Author Topic: Only noticed today (Read 6927 times)

ShadySue · « **on:** December 24, 2010, 13:54 »

Somehow I managed to miss the announcement of this and any discussion of it both here and on iStock's forums.
I see that on Agency and Vetta files, the extended licences are on the files' page as add-ons, so that it's clear that they're needed for certain purposes.

But my question, which I can't ask on the iStock site, and everyone's 'home for the holidays' anyway, is:
Why aren't these 'add-on' options on the file page for each file? I'm perfectly sure that many ELs are missed, either because people are in a hurry, and just don't know, or because they won't be caught. Why don't iStock want to maximise their income, and by extension ours, on every file, not just Vettas and Agency files?
If this has already been discussed here or there, please point me to the link. Tx.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** December 24, 2010, 14:00 »

Yes, you did miss the discussion both here and there.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284542&page=1

Extended license options are available on every IS file if you click the radio button for them under the pricing list. That's nothing new. On Vettas and Agency files, since it is included automatically, the extended button is "pushed" by default - ie, there is no "standard" button to push.

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** December 24, 2010, 14:35 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 24, 2010, 14:00

Yes, you did miss the discussion both here and there.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284542&page=1

Extended license options are available on every IS file if you click the radio button for them under the pricing list. That's nothing new. On Vettas and Agency files, since it is included automatically, the extended button is "pushed" by default - ie, there is no "standard" button to push.

I did see the discussion on the legal guarantee ELs with Agency and Vettas..
What I didn't see was the question of why all the EL options are listed, with adjacent tickboxes, on all Agency and Vetta pics, but not on the others.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #3 on:** December 24, 2010, 16:50 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 24, 2010, 14:35

Quote from: sjlocke on December 24, 2010, 14:00
Yes, you did miss the discussion both here and there.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284542&page=1

Extended license options are available on every IS file if you click the radio button for them under the pricing list. That's nothing new. On Vettas and Agency files, since it is included automatically, the extended button is "pushed" by default - ie, there is no "standard" button to push.

I did see the discussion on the legal guarantee ELs with Agency and Vettas..
What I didn't see was the question of why all the EL options are listed, with adjacent tickboxes, on all Agency and Vetta pics, but not on the others.

Because, since the option for the legal guarantee is checked (and uncheckable) since it is included at 0 cost, the EL options remain open for the two. On a regular image, the standard license applies unless the user checks the radiobutton to display the ELs. Just look at a regular file page and a Vetta file page. It's pretty obvious what's going on, UI-wise.

caspixel · « **Reply #4 on:** December 24, 2010, 18:35 »

Sounds confusing any way you look at it. They just keep making things more and more convoluted for the buyers.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** December 24, 2010, 18:39 »

Like I said, I'd prefer that these upgrades are obvious on every file page.
They could easily just have a line saying that there's an extended legal guarantee with the Agency and Vetta files, then have the ticky boxes for everything else, and all optional boxes for non A/V files.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #6 on:** December 24, 2010, 20:35 »

Quote from: caspixel on December 24, 2010, 18:35

Sounds confusing any way you look at it. They just keep making things more and more convoluted for the buyers.

I don't understand the confusion. There's the EL options, one is checked, and it costs 0 credits. Sorry, I don't see this as an issue. It's a benefit for the buyers that the EL legal guarantee is free. I'm afraid you're just grasping trying to make negatives out of anything that happens.

caspixel · « **Reply #7 on:** December 24, 2010, 20:52 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 24, 2010, 20:35

Quote from: caspixel on December 24, 2010, 18:35
Sounds confusing any way you look at it. They just keep making things more and more convoluted for the buyers.

I don't understand the confusion. There's the EL options, one is checked, and it costs 0 credits. Sorry, I don't see this as an issue. It's a benefit for the buyers that the EL legal guarantee is free. I'm afraid you're just grasping trying to make negatives out of anything that happens.

Actually, no. I think it sounds confusing.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #8 on:** December 24, 2010, 21:33 »

And yet, it isn't.

caspixel · « **Reply #9 on:** December 24, 2010, 21:36 »

And yet there was a whole discussion about it. If it wasn't at all confusing, no one would have even mentioned it.

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** December 25, 2010, 05:11 »

It's not that I think it's confusing, just that it could be worked out better for everyone's benefit, especially iStock as they stand to gain most.
Put the upgrade options on all pages (tickboxes). Wouldn't affect most buyers at all, but it brings directly to their notice that ELs are required and available for certain uses.
Then non-purchase would be deliberate theft and not just 'ignorance'.
I've recently bought flowers from two different companies - in both cases there were plenty of optional upsells right on the page, I didn't need to wonder what to do if I wanted a vase, chocolates, champagne, a teddy, whatever, they were right there on the page.
And ELs aren't 'optional extras' - they're required when needed, but I'm sure lots of buyers don't know that.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #11 on:** December 25, 2010, 10:58 »

Quote from: caspixel on December 24, 2010, 21:36

And yet there was a whole discussion about it. If it wasn't at all confusing, no one would have even mentioned it.

The discussion was about the reporting issues, not that no one could figure out the UI on the details page.

The EL area isn't open all the time because it would take up real estate on the screen that a relative few people would be interested in. It's clear enough right there with the radio buttons what the options are. Could they ask an additional question along the line or have an unobtrusive pop up asking to make sure the buyer doesn't need an EL? Maybe, but I don't see the big deal (and I'm one for maximizing revenue, trust me).

Graffoto · « **Reply #12 on:** December 25, 2010, 15:47 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 25, 2010, 10:58

Quote from: caspixel on December 24, 2010, 21:36
And yet there was a whole discussion about it. If it wasn't at all confusing, no one would have even mentioned it.

The discussion was about the reporting issues, not that no one could figure out the UI on the details page.

The EL area isn't open all the time because it would take up real estate on the screen that a relative few people would be interested in. It's clear enough right there with the radio buttons what the options are. Could they ask an additional question along the line or have an unobtrusive pop up asking to make sure the buyer doesn't need an EL? Maybe, but I don't see the big deal (and I'm one for maximizing revenue, trust me).

I really have to agree with Sue on this one. That radio button is very easy to overlook. I never even paid any attention to it, until Sean mentioned it.
Further, there is a drop down IF you hover over the word "extended" that is totally invisible. Not intuitive at all.
The simple and very real fact is that most buyers aren't aware that extended license is required for certain use and making the fact that they are there and sometimes needed more obvious would be in everyone's best interest.

KB · « **Reply #13 on:** December 26, 2010, 00:37 »

Quote from: nosaya on December 25, 2010, 15:47

Quote from: sjlocke on December 25, 2010, 10:58
Quote from: caspixel on December 24, 2010, 21:36
And yet there was a whole discussion about it. If it wasn't at all confusing, no one would have even mentioned it.

The discussion was about the reporting issues, not that no one could figure out the UI on the details page.

The EL area isn't open all the time because it would take up real estate on the screen that a relative few people would be interested in. It's clear enough right there with the radio buttons what the options are. Could they ask an additional question along the line or have an unobtrusive pop up asking to make sure the buyer doesn't need an EL? Maybe, but I don't see the big deal (and I'm one for maximizing revenue, trust me).

I really have to agree with Sue on this one. That radio button is very easy to overlook. I never even paid any attention to it, until Sean mentioned it.
Further, there is a drop down IF you hover over the word "extended" that is totally invisible. Not intuitive at all.
The simple and very real fact is that most buyers aren't aware that extended license is required for certain use and making the fact that they are there and sometimes needed more obvious would be in everyone's best interest.

I think they're both right.

It's very easy to overlook (I've never noticed it in 3+ years on the site), but now that I know it's there, it's simple & obvious. And as Sean said, opening it up pushes down the "Stock photo description" and "details" quite a bit (leaving a large and rather ugly amount of white space).

Too bad there isn't a way to easily show the EL options (for those who haven't noticed the radio buttons) yet not ruin the layout. Maybe they'll find a way for the next F5.

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** December 26, 2010, 05:39 »

Quote from: KB on December 26, 2010, 00:37

I think they're both right.

It's very easy to overlook (I've never noticed it in 3+ years on the site), but now that I know it's there, it's simple & obvious. And as Sean said, opening it up pushes down the "Stock photo description" and "details" quite a bit (leaving a large and rather ugly amount of white space).
Too bad there isn't a way to easily show the EL options (for those who haven't noticed the radio buttons) yet not ruin the layout. Maybe they'll find a way for the next F5.

I'm sure there are several ways in which it could be done.
What's interesting is that they think it's OK to have an 'ugly' layout on the Premium pages, but not on the others.
As I've said before, if Time Magazine can 'avoid' paying the EL (because of 'ignorance', apparently) - TWICE! - (until challenged), how many others are avoiding it too, through ignorance (or otherwise)

Side issue: Has Time used an iStock image since it was called out on these two? (I haven't seen any reference if so)
Have they used 'cheaper' imagery or even Flickr pics?
Or have they reverted to commissioned pics/macro?
(a quick shuftie of their website suggests that they're using Getty for their generic, even when equally suitable 'generic' images are on iStock)

caspixel · « **Reply #15 on:** December 26, 2010, 13:11 »

Quote from: KB on December 26, 2010, 00:37

It's very easy to overlook (I've never noticed it in 3+ years on the site),

I was a long time customer and never noticed it. When you are familiar with a site, things seem obvious and easy, but you have to look at things through the eyes of someone who has never used the interface before and knows nothing about the different kinds of licenses. I think it is not smart to hide things from customers. It makes it to easy for them to make a mistake. If someone doesn't know about extended licenses, they are not going to be looking for that information.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Only noticed today (Read 6927 times)

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

caspixel

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

caspixel

Sean Locke Photography

caspixel

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

Graffoto

KB

ShadySue

caspixel

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors