or that buyers think that's what it means.

So if the aim of an exclusive collection is to attract more buyers, the more buyers an agency attracts because of these images, the less attractive it becomes for buyers as more and more are buying the same images. I've never understood the concept of exclusivity in microstock. Until now shutterstock have thought the same, yet they have tons of buyers and I'm sure many of them are now former istock buyers. I'd argue that buyers can find really decent images from non-exclusive material, enough to justify buyers buying cheaper elsewhere. It's microstock, it's supposed to be cheap and for everyone, that's why it took off. Use an image today, use a different one tomorrow type of thing.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: traveler1116 on May 09, 2012, 12:46
So if the aim of an exclusive collection is to attract more buyers, the more buyers an agency attracts because of these images, the less attractive it becomes for buyers as more and more are buying the same images. I've never understood the concept of exclusivity in microstock. Until now shutterstock have thought the same, yet they have tons of buyers and I'm sure many of them are now former istock buyers. I'd argue that buyers can find really decent images from non-exclusive material, enough to justify buyers buying cheaper elsewhere. It's microstock, it's supposed to be cheap and for everyone, that's why it took off. Use an image today, use a different one tomorrow type of thing.
Again, exclusive images don't mean that they won't be bought many times and they aren't advertised as such.  Exclusive files mean they are only sold at IS (for the most part, jsnover. I guess it's more correct to say within Getty) and not offered at other sites like SS, FT, 123rf, etc..   Like I said before the other sites compete mainly on price because content is nearly the same, IS can compete on content and charge more.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: gostwyck on May 09, 2012, 12:57
So if every image you could possibly want is already on SS I guess the game is over for all of us.  I don't think it is though and new, better, or different content will be produced, some by exclusives.  I just did a quick search on SS of some of the more unique travel locations I've been to and a few places had no images on SS.

Yep __ pretty much. All iStock will achieve with their incessant price increases is to accelerate the end game.

'Unique travel locations' are usually more suitable as RM than microstock.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Microstock Posts on May 09, 2012, 13:00
So if the aim of an exclusive collection is to attract more buyers, the more buyers an agency attracts because of these images, the less attractive it becomes for buyers as more and more are buying the same images. I've never understood the concept of exclusivity in microstock. Until now shutterstock have thought the same, yet they have tons of buyers and I'm sure many of them are now former istock buyers. I'd argue that buyers can find really decent images from non-exclusive material, enough to justify buyers buying cheaper elsewhere. It's microstock, it's supposed to be cheap and for everyone, that's why it took off. Use an image today, use a different one tomorrow type of thing.
Again, exclusive images don't mean that they won't be bought many times and they aren't advertised as such.  Exclusive files mean they are only sold at IS (for the most part, jsnover. I guess it's more correct to say within Getty) and not offered at other sites like SS, FT, 123rf, etc..   Like I said before the other sites compete mainly on price because content is nearly the same, IS can compete on content and charge more.

I know what they are, I don't think it's the ace card they think it is.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: JPSDK on May 09, 2012, 13:01
Exclusivity is only in the interest of the agency, so they can claim they have unique pictures when they try to sell their pool.
Obviously that's not true.  

ne, it is also in the interest of the exclusive contributors.....
- for about 3 years-

then they are out of business
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: disorderly on May 09, 2012, 13:10
Like I said before the other sites compete mainly on price because content is nearly the same, IS can compete on content and charge more.

I have to disagree with this statement.  Agencies compete on more than price and even selection.  They also compete on the service they provide to their customers.  How easy is it to find content the customer wants (i.e. the search mechanism)?  How easy is it to find other relevant images, either from the same or a different creator?  What are the licensing rules?  How reliable is their website?  How responsive?  How quickly and how well do they respond to customer questions or complaints?

If this were all about price, there would more more of a drive to lower prices than we've seen.  Instead we see prices stable or rising over time.  (What we don't see is the creator's share increasing, which is a different issue.)
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: JPSDK on May 09, 2012, 13:20
and why is that?
it might be a different issue, but still the most important to us contributors.
Why is our share not going up?
why do we let the agencies exploit us so much?
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: loop on May 09, 2012, 13:24
So if the aim of an exclusive collection is to attract more buyers, the more buyers an agency attracts because of these images, the less attractive it becomes for buyers as more and more are buying the same images. I've never understood the concept of exclusivity in microstock. Until now shutterstock have thought the same, yet they have tons of buyers and I'm sure many of them are now former istock buyers. I'd argue that buyers can find really decent images from non-exclusive material, enough to justify buyers buying cheaper elsewhere. It's microstock, it's supposed to be cheap and for everyone, that's why it took off. Use an image today, use a different one tomorrow type of thing.
Again, exclusive images don't mean that they won't be bought many times and they aren't advertised as such.  Exclusive files mean they are only sold at IS (for the most part, jsnover. I guess it's more correct to say within Getty) and not offered at other sites like SS, FT, 123rf, etc..   Like I said before the other sites compete mainly on price because content is nearly the same, IS can compete on content and charge more.

That is true, but it isn't a very popular idea among independents. We all have our fantasies that help us to boost morale.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 09, 2012, 13:25
when they find the image that they think is perfect, they buy it. If that image is only in limited places, they can only buy it there.

Ding, ding!
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: cthoman on May 09, 2012, 13:36
when they find the image that they think is perfect, they buy it. If that image is only in limited places, they can only buy it there.

Ding, ding!

I thought it was a pretty simple concept, and one I started implementing when I opened my own site.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: loop on May 09, 2012, 14:06
So if every image you could possibly want is already on SS I guess the game is over for all of us.  I don't think it is though and new, better, or different content will be produced, some by exclusives.  I just did a quick search on SS of some of the more unique travel locations I've been to and a few places had no images on SS.

Yep __ pretty much. All iStock will achieve with their incessant price increases is to accelerate the end game.

'Unique travel locations' are usually more suitable as RM than microstock.

What accelerates the end of the game is the race to the bottom that began with all te agencies (and yes, this includes Thinkstock) entering the “subscription wars”. Selling a these prices mean, for the client, that the cost of the photos in the frame of the budget of a whole  project is nil, nothing, rien de rien, nichts,nada, niente. And of course, the spoiled (spoiled by us) customer, nowadays, is not ready to accept the kind of quality of five, seven years ago in change of these nil prices (that are the same of five seven years ago). Prices like the ones at istock make this cost a real, but very minor cost... but if costumers can reduce this to zero, why not? They would pay happily more if prices very higher at all the big agencies. There's a big scope between these “zero” prices and good “steal” prices.
An yes, 30-40  cents can add up to something if the file sells many times. But the fuse of the bomb is ablaze from years ago. This bomb is called “dilution”, and, for what I read about sales at the big subs sites, it is probably already beginning to reach its critical mass. What will be left in one-two years at subs sites? One, two, maybe ten sales for a lucky file. Back to shot our dish of mashed potatoes before eating it cold. There won't be money for more.  That's it, out of business everybody.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on May 09, 2012, 14:32
when they find the image that they think is perfect, they buy it. If that image is only in limited places, they can only buy it there.

Ding, ding!

And if they don't go to that place, because price rises persuaded them to go elsewhere, then they will never know the perfect image exists so they'll just buy something else.

This whole idea of buyers searching incessantly for the perfect image is just nonsense. Anyone on Alamy can check the buyer searches there and see how many pages deep they went. Generally, if something doesn't turn up on the first page or two of a search they lose interest. So if your super-perfect image is on page 57 they'll never find it and they won't care.

How can anybody believe that buyers will trawl the entire internet for the perfect image while knowing at the same time that they can't be bothered to hunt through half-a-dozen pages on iStock to find it (we all know how well images on page 10 of a search sell).
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: JPSDK on May 09, 2012, 14:52
HA.
You all think it is about pictures?

it is not.
its about messages, be it articles, news, or promotion.

All these picture buyers ... take up the wallet, only and only when they get what they want.
we photographers think they like our image and buy it because it shows what it should.

not the case.
They buy when it fits.
When the picture fits their words.

Quality does not matter so much, neither does trend and style.
keywords do...
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 09, 2012, 14:52
Ok, say I have an account at Dreamstime.  I need a picture of flight crew on a plane.  There is nothing usable in the search ( aside from one really over the top series ).  Now what do I do?  Look somewhere else.  So I look on iStock and find a more "realistic" series from some guy named sjlocke.  I don't need another account, but dang, I want that one image and it isn't available elsewhere.  So I open an account ...

eta: I see that other recent series is also on IS, and from Andre... Sorry! ;)
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: gostwyck on May 09, 2012, 15:00
Ok, say I have an account at Dreamstime.  I need a picture of flight crew on a plane.  There is nothing usable in the search ( aside from one really over the top series ).  Now what do I do?  Look somewhere else.  So I look on iStock and find a more "realistic" series from some guy named sjlocke.  I don't need another account, but dang, I want that one image and it isn't available elsewhere.  So I open an account ...

Fair enough however this scenario has Istock as the boutique store, for those very occasional needs, rather than the mass-market that they were originally conceived to serve. They've become more like Getty/Corbis in that regard rather than microstock.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 09, 2012, 15:12
Perhaps.  < rehash > Or perhaps the deadly allure of exclusive content + the rest keeps them there. < /rehash >
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: cathyslife on May 09, 2012, 15:17
Ok, say I have an account at Dreamstime.  I need a picture of flight crew on a plane.  There is nothing usable in the search ( aside from one really over the top series ).  Now what do I do?  Look somewhere else.  So I look on iStock and find a more "realistic" series from some guy named sjlocke.  I don't need another account, but dang, I want that one image and it isn't available elsewhere.  So I open an account ...

And that's assuming that I have big $ in my budget for that one image. If my budget is WAY below what that one images costs, I won't be opening an account, I will try to find something similar on a less expensive site. If I can't find anything similar for less money and I have leeway with the design, I might even rework the idea to utilize an image I did find in my price range that is just as outstanding.

In most recent years, I don't even bother looking on istock anymore in the first place because chances are my budget isn't going to allow for the ridiculous prices. I am buying microstock, remember. So why bother finding the perfect image when I'm not going to be able to afford it anyway? I find it hard to believe I am the only person in the whole wide world that thinks this way.

I am certain there are ad agencies out there who can afford anything for their client, and I think this is the buyer that istock/getty is looking for. I don't think they give a rat's a$$ about the millions of other companies/individuals who are looking for affordable microstock images to buy.

edited: definitely rehash. but then so is this whole thread, and so is istock. They have done it once again. Release a survey and get the buzz going.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on May 09, 2012, 15:24
Ok, say I have an account at Dreamstime.  I need a picture of flight crew on a plane.  There is nothing usable in the search ( aside from one really over the top series ).  Now what do I do?  Look somewhere else.  So I look on iStock and find a more "realistic" series from some guy named sjlocke.  I don't need another account, but dang, I want that one image and it isn't available elsewhere.  So I open an account ...

Fair enough however this scenario has Istock as the boutique store, for those very occasional needs, rather than the mass-market that they were originally conceived to serve. They've become more like Getty/Corbis in that regard rather than microstock.

Even if they do open an account for that one image, if they have previously fled iS because of the pricing and/or other problems, they will get enough credits, buy it and then go back to SS or wherever. It's not guaranteeing a long-term relationship.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: ShadySue on May 09, 2012, 15:25
Perhaps.  < rehash > Or perhaps the deadly allure of exclusive content + the rest keeps them there. < /rehash >
Perhaps. But that wouldn't explain why many iStock exclusives, including megastars like you, are finding things going downwards.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: ShadySue on May 09, 2012, 15:26
I am certain there are ad agencies out there who can afford anything for their client, and I think this is the buyer that istock/getty is looking for. I don't think they give a rat's a$$ about the millions of other companies/individuals who are looking for affordable microstock images to buy.
I believe that's what ThinkStock is for.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 09, 2012, 15:30
Perhaps. But that wouldn't explain why many iStock exclusives, including megastars like you, are finding things going downwards.

I'm putting less autographed images on eBay, for one thing.  :)
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: gostwyck on May 09, 2012, 15:32
Perhaps.  < rehash > Or perhaps the deadly allure of exclusive content + the rest keeps them there. < /rehash >

Maybe although our downloads declining at the rate of 25-30% per year suggest that 'the deadly allure' is not that deadly for all buyers.

The whole arguement is probably somewhat mute anyway. If Istock somehow turned the ship around then it would only inspire them to put up prices and reduce commissions even further __ until they broke it again. Isn't Istock just a giant cash cow for H&F nowadays? They appear to be milking it for all they're worth to recover as much of their original investment as quickly as they can. In squeezing buyers and contributors alike they are burning their candle at both ends.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: dreamstock on May 09, 2012, 15:34
Ok, say I have an account at Dreamstime.  I need a picture of flight crew on a plane.  There is nothing usable in the search ( aside from one really over the top series ).  Now what do I do?  Look somewhere else.  So I look on iStock and find a more "realistic" series from some guy named sjlocke.  I don't need another account, but dang, I want that one image and it isn't available elsewhere.  So I open an account ...

eta: I see that other recent series is also on IS, and from Andre... Sorry! ;)

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?  ;D
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 09, 2012, 15:41
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?  ;D

Point being there is no "similar" image on DT.  Cheaper or not.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lagereek on May 09, 2012, 15:49
Many years ago, they introduced exclusivity into the micro industry. Had they ever known or even guessed it was going to get this massive,  they would never have bothered.
I bet, for every exclusive file in any agency, regardless of subject matter, there are almost 100%, identicals, as non exclusive files and plenty oif it.

so much for exclusivity in the micro industry. Pointless exercise.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lisafx on May 09, 2012, 15:53

...Agencies compete on more than price and even selection.  They also compete on the service they provide to their customers.  How easy is it to find content the customer wants (i.e. the search mechanism)?  How easy is it to find other relevant images, either from the same or a different creator?  What are the licensing rules?  How reliable is their website?  How responsive?  How quickly and how well do they respond to customer questions or complaints?

Absolutely true!  Thanks very much for making these points. :)

I do not see prices dropping on the other micros. Certainly they are not climbing with the frequency or to the degree they are on Istock, thank goodness, but this race to the bottom is not happening.  Additionally, other sites in the top four do considerably better at the services mentioned above than Istock.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: dreamstock on May 09, 2012, 15:57
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?  ;D

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

are you saying that Andresr didnt upload his "flight crew on a plane" series on DT?  ;)
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lagereek on May 09, 2012, 15:58

...Agencies compete on more than price and even selection.  They also compete on the service they provide to their customers.  How easy is it to find content the customer wants (i.e. the search mechanism)?  How easy is it to find other relevant images, either from the same or a different creator?  What are the licensing rules?  How reliable is their website?  How responsive?  How quickly and how well do they respond to customer questions or complaints?

Absolutely true!  Thanks very much for making these points. :)

I do not see prices dropping on the other micros. Certainly they are not climbing with the frequency or to the degree they are on Istock, thank goodness, but this race to the bottom is not happening.  Additionally, other sites in the top four do considerably better at the services mentioned above than Istock.

Yes but in order to meet this criteria, it would be a good idea to get the site working properly, without daily bugs and glitches.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 09, 2012, 16:00
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. :P
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Risamay on May 09, 2012, 16:03
By gum, can anyone say 'far too little, far too late'? And 'gum awful writing'?
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lisafx on May 09, 2012, 16:04
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?  ;D

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

Fair enough.  I will be the first to admit that you, Sean, have a unique style and some exceptional imagery.  But the vast majority of the "exclusive collection" at Istock isn't particularly unique at all.   And those few of you who are really stars, and continue to produce unique images, may eventually become fed up with the dismissive attitude being heaped on all contributors at Istock these days and decide to drop the crown.  In fact, I suspect that's where this id going to end up, ultimately.  

If Getty really valued its istock exclusive collection, wouldn't they at least have left contributor phone support for exclusives?  
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Risamay on May 09, 2012, 16:06
when they find the image that they think is perfect, they buy it. If that image is only in limited places, they can only buy it there.

Ding, ding!

And if they don't go to that place, because price rises persuaded them to go elsewhere, then they will never know the perfect image exists so they'll just buy something else.

This whole idea of buyers searching incessantly for the perfect image is just nonsense. Anyone on Alamy can check the buyer searches there and see how many pages deep they went. Generally, if something doesn't turn up on the first page or two of a search they lose interest. So if your super-perfect image is on page 57 they'll never find it and they won't care.

How can anybody believe that buyers will trawl the entire internet for the perfect image while knowing at the same time that they can't be bothered to hunt through half-a-dozen pages on iStock to find it (we all know how well images on page 10 of a search sell).

Ding, ding!
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: caspixel on May 09, 2012, 16:07
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?


Thanks for thinking of me! Just for the record, I did not get any survey. :D
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on May 09, 2012, 16:19
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?
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: jamirae on May 09, 2012, 16:21
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!
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: loop on May 09, 2012, 16:24
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.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: cathyslife on May 09, 2012, 16:28
Quote
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 difference does it make how "cool" the company is? I don't care one bit about how cool the company is. I want to be able to do a simple search and have relevant, good pictures come back. Then I want the images to be priced fairly. When I have a problem, I want to be able to send an email or pick up the phone and talk to someone and have my problem solved.

That's it. It's not rocket science. Do they really need people to tell them that? Do we really need phrases like "by gum" to let us know how cool they really are? They need to get over themselves.  ::)
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: dreamstock on May 09, 2012, 16:32
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. :P

sure, i have no doubts that some buyers will search within one or few contributors portfolios for the uniqueness. but just some, not all, let's say that i'm one of them, i just did one search and had no success to achieve the following tasks as i never buy anything from IS and dont do a lot search there either:

1. in search result only showing "exclusive" images.
2. in search result only showing sjlocke's images.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on May 09, 2012, 16:34
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.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: caspixel on May 09, 2012, 16:38
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!

Were there really no questions about price or answers that included pricing options in them? No mention at all about the price increases? Why are they so hung up on curated collections? I've been buying microstock for nine years now and I've never once cared about a curated collection.  How dumb about the "too many image sizes". No one has ever complained about that. They really are beyond hope. LOL
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: cthoman on May 09, 2012, 16:39
How can anybody believe that buyers will trawl the entire internet for the perfect image while knowing at the same time that they can't be bothered to hunt through half-a-dozen pages on iStock to find it (we all know how well images on page 10 of a search sell).

I don't know. You'd have to ask the variety of people that show up to my site to buy images. I'm assuming they didn't scour the whole internet to find me. They just found something that they liked and bought it.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on May 09, 2012, 16:44
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!

So many of these questions are absurd. How will they generate more images from individual contributors? What does "local" or "regional" mean? Local to whom? A Thar Desert tribesman? Make unique and "interesting" content easier to find - what's unique? What's interesting? Push pictures to me that I might want to use (thanks for having a best match that provides images buyers don't want). Add more hip, fresh images... what's hip and what's fresh?

And, of course, there is the fallback position: change the look of the site. I bet that will be the solution. They can hire the world's most expensive website designer, to impress the Directors, and shuffle things about a bit (probably causing a severe hiccup to the internetty thingy in the dungeons as they do so).

Redesigns are always popular with managements because they create the illusion of activity without actually addressing any fundamental and awkward problems.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: ShadySue on May 09, 2012, 16:52
Quote
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 difference does it make how "cool" the company is? I don't care one bit about how cool the company is. I want to be able to do a simple search and have relevant, good pictures come back. Then I want the images to be priced fairly. When I have a problem, I want to be able to send an email or pick up the phone and talk to someone and have my problem solved.

That's it. It's not rocket science. Do they really need people to tell them that? Do we really need phrases like "by gum" to let us know how cool they really are? They need to get over themselves.  ::)

That COOL question really worries me too.
Are they targetting teens or professionals?
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on May 09, 2012, 16:58

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

It looks to me as if they have realised that iStock's glory days was when Bruce and co were pumping up the coolness (and, lets face it, it was pretty cool back then, even someone as unhip as me could see that), so they've concluded that coolness=success and therefore they want to recapture all the coolness (i.e. success, i.e. profits) that they've thrown away these past few years.

If that is right, then they've really lost the plot and don't know what to do.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Microstock Posts on May 09, 2012, 17:00
Remember when it was cool to be an istocker? By gum how things have changed.  :D
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: rubyroo on May 09, 2012, 17:11
More local?  'Eeeeeeeee by gum'.

Call me weird but... I'm pretty sure the importance of 'cool' tends to drop a long way down people's priority lists during global recessions.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: caspixel on May 09, 2012, 17:18
Remember when it was cool to be an istocker? By gum how things have changed.  :D

Dagnabbit!
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: loop on May 09, 2012, 17:37
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.

You dind't understand. These 10-25 come for a selection previously made (often) by me. And not always you get many results when the requirements are specific. Obviously, ypou can always miss something, everytime and everywhere, but thas was not my point.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on May 09, 2012, 17:43

You dind't understand. These 10-25 come for a selection previously made (often) by me. And not always you get many results when the requirements are specific. Obviously, ypou can always miss something, everytime and everywhere, but thas was not my point.

No, I did understand. My point was that there has to be a limit on how deep you dig. Time is money and, ultimately, getting 25 "good enough" images in a morning's work make's more sense than spending an entire week hunting out the 25 most perfect.

That's why "good enough" will do.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 09, 2012, 18:16
"more images from professional photographers"

That's kind of a weird thing to say.  "individual contributors" vs. "professional photographers"?  Wth is that supposed to mean?
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: ShadySue on May 09, 2012, 18:20
"more images from professional photographers"

That's kind of a weird thing to say.  "individual contributors" vs. "professional photographers"?  Wth is that supposed to mean?
Do they want more ingested stuff like CSA's cartoons or some of the faux-exclusive teams.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: loop on May 09, 2012, 18:23

You dind't understand. These 10-25 come for a selection previously made (often) by me. And not always you get many results when the requirements are specific. Obviously, ypou can always miss something, everytime and everywhere, but thas was not my point.

No, I did understand. My point was that there has to be a limit on how deep you dig. Time is money and, ultimately, getting 25 "good enough" images in a morning's work make's more sense than spending an entire week hunting out the 25 most perfect.

That's why "good enough" will do.

No "good enough",  but "best of what has been seen". Thre's a big difference. Anyway, my point was that people that thinks that if not selling at cents their files won't sell or almost won't sell is wrong, according to what I've seen.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: cobalt on May 09, 2012, 18:34
"more images from professional photographers"

That question stuck with me as well. Makes you really wonder what they think of us.

The text otherwise reminds me of feast - übercool writing that leaves me confused.

Well, I hope something useful comes of it. At least they are following up on the customers.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 09, 2012, 18:39
At least you've read Feast ...  Maybe they should have asked if buyers are looking at that effort.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on May 09, 2012, 19:39
"more images from professional photographers"

That's kind of a weird thing to say.  "individual contributors" vs. "professional photographers"?  Wth is that supposed to mean?

This is the crowdsourced amateur vs. polished professional crap again. People like you - who made a full time business from microstock - don't really fit the question. The question harks back to the old days when the trad agency contributors were "professionals" and the microstock contributors were viewed by them with disdain. They're trying to avoid using words like amateur.

Given that I believe many of those no longer buying at iStock are buying at other agencies whose collections are largely filled by the same "individual contributors", and, if you want more EdStock, Hulton Archive, et al. you can get it via Getty, I can't think why they bothered with this survey question.

They could replace it with some questions about site stability and malfunctions (forget making it easier to find "unique" or "interesting" content; there were a number of times when finding anything wasn't working); pricing? price stability?
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lisafx on May 09, 2012, 20:43
Remember when it was cool to be an istocker? By gum how things have changed.  :D

;D
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: qwerty on May 09, 2012, 21:19
egad !!! I haven't been measuring my "cool quotient" at all.

Do Istock have a chart for the cool quotient for my portfolio ?
Of course it wouldn't update properly.

Obviously some customers are price sensitive. The balancing act that has been run by IS is increase prices to the point where you gain more money from the increase than you do by moving customers to cheaper options. eg maximise revenue. I believe that they've gone past the tipping point, more people have left than stayed to pay the higher prices. The rubber band has broken, they stretched it too far.

Things like bad treatment of contributors, problems with the search and site availabilty significantly effect their stratedgy. Some designers are willing to pay double (or much more) for an image if the search and site are available and work well. The cost of time at designers hourly rate if the seach doesn't work is much more significant.

Spend more time on keyword policing to improve the search. Time and time again you come across images that just don't fit the keywords. You could make the first few pages of a number of searches alot cleaner without too much effort. You wouldn't need to worry too much about policing the images low down in the best match search. Someone getting paid $15 / hour could easily do this work.

If you want customers: make the site work, don't treat them rudely; don't screw the suppliers (who are also customers)

If I was exclusive I'd be starting to get my images together ready when the walls come completely falling down.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lagereek on May 09, 2012, 23:20
As an Art-Director at, Young&Rubicam,  said to me some months back. " *!  now I can see your shots there!  Oh, so Getty, is the professional side of the business and IStock, the amateur side? is that why the images are cheaper?

I answered:  yes thats why they are cheaper at IS,  even their exclusive material, is a lot cheaper.

I mean what else can you answer?
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: antistock on May 09, 2012, 23:25
I just did a quick search on SS of some of the more unique travel locations I've been to and a few places had no images on SS.

if that matters do a quick search on Alamy for ANY possible travel destination and the offering is absolutely overwhelming compared to micros.
prices are also not expensive as in the past, you can easily buy a good image on alamy for 30-40 bucks which is in par with Vetta or even cheaper.

photo and photographer's exclusivity is why RM and specialist agencies exist, can't see any reason to abuse this terminology in the RF micro world, it's just a clever marketing BS.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: antistock on May 09, 2012, 23:35
I mean what else can you answer?

RF micro agencies can only blame themselves for this.

if they want to be perceived as selling exclusive imagery they should just sell photos made by their exclusive photographers instead of allowing anybody and his dog to join the agency and upload the same images available everywhere else.

if you buy on Getty you know from the start all the images are exclusive to getty and the agencies they represent.
instead if you buy on IS or SS you keep seeing the same stuff over and over in most of the cases, but IS is more expensive so what's the point in all this ?

micro buyers are greedy and cheap, they couldnt care less about exclusivity and yadda yadda, all they want is the perfect image for the cheapest price, what IS is trying to do unsuccessfully is becoming a sort of midstock agency but this is obviously failing while SS is soon launching an IPO and soon outselling IS by a large margin, thus proving my point.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: cthoman on May 10, 2012, 00:15
As an Art-Director at, Young&Rubicam,  said to me some months back. " *!  now I can see your shots there!  Oh, so Getty, is the professional side of the business and IStock, the amateur side? is that why the images are cheaper?

I answered:  yes thats why they are cheaper at IS,  even their exclusive material, is a lot cheaper.

I mean what else can you answer?

Why can't an art director tell for themselves what is professional or good? That's their job. All they have to do is judge aesthetics, pick a direction or vision for the artwork, and manage the decisions for the design costs and expenses.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: cobalt on May 10, 2012, 01:50
microstock just takes advantage of selling digital products in a globalized world. The same reason why most iPhone apps cost between 99 cents to 4 Dollars. The prices are so low because they are planning to sell in extremly large volume, ideally with millions of downloads.

By continuously raising prices you decide to leave the mass market.

Maybe this is the best way to go forward, I don´t know. But it will be really interesting to see what SS does when they get the money from their ipo.

 
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on May 10, 2012, 03:04
The balancing act that has been run by IS is increase prices to the point where you gain more money from the increase than you do by moving customers to cheaper options. eg maximise revenue. I believe that they've gone past the tipping point, more people have left than stayed to pay the higher prices. The rubber band has broken, they stretched it too far.

But weren't the disgruntled customers meant to fall off iStock into Thinkstock, so that Getty got all their pennies, anyway? Maybe they didn't bank on a lot of them going elsewhere.  In any case, the marketing campaign to iStock buyers "Get the same picture cheaper at TS if you don't like our prices", or whatever it was they were saying was little short of insane. You can't announce that you are selling cheap tat at a high price, as Gerald Ratner found out (yes, I know it's not tat, but that is the message that iStock gives when it says you can buy it from them $20 or have the same thing from them for $1).
Title: There is no survey.
Post by: larsfrisk on May 10, 2012, 04:55
Jamirae is obviously one of those fourteen year old forum trolls, or possibly someone from another stock site trying to badmouth iStockphoto. Can anyone confirm that this survey even exists?
Title: Re: There is no survey.
Post by: ShadySue on May 10, 2012, 05:06
Jamirae is obviously one of those fourteen year old forum trolls, or possibly someone from another stock site trying to badmouth iStockphoto.
And you are ... ?
Title: Re: There is no survey.
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on May 10, 2012, 05:25
Jamirae is obviously one of those fourteen year old forum trolls, or possibly someone from another stock site trying to badmouth iStockphoto. Can anyone confirm that this survey even exists?


Oooohh! Someone who's got the iStock Koolaid!

Sunshine, if you had been at iStock in 2004, like some of us here, you would know who Jamie is and what her contribution has been. With 26,000 iStock sales she's probably got a rather more impressive record there than you have (please correct me if I'm wrong about that). Oh, and try checking her profile.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lagereek on May 10, 2012, 05:29
As an Art-Director at, Young&Rubicam,  said to me some months back. " *!  now I can see your shots there!  Oh, so Getty, is the professional side of the business and IStock, the amateur side? is that why the images are cheaper?

I answered:  yes thats why they are cheaper at IS,  even their exclusive material, is a lot cheaper.

I mean what else can you answer?

Why can't an art director tell for themselves what is professional or good? That's their job. All they have to do is judge aesthetics, pick a direction or vision for the artwork, and manage the decisions for the design costs and expenses.

He did!  so he bought 4 pics at the Getty RM, house-collection,  didnt even mind 100 times the price.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: antistock on May 10, 2012, 05:44
He did!  so he bought 4 pics at the Getty RM, house-collection,  didnt even mind 100 times the price.

and rightfully so, i would be surprised if big corporation go cheap charlie buying SS subs for half a dollar rather than using Getty or specialist agencies for their needs.

he also probably needed exclusivity thus he picked up RM images to avoid having other people using the same image.

as for the price, i don't think it's even a problem for him unless he's on a tight budget but then again if even big corps like Y&R end up buying pics for 1$ we better find another job ! :)
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on May 10, 2012, 05:46
As an Art-Director at, Young&Rubicam,  said to me some months back. " *!  now I can see your shots there!  Oh, so Getty, is the professional side of the business and IStock, the amateur side? is that why the images are cheaper?

I answered:  yes thats why they are cheaper at IS,  even their exclusive material, is a lot cheaper.

I mean what else can you answer?

Why can't an art director tell for themselves what is professional or good? That's their job. All they have to do is judge aesthetics, pick a direction or vision for the artwork, and manage the decisions for the design costs and expenses.

He did!  so he bought 4 pics at the Getty RM, house-collection,  didnt even mind 100 times the price.

You could probably answer that iStock is the "low production cost" side of the business. I haven't looked at the Getty RM house collection for years but as I recall it, the locations, settings and production standards screamed that they had cost an awful lot to produce.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lagereek on May 10, 2012, 06:00
As an Art-Director at, Young&Rubicam,  said to me some months back. " *!  now I can see your shots there!  Oh, so Getty, is the professional side of the business and IStock, the amateur side? is that why the images are cheaper?

I answered:  yes thats why they are cheaper at IS,  even their exclusive material, is a lot cheaper.

I mean what else can you answer?

Why can't an art director tell for themselves what is professional or good? That's their job. All they have to do is judge aesthetics, pick a direction or vision for the artwork, and manage the decisions for the design costs and expenses.

He did!  so he bought 4 pics at the Getty RM, house-collection,  didnt even mind 100 times the price.

You could probably answer that iStock is the "low production cost" side of the business. I haven't looked at the Getty RM house collection for years but as I recall it, the locations, settings and production standards screamed that they had cost an awful lot to produce.

Yes the production costs are enormous, a fellow member there specializes in fitness and beauty. In the beginning of the 90s, when the keep-fit craze started, he rented an entire fitness-centre, models from Freddies which is a fashion model agency, few days later he got the bill,  11000 British pounds! and that was back in the 90s.
Ofcourse over the years the pics have well paid for themselves but even so.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: RT on May 10, 2012, 06:42

he also probably needed exclusivity thus he picked up RM images to avoid having other people using the same image.


Bearing in mind that lagerreek named the agency I think you should add a disclaimer to your comment above, because a professional ad agency would no doubt be fully aware that just buying a RM image from Getty or any other traditional agency does not offer them any form of exclusivity whatsoever.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: cathyslife on May 10, 2012, 07:03
But weren't the disgruntled customers meant to fall off iStock into Thinkstock, so that Getty got all their pennies, anyway? Maybe they didn't bank on a lot of them going elsewhere.  In any case, the marketing campaign to iStock buyers "Get the same picture cheaper at TS if you don't like our prices", or whatever it was they were saying was little short of insane. You can't announce that you are selling cheap tat at a high price, as Gerald Ratner found out (yes, I know it's not tat, but that is the message that iStock gives when it says you can buy it from them $20 or have the same thing from them for $1).

I'm sure that was the plan, but you are right, buyers aren't stupid. If they are mistreated and conned at one place (let's say istock, for instance) they aren't going to jump to another subsidiary of the same company, they're going to go to a different company altogether. It would be like saying I am totally opposed to Walmart's business plan and how they destroy communities and then continuing to shop at Sam's Club.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lagereek on May 10, 2012, 07:45

he also probably needed exclusivity thus he picked up RM images to avoid having other people using the same image.


Bearing in mind that lagerreek named the agency I think you should add a disclaimer to your comment above, because a professional ad agency would no doubt be fully aware that just buying a RM image from Getty or any other traditional agency does not offer them any form of exclusivity whatsoever.

RT!  actually you hit on a very important point here ( I really didnt find out if they bought it exclusive or not) however, thats what I have been saying for years now, even if you buy exclusive-rights today, there is absoloutely no guarantee at all that a to 99% similar image doesnt exist somewhere else, does it? I mean with hundereds of millions of images, copying, etc, there is no security at all.
Which leads me to the IS, exclusivity lark, its just, BS, thats all.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lagereek on May 10, 2012, 07:50
He did!  so he bought 4 pics at the Getty RM, house-collection,  didnt even mind 100 times the price.

and rightfully so, i would be surprised if big corporation go cheap charlie buying SS subs for half a dollar rather than using Getty or specialist agencies for their needs.

he also probably needed exclusivity thus he picked up RM images to avoid having other people using the same image.

as for the price, i don't think it's even a problem for him unless he's on a tight budget but then again if even big corps like Y&R end up buying pics for 1$ we better find another job ! :)

Correct!  the price wasnt important but what I found laughable was that with all these, IS, collections, all the fuzz, this and that, it was still not regarded as more then an amateur outlet.,

best.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: RT on May 10, 2012, 08:06

he also probably needed exclusivity thus he picked up RM images to avoid having other people using the same image.


Bearing in mind that lagerreek named the agency I think you should add a disclaimer to your comment above, because a professional ad agency would no doubt be fully aware that just buying a RM image from Getty or any other traditional agency does not offer them any form of exclusivity whatsoever.

RT!  actually you hit on a very important point here ( I really didnt find out if they bought it exclusive or not) however, thats what I have been saying for years now, even if you buy exclusive-rights today, there is absoloutely no guarantee at all that a to 99% similar image doesnt exist somewhere else, does it? I mean with hundereds of millions of images, copying, etc, there is no security at all.
Which leads me to the IS, exclusivity lark, its just, BS, thats all.

Actually I wasn't inferring towards similars that may be available on other sites by other contributors, I was referring to antistocks statement that inferred that buying s standard RM gives you some form of 'image' exclusivity, which as you know it doesn't. The only thing buying a RM licensed image from Getty does is to afford you the ability to ask them what industries/usage the image has been purchased for in the past, it doesn't however mean that another person at a later date can't purchase and use the image in the exact same industry/sector that you've used it for - if you want that then you need to purchase a RP or RM exclusive license which runs into the thousands.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lagereek on May 10, 2012, 08:15

he also probably needed exclusivity thus he picked up RM images to avoid having other people using the same image.


Bearing in mind that lagerreek named the agency I think you should add a disclaimer to your comment above, because a professional ad agency would no doubt be fully aware that just buying a RM image from Getty or any other traditional agency does not offer them any form of exclusivity whatsoever.

RT!  actually you hit on a very important point here ( I really didnt find out if they bought it exclusive or not) however, thats what I have been saying for years now, even if you buy exclusive-rights today, there is absoloutely no guarantee at all that a to 99% similar image doesnt exist somewhere else, does it? I mean with hundereds of millions of images, copying, etc, there is no security at all.
Which leads me to the IS, exclusivity lark, its just, BS, thats all.

Actually I wasn't inferring towards similars that may be available on other sites by other contributors, I was referring to antistocks statement that inferred that buying s standard RM gives you some form of 'image' exclusivity, which as you know it doesn't. The only thing buying a RM licensed image from Getty does is to afford you the ability to ask them what industries/usage the image has been purchased for in the past, it doesn't however mean that another person at a later date can't purchase and use the image in the exact same industry/sector that you've used it for - if you want that then you need to purchase a RP or RM exclusive license which runs into the thousands.
'
Oh alright then, I got it wrong.  Well, I didnt hang around to find out but when it comes to the bigger ad-agencies, I dont think the money is important as long as they find what theyre looking for, on the other hand it might just have been a standard licence. Even so its a hell of a lot more expensive then micro.

Surprisingly, clients dont mind paying for world-rights, exclusivity, etc. Back in November last year I had two such sales and BOY!  it did zoom up the balance.

On another note. How . do you do your isolations, theyre next to perfect, some day you have to tell me the secret.

best. :)
Title: Re: There is no survey.
Post by: jamirae on May 10, 2012, 11:48
Jamirae is obviously one of those fourteen year old forum trolls, or possibly someone from another stock site trying to badmouth iStockphoto. Can anyone confirm that this survey even exists?


Oooohh! Someone who's got the iStock Koolaid!

Sunshine, if you had been at iStock in 2004, like some of us here, you would know who Jamie is and what her contribution has been. With 26,000 iStock sales she's probably got a rather more impressive record there than you have (please correct me if I'm wrong about that). Oh, and try checking her profile.

well gee, I've never been called a "fourteen year old forum troll" before.  I can assure you that I am not.  and, yes, BaldricksTrousers is correct, I started at istock in 2004 (feel free to look at my port) and was exclusive with them until the redeemed credits program can about and my earnings crashed there because of it.  I'm not trying to badmouth iStock (they seem to be fine at doing themselves in), I'm just providing information.  yes, the survey really came to me, and yes I really filled it out.  You can believe what you want about me, but a fourteen-year-old-troll I am most certainly not.  

now.. to answer another question about the survey.. regarding pricing.  As I recall the price issue did come up in a few questions where it was given as one of the potential responses.  I only gave you a small sampling of the questions - those that I found most odd (the "Cool" thing still has me preplexed!)   the questions that included price were something along the lines of "Why do you not buy as much from iStock" (or somethign like that based on the response I gave to a question about my purchasing from iStock has decreased and will continue to decrease).  The potential responses that involved price were something like "cost too high."  I dont recall anything about the price increases but there was a question asking to compare of the prices  of the three sites.  

oh, and there was also a question where the responses were something like related to having to buy more credits than you need for one image and another option/response about being able to buy just one image at a given price point (in other words, not having to purchase a credit pack).

based on the questions, to me the overall tone of the survey indicated that they believe the way to bring more buyers is to be "cool" again, but they have no idea how to get there.   Clearly whoever developed the survey skipped the part in their Maketing Research class about how to design a survey so as to be as objective as possible in order to get the best/honest responses from your respondents.  Adding the "cool" thing is sort of like "leading the witness" so that they get responses geared toward the answer of "look!  the buyers want us to be cool!  let's be more cool so we can get more buyers."  

that's just my thoughts on it.  I am not convinced that they really know who their buyers are and I dont think this survey will provide them that answer.  
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: jamirae on May 10, 2012, 11:57
"more images from professional photographers"

That's kind of a weird thing to say.  "individual contributors" vs. "professional photographers"?  Wth is that supposed to mean?

yes, that one took my by surprise, too, which is why it was one of the ones I listed here.  My first thought was that they probably assume that buyers (who the survey is targeting) would consider a "professional photographer" as an in-house photographer who gets assignments to do shoots specifically for the agency, like Getty does.  But then my second thought was if a buyer knows that much then they should also understand that many "individual contributors" ARE "professional photographers."   I figure I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and go with my first thought.  :)
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: nullplus on May 10, 2012, 12:41
What do they expect:
1. Reduce prices
2. Clean up search.


as far as searching is concerned, you could have a look at this here:
http://boostmatch.photonullplus.de/ (http://boostmatch.photonullplus.de/)

(can't do anything about the pricing, though. sorry)

(EDIT: sorry for the redundant post (i have now created a new topic about this) but being new here i had to post a reply somewhere before being able to start a new topic  :-\)
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: ShadySue on May 10, 2012, 13:11
I'm not a buyer, so it doesn't matter for me; but I was thinking more about keyword spamming messing up searches.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Mantis on May 11, 2012, 07:00
I'm not a buyer, so it doesn't matter for me; but I was thinking more about keyword spamming messing up searches.

For me, other than the voodoo sites play with their search, keywording is the single most important function of an image sale (to be found), aside from it being just what the buyer wants.  Spamming just fks it up for everyone, the buyers and the contributors.  I probably spend more time than I should keywording because over the years I have realized its importance. Some are of the mind that if a site allows 50 KW then I am putting in 50.  I personally only put in what I think is appropriate, somewhere between 8 and 50 ;)
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lagereek on May 12, 2012, 00:21
"more images from professional photographers"

That's kind of a weird thing to say.  "individual contributors" vs. "professional photographers"?  Wth is that supposed to mean?

yes, that one took my by surprise, too, which is why it was one of the ones I listed here.  My first thought was that they probably assume that buyers (who the survey is targeting) would consider a "professional photographer" as an in-house photographer who gets assignments to do shoots specifically for the agency, like Getty does.  But then my second thought was if a buyer knows that much then they should also understand that many "individual contributors" ARE "professional photographers."   I figure I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and go with my first thought.  :)

As you say, at Gettys, and in the RM-world its common to commission pro-photographers for certain specialized shoots,  either on a percentage or outright payment.

'In Micro, however,  the last thing the agencies want,  are professionals!  why?  because pros makes demands, pros would not stand for some of the nonsense going on. All the amateurs, weekend-snappers, semis, etc, well the can sort of juggle them around, put them in promised land, patronize them, whatever. They are an easy catch, easy to satisfy.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Microstock Posts on May 12, 2012, 01:48
"more images from professional photographers"

That's kind of a weird thing to say.  "individual contributors" vs. "professional photographers"?  Wth is that supposed to mean?

yes, that one took my by surprise, too, which is why it was one of the ones I listed here.  My first thought was that they probably assume that buyers (who the survey is targeting) would consider a "professional photographer" as an in-house photographer who gets assignments to do shoots specifically for the agency, like Getty does.  But then my second thought was if a buyer knows that much then they should also understand that many "individual contributors" ARE "professional photographers."   I figure I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and go with my first thought.  :)

As you say, at Gettys, and in the RM-world its common to commission pro-photographers for certain specialized shoots,  either on a percentage or outright payment.

'In Micro, however,  the last thing the agencies want,  are professionals!  why?  because pros makes demands, pros would not stand for some of the nonsense going on. All the amateurs, weekend-snappers, semis, etc, well the can sort of juggle them around, put them in promised land, patronize them, whatever. They are an easy catch, easy to satisfy.

This is so true. This is often where an agency's biggest and most vocal fan base lies. Dt is a prime example of this, IS may have unwittingly silenced the pom pom girls and boys, but most of them still upload regardless of every action IS takes. Many are professional photographers, many more are still dreaming.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on May 12, 2012, 02:38
'In Micro, however,  the last thing the agencies want,  are professionals!  why?  because pros makes demands, pros would not stand for some of the nonsense going on. All the amateurs, weekend-snappers, semis, etc, well the can sort of juggle them around, put them in promised land, patronize them, whatever. They are an easy catch, easy to satisfy.

So they couldn't change the Getty Images terms, to force the pros there to allow their stuff in TS, for example, or to cut commissions?  Oh, hang on.....
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lagereek on May 12, 2012, 03:57
'In Micro, however,  the last thing the agencies want,  are professionals!  why?  because pros makes demands, pros would not stand for some of the nonsense going on. All the amateurs, weekend-snappers, semis, etc, well the can sort of juggle them around, put them in promised land, patronize them, whatever. They are an easy catch, easy to satisfy.

So they couldn't change the Getty Images terms, to force the pros there to allow their stuff in TS, for example, or to cut commissions?  Oh, hang on.....

Sure!  but the timing was perfect ( from them, that is),  many of us already had ports of 2000 images, plus. Once youre up in that bracket, it would be foolish to deactivate, wouldnt it. Besides, the way things are going for independants, I dont think its much differance in revenue.

We might make a misstake, ONCE! even twice,  I doubt we will do it again,  regardless of agency?
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on May 12, 2012, 08:54
'In Micro, however,  the last thing the agencies want,  are professionals!  why?  because pros makes demands, pros would not stand for some of the nonsense going on. All the amateurs, weekend-snappers, semis, etc, well the can sort of juggle them around, put them in promised land, patronize them, whatever. They are an easy catch, easy to satisfy.

So they couldn't change the Getty Images terms, to force the pros there to allow their stuff in TS, for example, or to cut commissions?  Oh, hang on.....

Sure!  but the timing was perfect ( from them, that is),  many of us already had ports of 2000 images, plus. Once youre up in that bracket, it would be foolish to deactivate, wouldnt it. Besides, the way things are going for independants, I dont think its much differance in revenue.

We might make a misstake, ONCE! even twice,  I doubt we will do it again,  regardless of agency?

But that applies to everyone - once a sales outlet delivers a significant slice of your income and you have invested time and effort in building a portfolio then you are effectively over a barrel. They can mess you about however they like and leave you to decide whether to accept a cut in income or lousy conditions or to wave goodbye to everything. If you are big enough to matter to them, then you are almost certainly in too deep to get out.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lagereek on May 12, 2012, 09:06
'In Micro, however,  the last thing the agencies want,  are professionals!  why?  because pros makes demands, pros would not stand for some of the nonsense going on. All the amateurs, weekend-snappers, semis, etc, well the can sort of juggle them around, put them in promised land, patronize them, whatever. They are an easy catch, easy to satisfy.

So they couldn't change the Getty Images terms, to force the pros there to allow their stuff in TS, for example, or to cut commissions?  Oh, hang on.....

Sure!  but the timing was perfect ( from them, that is),  many of us already had ports of 2000 images, plus. Once youre up in that bracket, it would be foolish to deactivate, wouldnt it. Besides, the way things are going for independants, I dont think its much differance in revenue.

We might make a misstake, ONCE! even twice,  I doubt we will do it again,  regardless of agency?

But that applies to everyone - once a sales outlet delivers a significant slice of your income and you have invested time and effort in building a portfolio then you are effectively over a barrel. They can mess you about however they like and leave you to decide whether to accept a cut in income or lousy conditions or to wave goodbye to everything. If you are big enough to matter to them, then you are almost certainly in too deep to get out.

I totally agree!  over a barrel, thats the truth of it all. Many of us here are probably in far too deep already. However, with all forums, writings, etc, ite really not doing them any good attracting new contributors, especially professional suppliers.
Again, Im not too sure they care, its a bloody numbers game, thats it. If they would lose 10 photographers today, they got 20 new ones by tomorrow.

I mean, they dont seem too worried about someone like Yuri doing his own thingy,  so what chance have you got?
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: wut on May 12, 2012, 09:29
Will they then revoke their recent price hike and trumpet how well they listen to their buyers?

These are all fast cash grabs. You seem to already know their tactics well ;)
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: wut on May 12, 2012, 09:42
But, by Jove, I think it's spiffing of them to inquire of the hoi polloi, what? Presuming, that is, that this isn't some cad's merry jape. What bricks they are!

Great wording, I had to check the urban dictionary for a few words. However what do bricks stand for, I could find the meaning.

I enjoy reading posts from you Brits, I learn so much from you, so many new words (ShadySue, gostwyck as well). Sometimes it seems that Americans only use half of the English vocabulary
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: wut on May 12, 2012, 10:04

What accelerates the end of the game is the race to the bottom that began with all te agencies (and yes, this includes Thinkstock) entering the “subscription wars”. Selling a these prices mean, for the client, that the cost of the photos in the frame of the budget of a whole  project is nil, nothing, rien de rien, nichts,nada, niente. And of course, the spoiled (spoiled by us) customer, nowadays, is not ready to accept the kind of quality of five, seven years ago in change of these nil prices (that are the same of five seven years ago). Prices like the ones at istock make this cost a real, but very minor cost... but if costumers can reduce this to zero, why not? They would pay happily more if prices very higher at all the big agencies. There's a big scope between these “zero” prices and good “steal” prices.

I totally agree. I'm saying all the time, that the prices should go up, quadruple at least. They're absurd at the moment, especially if you look at the quality of the best images (only a few %, but that's more than enough to find a good image for most subjects)
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on May 12, 2012, 10:24
But, by Jove, I think it's spiffing of them to inquire of the hoi polloi, what? Presuming, that is, that this isn't some cad's merry jape. What bricks they are!

Great wording, I had to check the urban dictionary for a few words. However what do bricks stand for, I could find the meaning.

I enjoy reading posts from you Brits, I learn so much from you, so many new words (ShadySue, gostwyck as well). Sometimes it seems that Americans only use half of the English vocabulary

A brick is an all-round good fellow - I think it had a short period in vogue in the mid 20th century, perhaps mainly as children's slang.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: helix7 on May 12, 2012, 10:37
I was going to make a comment on this whole survey thing, but I just looked at my istock stats for the first time since last month and found something more interesting to comment on.

April was my worst month at istock in over 4 years, and this week was my worst week there in about the same time period. istock is now at it's lowest percentage ever (4%) in my monthly microstock earnings total.

Amazing how bad it's gotten.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: helix7 on May 12, 2012, 10:47
Remember when it was cool to be an istocker? By gum how things have changed.  :D


Sorry, couldn't resist:

(http://socialember.com/images/whats_cool.jpg)
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lagereek on May 12, 2012, 11:11
Remember when it was cool to be an istocker? By gum how things have changed.  :D


Sorry, couldn't resist:

([url]http://socialember.com/images/whats_cool.jpg[/url])


Who is this pratt?  its Timberland, isnt it?
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on May 12, 2012, 12:37
I'm pretty sure those are stills from the Facebook movie (Social Network) - Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Karimala on May 12, 2012, 13:49
I was going to make a comment on this whole survey thing, but I just looked at my istock stats for the first time since last month and found something more interesting to comment on.

April was my worst month at istock in over 4 years, and this week was my worst week there in about the same time period. istock is now at it's lowest percentage ever (4%) in my monthly microstock earnings total.

Amazing how bad it's gotten.

My January earnings with PP included were a few dollars less than my November 2006 earnings.  November 2006 was my 9th month at IS.  Last month, BigStock was a mere $10 shy of my January IS earnings (BigStock also beat Fotolia for the first time ever).
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lisafx on May 12, 2012, 15:29
But that applies to everyone - once a sales outlet delivers a significant slice of your income and you have invested time and effort in building a portfolio then you are effectively over a barrel. They can mess you about however they like and leave you to decide whether to accept a cut in income or lousy conditions or to wave goodbye to everything. If you are big enough to matter to them, then you are almost certainly in too deep to get out.

I believe this is the most concise analysis of the microstock business that I've ever read.  Well put! 
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lagereek on May 12, 2012, 15:44
But that applies to everyone - once a sales outlet delivers a significant slice of your income and you have invested time and effort in building a portfolio then you are effectively over a barrel. They can mess you about however they like and leave you to decide whether to accept a cut in income or lousy conditions or to wave goodbye to everything. If you are big enough to matter to them, then you are almost certainly in too deep to get out.

I believe this is the most concise analysis of the microstock business that I've ever read.  Well put! 

Paul has summed it up quite nice actually but its still a feeling of history is repeating itself. To us who are still in the trad agencies, it started with a 50/50, split, then it became 60/40, then 70/30, etc and in the agency favour. Ofcourse, pics sell for a lot more money.
I mean really its the same as investing in any business, rough with the smooth and ofcourse having to stand for lots of nonsense.
I havent got an answer for this, there isnt much anybody can do exept bellyaching. :)
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: antistock on May 12, 2012, 22:15
I totally agree. I'm saying all the time, that the prices should go up, quadruple at least. They're absurd at the moment, especially if you look at the quality of the best images (only a few %, but that's more than enough to find a good image for most subjects)

they should go up anyways, inflation is pretty bad in europe but even more here in asia, here it's running at 10-20% per year for many items and 5-10% for anything else with some goods peaking at 100-200% compared to 2011.

all this is first and foremost reflected in the average cost of transportation and the production costs are therefore skyrocketing but agencies are still paying peanuts, selling less than before, and pretending to slash royalty fees even more.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: pancaketom on May 12, 2012, 23:40
I totally agree. I'm saying all the time, that the prices should go up, quadruple at least. They're absurd at the moment, especially if you look at the quality of the best images (only a few %, but that's more than enough to find a good image for most subjects)

they should go up anyways, inflation is pretty bad in europe but even more here in asia, here it's running at 10-20% per year for many items and 5-10% for anything else with some goods peaking at 100-200% compared to 2011.

all this is first and foremost reflected in the average cost of transportation and the production costs are therefore skyrocketing but agencies are still paying peanuts, selling less than before, and pretending to slash royalty fees even more.

There is nothing pretend about the commission cuts.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: caspixel on May 13, 2012, 09:48
I totally agree. I'm saying all the time, that the prices should go up, quadruple at least. They're absurd at the moment, especially if you look at the quality of the best images (only a few %, but that's more than enough to find a good image for most subjects)

they should go up anyways, inflation is pretty bad in europe but even more here in asia, here it's running at 10-20% per year for many items and 5-10% for anything else with some goods peaking at 100-200% compared to 2011.

all this is first and foremost reflected in the average cost of transportation and the production costs are therefore skyrocketing but agencies are still paying peanuts, selling less than before, and pretending to slash royalty fees even more.

So you don't think these issues also affect the people who buy photos?
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: wut on May 13, 2012, 09:59
I totally agree. I'm saying all the time, that the prices should go up, quadruple at least. They're absurd at the moment, especially if you look at the quality of the best images (only a few %, but that's more than enough to find a good image for most subjects)

they should go up anyways, inflation is pretty bad in europe but even more here in asia, here it's running at 10-20% per year for many items and 5-10% for anything else with some goods peaking at 100-200% compared to 2011.

all this is first and foremost reflected in the average cost of transportation and the production costs are therefore skyrocketing but agencies are still paying peanuts, selling less than before, and pretending to slash royalty fees even more.

So you don't think these issues also affect the people who buy photos?

They do, but the free ride has to end, it's about bloody time. Not too, little too late, but a lot (way overdue)
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: jbryson on May 13, 2012, 10:04
From the questions in the survey referring to "Professional Photographers" and "Curated Collections", I get the uncomfortable, sneaking suspicion that in their hearts they still believe in the original Getty model and are trying to manipulate false support of them slowly morphing istock's model into the old Getty model.

It's the classic marketing mistake of not first finding out what buyers want and strategizing a profitable way to provide it, but rather coming up with an idea that you like on your own and trying to convince buyers it's the best way. It usually never works. But those who do it this way usually fight their way to the death.

On another note, if the site becomes more and more like Getty, and if they start to include Getty more and more in their branding, I am afraid they will hit the old Getty extortion letter stumbling block. We don't hear much about it today, but evidently it is still fresh in the minds of large, longtime stock buyers. I was talking to one the other day, casually, mentioning recent changes at istock. They told me in no uncertain terms that they would NEVER buy from Getty again because many of their clients continue to fight those letters. In fact, in their circles it is still a very fresh wound. If this is any reflection of the industry as a whole, it would seem that keeping istock as far away from the Getty brand as possible would be the best path to take. (Google "Getty Letter" if unfamiliar with the issue).

eta: the Getty extortion letter was not COOL
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: caspixel on May 13, 2012, 10:11

So you don't think these issues also affect the people who buy photos?

They do, but the free ride has to end, it's about bloody time. Not too, little too late, but a lot (way overdue)

Well, all I can say is, be careful what you wish for. You may find yourself with a lot of more appealingly priced (to you) images that are not selling at all. Raising the prices is going to further shrink the market share. People *will* stop buying photos. They didn't buy them before and they will go back to not buying them again. The problem with the microstock market is not the demand, it is the supply. Too much is available now. If you aren't seeing any growth at the lower prices, why do you think you will see growth at higher prices? People also seem to forget that microstock opened up photography sales for *a lot* of photographers to which it was closed. How many microstock photographers is Getty images *still* closed to?
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: traveler1116 on May 13, 2012, 10:12
From the questions in the survey referring to "Professional Photographers" and "Curated Collections", I get the uncomfortable, sneaking suspicion that in their hearts they still believe in the original Getty model and are trying to manipulate false support of them slowly morphing istock's model into the old Getty model.

It's the classic marketing mistake of not first finding out what buyers want and strategizing a profitable way to provide it, but rather coming up with an idea that you like on your own and trying to convince buyers it's the best way. It usually never works. But those who do it this way usually fight their way to the death.

On another note, if the site becomes more and more like Getty, and if they start to include Getty more and more in their branding, I am afraid they will hit the old Getty extortion letter stumbling block. We don't hear much about it today, but evidently it is still fresh in the minds of large, longtime stock buyers. I was talking to one the other day, casually, mentioning recent changes at istock. They told me in no uncertain terms that they would NEVER buy from Getty again because many of their clients continue to fight those letters. In fact, in their circles it is still a very fresh wound. If this is any reflection of the industry as a whole, it would seem that keeping istock as far away from the Getty brand as possible would be the best path to take. (Google "Getty Letter" if unfamiliar with the issue).

eta: the Getty extortion letter was not COOL
I read the questions the same way you did, confusing terminology that can be used to justify bringing more outside content onto iStock.  The other point about the letter though, how were buyers of Getty content getting the letters unless?  Maybe I haven't looked hard enough but I can't remember hearing anyone say they licensed the content correctly and Getty still tried to get them to pay for not licensing it correctly.  
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on May 13, 2012, 10:20
From the questions in the survey referring to "Professional Photographers" and "Curated Collections", I get the uncomfortable, sneaking suspicion that in their hearts they still believe in the original Getty model and are trying to manipulate false support of them slowly morphing istock's model into the old Getty model.

It's the classic marketing mistake of not first finding out what buyers want and strategizing a profitable way to provide it, but rather coming up with an idea that you like on your own and trying to convince buyers it's the best way. It usually never works. But those who do it this way usually fight their way to the death.

On another note, if the site becomes more and more like Getty, and if they start to include Getty more and more in their branding, I am afraid they will hit the old Getty extortion letter stumbling block. We don't hear much about it today, but evidently it is still fresh in the minds of large, longtime stock buyers. I was talking to one the other day, casually, mentioning recent changes at istock. They told me in no uncertain terms that they would NEVER buy from Getty again because many of their clients continue to fight those letters. In fact, in their circles it is still a very fresh wound. If this is any reflection of the industry as a whole, it would seem that keeping istock as far away from the Getty brand as possible would be the best path to take. (Google "Getty Letter" if unfamiliar with the issue).

eta: the Getty extortion letter was not COOL

While I don't know if the letters were the best approach, why did these people receive a letter?

Was Getty mistaken and these were good customers? Or maybe, were they stealing images? If stealing, why would an experienced image buyer steal images? Surely they should know a little about copyright.

One of my friends received a letter. Her business partner put together their website and "found" images on the internet. One of those images was a Getty image. My friend had no idea her partner used stolen images. But my friend didn't blame Getty. She blamed the source of the problem, her partner. The thief.

It's like a thief stealing a bunch of stuff from a major electronics store and then after being caught saying "I'll never shop there again".

 
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: Karimala on May 13, 2012, 10:32
From the questions in the survey referring to "Professional Photographers" and "Curated Collections", I get the uncomfortable, sneaking suspicion that in their hearts they still believe in the original Getty model and are trying to manipulate false support of them slowly morphing istock's model into the old Getty model.

It's the classic marketing mistake of not first finding out what buyers want and strategizing a profitable way to provide it, but rather coming up with an idea that you like on your own and trying to convince buyers it's the best way. It usually never works. But those who do it this way usually fight their way to the death.

On another note, if the site becomes more and more like Getty, and if they start to include Getty more and more in their branding, I am afraid they will hit the old Getty extortion letter stumbling block. We don't hear much about it today, but evidently it is still fresh in the minds of large, longtime stock buyers. I was talking to one the other day, casually, mentioning recent changes at istock. They told me in no uncertain terms that they would NEVER buy from Getty again because many of their clients continue to fight those letters. In fact, in their circles it is still a very fresh wound. If this is any reflection of the industry as a whole, it would seem that keeping istock as far away from the Getty brand as possible would be the best path to take. (Google "Getty Letter" if unfamiliar with the issue).

eta: the Getty extortion letter was not COOL

I read the questions the same way you did, confusing terminology that can be used to justify bringing more outside content onto iStock.  The other point about the letter though, how were buyers of Getty content getting the letters unless?  Maybe I haven't looked hard enough but I can't remember hearing anyone say they licensed the content correctly and Getty still tried to get them to pay for not licensing it correctly.  


Here's all the examples of Getty's actions you'll ever want to read!  http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/ (http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/)

One of the main problems for web designers buying images at Getty was Getty coming after their clients for copyright infringement.  Getty would send a letter demanding $1000-$2000 and if the designer's client didn't pay up, Getty threatened to sue them.  Countless confused clients paid Getty instead of being sued, even though they purchased licenses through their web site designers.    

People were also buying web site templates featuring Getty images (that were properly licensed for template use) and later receiving letters from Getty demanding payment in order to prevent a lawsuit.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lisafx on May 13, 2012, 10:40
To add to what Karimala said, there are also examples of people who licensed the images from sites that Getty LATER bought.  If they didn't keep track of their proof of purchase, they were still harassed. 

Personally, I don't save my business receipts beyond the 7 years max suggested by the IRS.

Interestingly, while googling this, I found quite a few examples where Getty backed off immediately when contacted by people's lawyers.  Clearly they knew they didn't have a legal leg to stand on in a lot of cases.  This "extortion letter" sounds like it was mainly a fishing expedition. 
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: wut on May 13, 2012, 11:30

So you don't think these issues also affect the people who buy photos?

They do, but the free ride has to end, it's about bloody time. Not too, little too late, but a lot (way overdue)

Well, all I can say is, be careful what you wish for. You may find yourself with a lot of more appealingly priced (to you) images that are not selling at all. Raising the prices is going to further shrink the market share. People *will* stop buying photos. They didn't buy them before and they will go back to not buying them again. The problem with the microstock market is not the demand, it is the supply. Too much is available now. If you aren't seeing any growth at the lower prices, why do you think you will see growth at higher prices? People also seem to forget that microstock opened up photography sales for *a lot* of photographers to which it was closed. How many microstock photographers is Getty images *still* closed to?

So where will the buyers go to get photos? YOu're saying they'd rather go out of business, than pay more? You can't get free photos (steal them), since no one is doing commercial stuff for his own pleasure. Besides you don't need growth if the prices would quadruple. You'd earn 4x more anyway and even if the sales would be split in half (which they probably would be if prices would indeed be quadrupled), you'd still get 2x more than you do now ;) .
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: lagereek on May 13, 2012, 11:34

So you don't think these issues also affect the people who buy photos?

They do, but the free ride has to end, it's about bloody time. Not too, little too late, but a lot (way overdue)

Well, all I can say is, be careful what you wish for. You may find yourself with a lot of more appealingly priced (to you) images that are not selling at all. Raising the prices is going to further shrink the market share. People *will* stop buying photos. They didn't buy them before and they will go back to not buying them again. The problem with the microstock market is not the demand, it is the supply. Too much is available now. If you aren't seeing any growth at the lower prices, why do you think you will see growth at higher prices? People also seem to forget that microstock opened up photography sales for *a lot* of photographers to which it was closed. How many microstock photographers is Getty images *still* closed to?

So where will the buyers go to get photos? YOu're saying they'd rather go out of business, than pay more? You can't get free photos (steal them), since no one is doing commercial stuff for his own pleasure. Besides you don't need growth if the prices would quadruple. You'd earn 4x more anyway and even if the sales would be split in half (which they probably would be if prices would indeed be quadrupled), you'd still get 2x more than you do now ;) .

Absoloutely!  look at the price of petrol, no matter how much an increase, people never stop driving,  in fact, in Europe there is an increase of drivers and car sales, in spite of enormous petrol increases.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: jbryson on May 13, 2012, 12:03

One of the main problems for web designers buying images at Getty was Getty coming after their clients for copyright infringement.  Getty would send a letter demanding $1000-$2000 and if the designer's client didn't pay up, Getty threatened to sue them.  Countless confused clients paid Getty instead of being sued, even though they purchased licenses through their web site designers.    


In the case of this person, a large webdesign firm, they licensed the images used them on customers' sites, and the customers received the letters. I don't know all details, and admit there are always two sides to every story. From what I understand, it didn't go away easily, and the webdesign firm just ended up replacing all Getty images with images licensed from other sites and vowing never to use Getty again. They used Shutterstock for a time but currently use 123RF and are very pleased.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: caspixel on May 13, 2012, 18:26

So you don't think these issues also affect the people who buy photos?

They do, but the free ride has to end, it's about bloody time. Not too, little too late, but a lot (way overdue)

Well, all I can say is, be careful what you wish for. You may find yourself with a lot of more appealingly priced (to you) images that are not selling at all. Raising the prices is going to further shrink the market share. People *will* stop buying photos. They didn't buy them before and they will go back to not buying them again. The problem with the microstock market is not the demand, it is the supply. Too much is available now. If you aren't seeing any growth at the lower prices, why do you think you will see growth at higher prices? People also seem to forget that microstock opened up photography sales for *a lot* of photographers to which it was closed. How many microstock photographers is Getty images *still* closed to?

So where will the buyers go to get photos? YOu're saying they'd rather go out of business, than pay more? You can't get free photos (steal them), since no one is doing commercial stuff for his own pleasure. Besides you don't need growth if the prices would quadruple. You'd earn 4x more anyway and even if the sales would be split in half (which they probably would be if prices would indeed be quadrupled), you'd still get 2x more than you do now ;) .

I'm saying they'll use something *other* than photos to get the point across. Like people did *before* microstock. Remember those days? Part of a designer's job is to look for solutions. They will just create something that does not need a photo. And a new trend will arise.

And at some point, you would still need growth. If the collections still grew and the target market was shrinking, your returns would also eventually diminish. Just ask macrostock photographers.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: JPSDK on May 14, 2012, 08:33
Where they will get the photos, when they dont want to pay?
There are several ways.
Russian copy sites.
Download them from facebook.
Begging.
I have quite many people begging for photos.
always the same... "Since I dont have a budget". Even government institutions and the military.
Title: Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
Post by: jbryson on May 14, 2012, 10:27
Where they will get the photos, when they dont want to pay?
There are several ways.
Russian copy sites.
Download them from facebook.
Begging.
I have quite many people begging for photos.
always the same... "Since I dont have a budget". Even government institutions and the military.


Yes, I've had site mails on istock in the past from people describing a "no budget" situation, and asking for photos for free. It's not unusual.