Author Topic: No more ugly lightboxes! Thank goodness. (Read 18409 times)

KB · « **on:** February 18, 2015, 13:31 »

I have no idea what I was thinking, spending so many countless hours creating different lightboxes that made it easy for buyers to purchase multiple, related files of mine. But thankfully iStock / Getty has corrected my silliness, ensuring (to my relief) that my sales will indeed drop even further. I was getting worried about hitting that plateau.

And descriptions. So many ugly, worthless descriptions. No longer will buyers need to see those, either. Unfortunately, apparently, I still need to write them, for SEO purposes. Because so many of my files are purchased via Google, of course.

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1794&elq=03f4b29ebc7a49738c882ae06429e4cf&elqCampaignId=5837

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1 on:** February 18, 2015, 14:08 »

Looks clean and the larger zoom is very welcome. I find the most odd part of this the removal of visibility of descriptions.

For some images, they don't matter, but for others, I guess the buyer has to look at the list of keywords to find out the exact location, species, etc. Seems not to be customer friendly to make it hard to read the important info for those types of images where it's important.

So losing "beautiful girl twirls in the sunshine" is irrelevant, but "Palm Beach, Aruba, looking north toward Malmok Beach" conveys something a buyer might not be able to discern from the image

Losing the file sizes suggests they're really dug in on this one size idea. And the idea of additional "merchandising" on the page in the future would bother me if I had more than a handful of images left there.

The language is so ickily corporate-speak: "Please note additional content merchandising will be built out on this platform in the future.", and calling it an Asset Detail Page - our images, illustrations, video & audio are all just assets to Getty...

jjneff · « **Reply #2 on:** February 18, 2015, 14:18 »

I am confused as to the merchandizing, isn't that a good thing?

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** February 18, 2015, 14:21 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 18, 2015, 14:08

For some images, they don't matter, but for others, I guess the buyer has to look at the list of keywords to find out the exact location, species, etc. Seems not to be customer friendly to make it hard to read the important info for those types of images where it's important.

And the trouble is that so many people spam the keywords. Not so many spam the description. Yesterday I found a series of files with five location keywords across two countries. The location in the description wasn't the one I'd been searching on.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #4 on:** February 18, 2015, 14:22 »

Quote from: jjneff on February 18, 2015, 14:18

I am confused as to the merchandizing, isn't that a good thing?

Depends on what it is. And we don't know, but the notion that as the contributor I would have no control over whatever that was - links to other Getty properties, ads like in a Google search - is largely the source of my concern.

You're thinking that this would be something merchandising your work and increasing your income - and that would be excellent, but I'm not sure why it would need removal of other things - like description - to make it happen.

jjneff · « **Reply #5 on:** February 18, 2015, 14:26 »

I guess it will just be a waiting game

SnowDog · « **Reply #6 on:** February 18, 2015, 15:26 »

No mention of Light Boxes (as far as I could see) The carousel will show similar images from my portfolio based on keywords. That's ok to a point but the carousel only shows six images at a time. In a light box, I could "guide" the buyer experience and also display many more images on the screen at once for them to scan. In a niche LB with a couple hundred images, I can't see them sticking with the carousel that long.

Also, if I understand correctly, the carousel is looking for similar images based on keywords AND upload date. This means it is unlikely for them to find two great shots of a similar concept taken five years apart. In a LB, they could sort by DL's and easily find the most popular images in my portfolio based on a similar theme. I know they can still do that now by going to my portfolio, applying whatever filters and sorts they want, but that is more work. I thought the idea was to improve the buyer experience.

Having said that, I do like the cleaner look and larger image size.

Monkeyman · « **Reply #7 on:** February 18, 2015, 19:52 »

It says "Descriptions will be de-emphasized on the page, and only shown to first time visitors", so it won't go away completely as I understand it.

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** February 18, 2015, 20:26 »

Quote from: Monkeyman on February 18, 2015, 19:52

It says "Descriptions will be de-emphasized on the page, and only shown to first time visitors", so it won't go away completely as I understand it.

Even that's ambiguous. Does it mean people on their very first visit to the site will see descriptions, but never again (and will presumably wonder why); or does it mean on their first click on that file (ditto)?
I wonder why they think descriptions are important to 'first time visitors', but not to anyone else.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #9 on:** February 18, 2015, 22:15 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 18, 2015, 14:22

Quote from: jjneff on February 18, 2015, 14:18
I am confused as to the merchandizing, isn't that a good thing?

Depends on what it is. And we don't know, but the notion that as the contributor I would have no control over whatever that was - links to other Getty properties, ads like in a Google search - is largely the source of my concern.

You're thinking that this would be something merchandising your work and increasing your income - and that would be excellent, but I'm not sure why it would need removal of other things - like description - to make it happen.

Yeah. The new page has links to similar but does not say similar from same artist. Why I want them promoting somebody else's work on my pictures? Oh sorry, they aren't my pictures. They are Getty 'assets'.

Holmes · « **Reply #10 on:** February 18, 2015, 23:28 »

I just can't believe that buyer research revealed that buyers felt that banner-linked light boxes created by a contributor were not helpful.

Holmes · « **Reply #11 on:** February 18, 2015, 23:29 »

Quote from: jjneff on February 18, 2015, 14:18

I am confused as to the merchandizing, isn't that a good thing?

Mugs, tank tops, t shirts, ball caps

Hobostocker · « **Reply #12 on:** February 18, 2015, 23:48 »

it's math.

as their archive grows bigger and bigger over time they realize that as the number of buyers and download is stable there will be millions of images that just never sell once or that are never even displayed or zoomed once in their lifetime.

solution : find ways to mix up the search results, no matter how.

but still it does nothing to "keep the promise" of microstock which was to "sell cheap and sell many" .. at this point is just "sell cheap" apart for the top 5-10% best selling keywords.

to sell as much as in the past they should squeeze the archive to 5-10 millions pics or to deliberately "sandbox" 90% of the images that have underperformed in the last 2-3 yrs.

what's next ? merchandising ? POD ? food stamps ? it all smells of desperation to me as the root issue here is the lack or even decrease of buyers.

and even doubling the number of buyers will result in the same scenario when agencies will have 100 millions of images on sale ... again there's a math model that justifies the microstock model and either they stick with it or it just doesn't work, in particular for us suppliers.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #13 on:** February 18, 2015, 23:53 »

this is not an Istock issue, it's an industry-wide issue.

even if there was a single monolithic agency owning 100% of the market they would face the same problems over time .. oversupply and stagnant demand !

it's a zero sum game because the number of buyers is not increasing and the prices are not going up.

bunhill · « **Reply #14 on:** February 19, 2015, 04:46 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on February 18, 2015, 23:48

but still it does nothing to "keep the promise" of microstock which was to "sell cheap and sell many"

The RF microstock sites are still selling at low prices and in volume. It's the rank and file contributors who cannot expect to sell each image in volume from now on (they have to supply masses and hope that some sell a little). But a job in McDonalds would probably pay better. The best can hope to make up for that by being promoted to a higher priced boutique collection. That's where the interest and enthusiasm is. No bad thing in a way - we were wasting our lives doing mundane cut-outs

Quote from: Hobostocker on February 18, 2015, 23:53

even if there was a single monolithic agency owning 100% of the market they would face the same problems over time .. oversupply and stagnant demand !

Oversupply is not a problem for the agencies. It reduces any potential for a pressure on costs. Really the only thing they need to care about at this point is market share. Because it is going to be all about investor sentiment assuming that Getty goes for an IPO exit - and can get there whilst the stock market is still in QE funded bonkers mode.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #15 on:** February 19, 2015, 04:56 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 18, 2015, 14:21

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 18, 2015, 14:08
For some images, they don't matter, but for others, I guess the buyer has to look at the list of keywords to find out the exact location, species, etc. Seems not to be customer friendly to make it hard to read the important info for those types of images where it's important.
And the trouble is that so many people spam the keywords. Not so many spam the description. Yesterday I found a series of files with five location keywords across two countries. The location in the description wasn't the one I'd been searching on.

Honestly IStock has no one to blame but themselves for the keyword spamming on the site. The tedious disambiguation process I am sure has led to endless mis categorization. Especially now that the RPI on the site doesn't in any way justify spending several minutes per image carefully checking keyword tick boxes. Oh well, all the spam should drive more buyers away, so they will learn the hard way I guess.

bunhill · « **Reply #16 on:** February 19, 2015, 05:23 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on February 19, 2015, 04:56

Honestly IStock has no one to blame but themselves for the keyword spamming on the site ... all the spam should drive more buyers away

But the default search results are typically very good. Which is what matters to the subscribers. I think that iStock is working great for Getty and the subscribers.

ShadySue · « **Reply #17 on:** February 19, 2015, 05:50 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on February 19, 2015, 04:56

Quote from: ShadySue on February 18, 2015, 14:21
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 18, 2015, 14:08
For some images, they don't matter, but for others, I guess the buyer has to look at the list of keywords to find out the exact location, species, etc. Seems not to be customer friendly to make it hard to read the important info for those types of images where it's important.
And the trouble is that so many people spam the keywords. Not so many spam the description. Yesterday I found a series of files with five location keywords across two countries. The location in the description wasn't the one I'd been searching on.

Honestly IStock has no one to blame but themselves for the keyword spamming on the site. The tedious disambiguation process I am sure has led to endless mis categorization. Especially now that the RPI on the site doesn't in any way justify spending several minutes per image carefully checking keyword tick boxes. Oh well, all the spam should drive more buyers away, so they will learn the hard way I guess.

At one point, in theory at least, if someone didn't DA, that keyword didn't show in the search. I can't remember if that ever worked, but sadly, it doesn't work now, AFAICS.
I totally approve of the CV in theory and don't find DAing difficult in general - but I started after it had been introduced. I can well imagine that if they introduced one at Alamy now, I'd be daunted to go through my back catalogue (but I'd do it).
Of course it's infuriating when the DA you need isn't available, and now the 'not in the CV keyword bug' has been going on for about a year now.
I'm talking about deliberate spam. E.g. someone has a beach and tags it with many different famous beaches from all over the world, even when the surrounds are totally wrong for the site. You might get off with that if it's just a beach and sea, but any surrounding landscape is a big giveaway.Or they choose to label one species, which they have correctly identified in the description, with several others from various different families. Or they label an obvious zoo shot with all the countries the animal might be found in. Or they label an isolated apple with several different fruit names.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #18 on:** February 19, 2015, 06:04 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 19, 2015, 04:46

Oversupply is not a problem for the agencies. It reduces any potential for a pressure on costs. Really the only thing they need to care about at this point is market share. Because it is going to be all about investor sentiment assuming that Getty goes for an IPO exit - and can get there whilst the stock market is still in QE funded bonkers mode.

so why are they pushing higher priced collections ?

they're aware they're wasting a lot of talent and opportunities with their actual pricing schemes and that paying peanuts they're only going to get monkeys in return.

unfortunately they also face the reality that the demand for mid-stock is not as big to justify any sudden U-turn in their sales strategy.

ShadySue · « **Reply #19 on:** February 19, 2015, 06:14 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on February 19, 2015, 06:04

Quote from: bunhill on February 19, 2015, 04:46
Oversupply is not a problem for the agencies. It reduces any potential for a pressure on costs. Really the only thing they need to care about at this point is market share. Because it is going to be all about investor sentiment assuming that Getty goes for an IPO exit - and can get there whilst the stock market is still in QE funded bonkers mode.
so why are they pushing higher priced collections ?

Are they?
The last I looked, they were pushing subs.

bunhill · « **Reply #20 on:** February 19, 2015, 06:17 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on February 19, 2015, 06:04

they also face the reality that the demand for mid-stock is not as big to justify any sudden U-turn in their sales strategy.

I think that the main business will be the IPO and growing repeat subscriptions. I think that they will be prepared to cannibalize everything else for that.

jjneff · « **Reply #21 on:** February 19, 2015, 06:29 »

I like the changes, but of course I am in the nut house and swiped the aids phone.

ShadySue · « **Reply #22 on:** February 19, 2015, 07:38 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on February 18, 2015, 22:15

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 18, 2015, 14:22
Quote from: jjneff on February 18, 2015, 14:18
I am confused as to the merchandizing, isn't that a good thing?

Depends on what it is. And we don't know, but the notion that as the contributor I would have no control over whatever that was - links to other Getty properties, ads like in a Google search - is largely the source of my concern.

You're thinking that this would be something merchandising your work and increasing your income - and that would be excellent, but I'm not sure why it would need removal of other things - like description - to make it happen.

Yeah. The new page has links to similar but does not say similar from same artist. Why I want them promoting somebody else's work on my pictures? Oh sorry, they aren't my pictures. They are Getty 'assets'.

What they say: "Stock search will automate and build a similar image carousel of each contributor's content based on a combination of contributor name, upload date and similar keywords. The automated gallery helps customers more effectively access the most relevant material in a contributor's portfolio that meets the need of their project. In the event there aren’t any similar images in the contributor's portfolio, no carousel will be present."
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1794
Added: but then there's the mysterious 'merchandising' clause, which could mean absoutely anything.

Later still: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365525&messageid=7084175. So indeed they are leaving the way clear for them to do that. Or anything else they randomly think up.

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #23 on:** February 19, 2015, 07:58 »

If it works as advertised, it's a pretty good solution to getting rid of the lightbox links.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #24 on:** February 19, 2015, 15:45 »

The aspect of maintaining lightboxes which (used to) bring me more sales has gone. All the time spent on those has been a complete waste of time then. Pity.
The image carousel is fine by me, as long as the images are actually a) relevant and b) my images only. Most other sites have carousels too.

The bigger preview size is fine.
The download and view counters were never relevant to the customer to begin with (well, it could work both ways: 100+ downloads speaks for its quality/popularity, 0 downloads/1000 views could make a customer believe that "maybe something's wrong with the image if nobody wants it"). SS doesn't show counters either and that works just fine.

However, I don't see why descriptions should be eliminated during subsequent views, as it could contain a lot of information for the customer.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: No more ugly lightboxes! Thank goodness. (Read 18409 times)

KB

Jo Ann Snover

jjneff

ShadySue

Jo Ann Snover

jjneff

SnowDog

Monkeyman

ShadySue

PixelBytes

Holmes

Holmes

Hobostocker

Hobostocker

bunhill

Justanotherphotographer

bunhill

ShadySue

Hobostocker

ShadySue

bunhill

jjneff

ShadySue

fotoVoyager

Noedelhap

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors