Author Topic: istockphoto 'Agency' positioning (Read 6465 times)

joingated · « **on:** October 27, 2010, 10:50 »

Im sure there is a post lurking here about the Agency collection but as some posts keep getting hijacked, I thought Id start another! I buy a lot from micro and macro, and I just went to look on istock for a generic image of 'colour'... OMG! 2nd page is full of 'Agency' stuff of an asian woman and a guy running with some fake clouds and skyline (both series stood out as obviously not correctly positioned and the price too, unbelieveable!), whole series of them, so frustrating I just quit out and went to Veer... Im sure there is more but I havent the time. If it wasnt for this site and being a contributor too I would never be aware of that stuff and would just think how awful they were, can this be turned off?

So.... 2 things.... as a user, they are going to really p**s people off, I havent the time to wade thorugh the s**t and 2 as a contributor this stuff is at the front of the best match search and is irrelevant, I really think this will hurt istocks reputation.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1 on:** October 27, 2010, 11:14 »

Sorry (as a contributor to IS) that you had this experience, but I'm not surprised. I've voiced my opinion of some of the problems with the imported Agency content - it's from Getty and while that price may seem ordinary there, it stands out when it's sold via IS where there's lots of comparable and/or better content at a tenth the price.

They have said that they'll allow you to filter out Agency and Vetta (and have those search preferences be savable so you don't have to keep doing it via the advanced search dialog) but I don't know when those changes are coming. Advanced search does let you exclude Vetta and Agency (but you can't separate those).

If you have a minute to contact support to voice your opinion, that would be great. They have dismissed contributor complaints about this, but perhaps might listen to the customer.

Sadstock · « **Reply #2 on:** October 27, 2010, 11:51 »

Agreed the agency placement in the results is obscene and agree that long term this is bad for Istock and its contributors.

click_click · « **Reply #3 on:** October 27, 2010, 12:30 »

Quote from: joingated on October 27, 2010, 10:50

Im sure there is a post lurking here about the Agency collection but as some posts keep getting hijacked, I thought Id start another! I buy a lot from micro and macro, and I just went to look on istock for a generic image of 'colour'... OMG! 2nd page is full of 'Agency' stuff of an asian woman and a guy running with some fake clouds and skyline (both series stood out as obviously not correctly positioned and the price too, unbelieveable!), whole series of them, so frustrating I just quit out and went to Veer... Im sure there is more but I havent the time. If it wasnt for this site and being a contributor too I would never be aware of that stuff and would just think how awful they were, can this be turned off?

So.... 2 things.... as a user, they are going to really p**s people off, I havent the time to wade thorugh the s**t and 2 as a contributor this stuff is at the front of the best match search and is irrelevant, I really think this will hurt istocks reputation.

I think if iStock believes everything they do is good, it's about time that buyers provide some feedback as well to them.

I understand that it's easier for a buyer to just switch to another agency without handing out some feedback.

But it appears that basic issues like the OP mentions should be brought to IS attention from the buyer side - since these people put the money into their unsustainable pockets.

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** October 27, 2010, 13:24 »

[double post]

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** October 27, 2010, 13:31 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 27, 2010, 13:24

Quote
I think if iStock believes everything they do is good, it's about time that buyers provide some feedback as well to them.

I understand that it's easier for a buyer to just switch to another agency without handing out some feedback.

But it appears that basic issues like the OP mentions should be brought to IS attention from the buyer side - since these people put the money into their unsustainable pockets.
I couldn't agree more.
Please, OP, if you are able to make the time, please post to support AND copy to the forums. Of course, 'we' can read what you said here, but it would be even better if you made your feelings known on and to iStock.
Sorry about your negative experience. Please know that a lot of iStock contributers are very concerned about the Agency ingestion.
Added: if you searched on 'colour', you would get any colour images, so most of the pics would be Agency.
You could consider searching (if it's not too late for your project) on colours, which maps to 'descriptive colour', it may be that these images would be nearer what you were looking for.
Also try 'bright color' > bright (luminosity) or 'bright color' (Vibrant colour)(colour intensity) or indeed 'pastel' (pastel colour) (colour intensity) or 'saturated colour' (colour intensity)

caspixel · « **Reply #6 on:** October 27, 2010, 17:00 »

I'm pretty sure iStock doesn't care what buyers think either. No doubt if the OP posts in the iStock forums that thread will be deleted almost immediately.

cathyslife · « **Reply #7 on:** October 27, 2010, 17:04 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 27, 2010, 13:31

I couldn't agree more.
Please, OP, if you are able to make the time, please post to support AND copy to the forums. Of course, 'we' can read what you said here, but it would be even better if you made your feelings known on and to iStock.
Sorry about your negative experience. Please know that a lot of iStock contributers are very concerned about the Agency ingestion.
Added: if you searched on 'colour', you would get any colour images, so most of the pics would be Agency.
You could consider searching (if it's not too late for your project) on colours, which maps to 'descriptive colour', it may be that these images would be nearer what you were looking for.
Also try 'bright color' > bright (luminosity) or 'bright color' (Vibrant colour)(colour intensity) or indeed 'pastel' (pastel colour) (colour intensity) or 'saturated colour' (colour intensity)

I have a feeling there are MANY searches that are returning predominant agency photos, not just a search for colour. While I appreciate your trying to help the OP, shady sue, the point is buyer's shouldn't have to rely on you to give them alternate words to do a search.

I, too, hope the OP does two things: switches to another agency for their images AND sends an email to istock relaying their feelings. Though, frankly, I am of the opinion that Getty/IS doesn't care too much about hearing from anyone. They "have their life back"...

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** October 27, 2010, 17:59 »

Quote from: caspixel on October 27, 2010, 17:00

I'm pretty sure iStock doesn't care what buyers think either.

Unfortunately, it seems that way to me too.

Quote

No doubt if the OP posts in the iStock forums that thread will be deleted almost immediately.

I didn't think it would be deleted, but I suspected it might be locked.
Either way, it would send out a clear message that iStock has heard of customers, but wants no truck with them, if that's the case.
[Kool-aid]Or they could surprise us and be regretful and helpful.[/Kool-aid] And take the comment as a kick up the janxie/ call to action.

caspixel · « **Reply #9 on:** October 27, 2010, 18:52 »

Quote from: cclapper on October 27, 2010, 17:04

I have a feeling there are MANY searches that are returning predominant agency photos, not just a search for colour.

Holy crap! I just made that search at iStock out of curiosity and it's like 99% Vetta and Agency files up until page 8 or so. And I have my search set on 200 images per page. So the first 1600 images of that search are pretty much devoid of regular content. CLEARLY Best Match is not about what is best for the customer, no matter how many ways they try to spin it. I really feel sorry for you contributors. iStock is making it near impossible to find your images anymore.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #10 on:** October 27, 2010, 19:58 »

As mentioned, I think, what is 'colour' supposed to return. Do a bit of work and narrow down what you are really looking for.

JamesGdesign · « **Reply #11 on:** October 27, 2010, 20:07 »

This whole situation is all levels of suck. Contributing sucks, Searching Sucks, Buying Sucks. Anyone with half a mind can see where this is going...

pet_chia · « **Reply #12 on:** October 27, 2010, 20:30 »

The Microsoft of stock photography?

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/27/technology/microsoft_pdc/index.htm?section=money_topstories

helix7 · « **Reply #13 on:** October 27, 2010, 20:59 »

Quote from: JamesGdesign on October 27, 2010, 20:07

This whole situation is all levels of suck. Contributing sucks, Searching Sucks, Buying Sucks. Anyone with half a mind can see where this is going...

Planning any changes for the new year, James?

JamesGdesign · « **Reply #14 on:** October 27, 2010, 21:52 »

My super secret plan will only be revealed long after it has been brought to fruition

fotografer · « **Reply #15 on:** October 28, 2010, 03:39 »

Quote

Microsoft has been late to the game in crucial modern technologies like mobile, search, media, gaming and tablets. It has even fallen behind in Web browsing, a market it once ruled with an iron fist.

A lot of that just isn't correct

I just did an image search on google using 2 of my popular keywords. Out of 13, 000,000 results my images were 1st, 3rd and 7th without any other sort of stock image in site. I'd say that this suggests that microstock is doing ok in general web searches. The one that came first in the search is a Dreamstime image.
I've been trying to work out why that image is doing so well in the google search. It only has 130 dls but has over 5000 views. I guess that at some time it must have appeared somewhere on the site where people would randomly click on it to get such a low dl/ view ratio.

ETA the one in 3rd position is actually a web site using my image but the other 2 are from DT and IS

scorb · « **Reply #16 on:** October 28, 2010, 05:07 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 27, 2010, 19:58

As mentioned, I think, what is 'colour' supposed to return. Do a bit of work and narrow down what you are really looking for.

Fair point. I tried out some photo searches that a potential new customer might be more likely to try out: 'Cool', 'Fashion' and 'Funny' (which maps to 'Humor')

The default number of search results is 50. Of those 50, here's what I got...

'Cool' -> 48 Vetta results; 1 Agency result; 1 Exclusive+ result.
'Fashion' -> 50 Vetta results
'Humor' -> 49 Vetta results, 1 Agency result

That's worrying enough for the effect it could have on buyers. For contributors, this could be equally worrying: Of the same results, here's the number which come from Admins / Inspectors / Hulton (only a few were from Hulton)...

'Cool' -> 35
'Fashion' -> 18
'Humor' -> 30

Is this another one of iStock's 'dirty little secrets'? I wonder if the CEO Jonathan Klein is aware of the staggering level of nepotism going on at iStock. AFAIK, Getty doesn't suffer from conflicts of interest like this.

lisafx · « **Reply #17 on:** October 28, 2010, 09:11 »

Really interesting stats Scorb. This doesn't bode well for the average Istockphoto contributor at all.

Signing in today, it struck me how normal and business-as-usual the Istock storefront looks. To the average customer there is no obvious indication that anything is amiss. But the workings of the site have massively and irrevocably changed.

Istockphoto is no longer a microstock site at all. Any images by those of us peons who aren't exclusive, or those exclusives who don't have (much) vetta or agency content, will be lost in obscurity. The search engine still only returns a finite number of results, correct? Those of us relegated to the back of the bus may not even show up in many searches at all.

Frankly, if the nepotism thing is true, that is the most disturbing issue of all. It would effectively mean that Istockphoto has become the private cash cow of a few people who work there, rather than a fully operational agency.

The misconception among some buyers that the highest prices represent the whole collection will become more and more widespread, and you will see more of them "bailing".

briciola · « **Reply #18 on:** October 28, 2010, 09:15 »

I hope more buyers do bail, hopefully to a site that pays a fair %

scorb · « **Reply #19 on:** October 28, 2010, 09:54 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 28, 2010, 09:11

Really interesting stats Scorb. This doesn't bode well for the average Istockphoto contributor at all.
...

I agree.

60% of the first page of results for 'Humor' coming from admins & inspectors isn't funny. 70% of an agency's first results for 'Cool' coming from a select few who are employed by the agency ain't cool.

mtkang · « **Reply #20 on:** October 28, 2010, 10:18 »

sorry, how to tell an image is from 'agency', i assume it is the 'agency collections'? thanks!

Danicek · « **Reply #21 on:** October 28, 2010, 10:22 »

^^^ Agency file has blue camera next to it, Vetta file has golden camera next to it, exclusive plus file has crown with plus sign, exclusive file has the crown...

alias · « **Reply #22 on:** October 28, 2010, 10:35 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 28, 2010, 09:11

if the nepotism thing is true, that is the most disturbing issue of all. It would effectively mean that Istockphoto has become the private cash cow of a few people who work there, rather than a fully operational agency.

Nice treats for each other ? Mutual inspection ? Self inspection ? Keywords spamming ignored ? Easy Vetta approval ? Something other ?

Quote from: scorb on October 28, 2010, 05:07

I wonder if the CEO Jonathan Klein is aware of the staggering level of nepotism going on at iStock.

Might be a wink-wink thing from middle layer towards keeping people on board. People more Vetta than Agency. Or perhaps be them taking it for themselves. If it was a public enterprise it would be important.

pet_chia · « **Reply #23 on:** October 28, 2010, 10:44 »

Quote from: fotografer on October 28, 2010, 03:39

...
I just did an image search on google using 2 of my popular keywords. Out of 13, 000,000 results my images were 1st, 3rd and 7th without any other sort of stock image in site. I'd say that this suggests that microstock is doing ok in general web searches. The one that came first in the search is a Dreamstime image.
I've been trying to work out why that image is doing so well in the google search. It only has 130 dls but has over 5000 views. I guess that at some time it must have appeared somewhere on the site where people would randomly click on it to get such a low dl/ view ratio.

ETA the one in 3rd position is actually a web site using my image but the other 2 are from DT and IS

Cool! (by which I mean, an expression of surprise and delight, not the keyword which brings $$$ to Vetta contributors)

I just searched at images.google.com for [<something> +"isolated on white"] and one of my images was #2. A best selling image as it happens (though no flames, it isn't what you would call a highly commercial object). It is significantly lower than that in the equivalent best match search at IS, with a lot of "crowned" images coming first.

Maybe we should spread the word to customers that they may find that a better "best match" can be achieved with google than by trusting the potentially skewed best match at IS. I say that because AFAIK google's whole point, and the reason for its success, is that it uses clues (such as links from other web sites) to defeat scamming. The same scamming tactics allegedly occurring at IS (keyword spamming and search result skewing) are what google specializes in beating.

Here's a little exercise for you to do at home: try searches like this, and see if the results have been gamed towards crowns/agency:

http://images.google.com/images?q=cool+%2B"istockphoto.com"

pet_chia · « **Reply #24 on:** October 28, 2010, 11:02 »

Quote from: scorb on October 28, 2010, 05:07

...
Is this another one of iStock's 'dirty little secrets'? I wonder if the CEO Jonathan Klein is aware of the staggering level of nepotism going on at iStock. AFAIK, Getty doesn't suffer from conflicts of interest like this.

I don't know if this is true, I don't know who any of these people are and I have no axe to grind other than wanting a fair shake. But I will say this (again): any organization that want's to be successful in the long run had better be customer-oriented, not supplier-oriented or insider-oriented.

If problems are occurring because upload approvals and search algorithms are skewed by contributor/insiders, then I recommend a corporate shift towards purging those with conflicts of interest and instead recruiting from the ranks of long-term buyers.

As I related before in other posts about my experiences in other corporations, some of them are highly skewed toward insiders' benefits - in the most shocking ways. Conrad Black (according to reports) was a notorious example and well known, because he was brought down. But many of them are never punished, except that the companies inevitably whither and die.

There are however companies which are absolute models of ethics and fair play. After witnessing heinous insider dirty work in one large company, I was pleasantly surprised when being trained in another, larger and more successful company that they had a code of conduct which absolute forbade ANY conflict of interest or even APPEARANCE of conflict of interest. What they said was, we understand that occasionally in this business people have investments or other interests which intersect with the business of our company. You MUST declare this interest to your superiors, who will bring it to the attention of our board of ethics who will most likely allow you continue working for our company ONLY if you donate 100% of any gain from this outside interest to a suitable charity. Otherwise, it's the chop. This company with its code of ethics made far, far more millionaires of its employees and investors in the long run than the other company with conflicted insiders (chiefly the CEO), which had a good run for a few years but then stagnated and was sold to a competitor at something well below its all-time-high share price.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: istockphoto 'Agency' positioning (Read 6465 times)

joingated

Jo Ann Snover

Sadstock

click_click

ShadySue

ShadySue

caspixel

cathyslife

ShadySue

caspixel

Sean Locke Photography

JamesGdesign

pet_chia

helix7

JamesGdesign

fotografer

scorb

lisafx

briciola

scorb

mtkang

Danicek

alias

pet_chia

pet_chia

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors