Quote from: sharpshot on November 04, 2011, 09:49

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on November 04, 2011, 08:38

...Istock by allowing too many indies at the top of their best match seems to have to taken short term gain and now is experiencing long term pain....

I very much doubt that's the reason why buyers have left.  I think buyers have left because there's too many different prices.  They find what they want and its too expensive.  The search changes all the time, nothing seems to be stable.  They can filter by price now but it took too long to get that and they end up with just independents images that they can see much more of on the other sites.  The upload limits and low commissions mean that the other sites have a lot more to offer from independents than istock.

So the other sites compete on what exactly.... price...  what else is there to compete on.   If in the end the same image appears on my computer, then what does it matter on how many clicks it takes or what the portal looks like.  It seems to me independents are competing against themselves solely on price and unless I am an new to earth that will have to be lower in the future.  

Yes, that's the answer: price. While IS increased prices, all the others went to the subs formula, that's to say, lowered prices to almost nothing. I've never seen any micro agency daring to compete with istock with similar prices. There must be a reason for that. And, that said, I don't uderstand those who talk as if IS had loosed almost all their customers. While is true that earning are lower than last year, it's not so much lower (at least for me, it doesn't reach 15%), and another reason, invasion of exclusive studios (the YA kind) with hundreds of quality uploads a month play also a part in it.

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on November 04, 2011, 10:55

Quote from: sharpshot on November 04, 2011, 09:49

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on November 04, 2011, 08:38

...Istock by allowing too many indies at the top of their best match seems to have to taken short term gain and now is experiencing long term pain....

I very much doubt that's the reason why buyers have left.  I think buyers have left because there's too many different prices.  They find what they want and its too expensive.  The search changes all the time, nothing seems to be stable.  They can filter by price now but it took too long to get that and they end up with just independents images that they can see much more of on the other sites.  The upload limits and low commissions mean that the other sites have a lot more to offer from independents than istock.

So the other sites compete on what exactly.... price...  what else is there to compete on.   If in the end the same image appears on my computer, then what does it matter on how many clicks it takes or what the portal looks like.  It seems to me independents are competing against themselves solely on price and unless I am an new to earth that will have to be lower in the future.  

Yes, that's the answer: price. While IS increased prices, all the others went to the subs formula, that's to say, lowered prices to almost nothing. I've never seen any micro agency daring to compete with istock with similar prices. There must be a reason for that. And, that said, I don't uderstand those who talk as if IS had loosed almost all their customers. While is true that earning are lower than last year, it's not so much lower (at least for me, it doesn't reach 15%), and another reason, invasion of exclusive studios (the YA kind) with hundreds of quality uploads a month play also a part in it.

We shop for images at sites that make it easy to find the product we need in the least amount of time.  The money we make is very time dependent so wading through the mess at IS is counter productive and time consuming.  We need what we need and NOT the images that will make them the most money.

Most of our clients have room in their advertising budgets for a few less or more dollars. Search time is a deal killer, we decided to stop purchasing images at IS because of the business time squandered finding the images we needed for our projects as well as its abysmal lack of ethics and absence of concern for its customers and suppliers.

We shop for images at sites that make it easy to find the product we need in the least amount of time.  The money we make is very time dependent so wading through the mess at IS is counter productive and time consuming.  We need what we need and NOT the images that will make them the most money.

Most of our clients have room in their advertising budgets for a few less or more dollars. Search time is a deal killer, we decided to stop purchasing images at IS because of the business time squandered finding the images we needed for our projects as well as its abysmal lack of ethics and absence of concern for its customers and suppliers.

Exactly. Logical and sensible. I am sure you are not alone in your thinking.

We shop for images at sites that make it easy to find the product we need in the least amount of time.  The money we make is very time dependent so wading through the mess at IS is counter productive and time consuming.  We need what we need and NOT the images that will make them the most money.

What mess?  You've actually got the most filtering ability I've seen anywhere.  Price, copyspace, color, orientation, etc. etc.

"Disregard of competitors?" OMG, this is new.

"Disregard of competitors?" OMG, this is new.

disregard meaning "not paying attention".....IS have to know and understand what their competitors are doing else they will lose their buyers to them....

Quote from: gbalex on November 04, 2011, 11:53

We shop for images at sites that make it easy to find the product we need in the least amount of time.  The money we make is very time dependent so wading through the mess at IS is counter productive and time consuming.  We need what we need and NOT the images that will make them the most money.

What mess?  You've actually got the most filtering ability I've seen anywhere.  Price, copyspace, color, orientation, etc. etc.

Eventually, yes.  And I have no trouble with the search, but then I'm an IT person and familiar with searches, so maybe I'm not typical.

But it took so long.  And so many complaints.  You yourself apparently felt it so poor that you found it necessary to write a GM script to help the buyers filter out Vetta and Agency images.

And once the buyers, like gbalex, have left, they may not come back.  iStock should listen a bit more.

Quote from: cybernesco on November 04, 2011, 13:31

Quote from: loop on November 04, 2011, 13:26

"Disregard of competitors?" OMG, this is new.

disregard meaning "not paying attention".....IS have to know and understand what their competitors are doing else they will lose their buyers to them....

Then, the answer for istock is cutting their prices by half. But should that happen, many competitors would cut theirs too. Next station: free.

IS have to know and understand what their competitors are doing and try to do better, certainly not by putting prices higher within various complicated collections, else they will lose buyers to them....it is that simple

Quote from: cybernesco on November 04, 2011, 13:48

Quote from: loop on November 04, 2011, 13:42

Quote from: cybernesco on November 04, 2011, 13:31

Quote from: loop on November 04, 2011, 13:26

"Disregard of competitors?" OMG, this is new.

disregard meaning "not paying attention".....IS have to know and understand what their competitors are doing else they will lose their buyers to them....

Then, the answer for istock is cutting their prices by half. But should that happen, many competitors would cut theirs too. Next station: free.

IS have to know and understand what their competitors are doing and try to do better, certainly not by putting prices higher within various complicated collections, else they will lose buyers to them....it is that simple

It's a matter of choosing. Maybe they prefer less downloads and more income. Every time I get a Vetta or Agency sale for 12 to 80 dollars, and that happens daily, I can't avoid thinking how many sub sales I would need to match that.

I am happy for you that you are doing well!!!

Quote from: cybernesco on November 04, 2011, 13:58

Quote from: loop on November 04, 2011, 13:54

Quote from: cybernesco on November 04, 2011, 13:48

Quote from: loop on November 04, 2011, 13:42

Quote from: cybernesco on November 04, 2011, 13:31

Quote from: loop on November 04, 2011, 13:26

"Disregard of competitors?" OMG, this is new.

disregard meaning "not paying attention".....IS have to know and understand what their competitors are doing else they will lose their buyers to them....

Then, the answer for istock is cutting their prices by half. But should that happen, many competitors would cut theirs too. Next station: free.

IS have to know and understand what their competitors are doing and try to do better, certainly not by putting prices higher within various complicated collections, else they will lose buyers to them....it is that simple

It's a matter of choosing. Maybe they prefer less downloads and more income. Every time I get a Vetta or Agency sale for 12 to 80 dollars, and that happens daily, I can't avoid thinking how many sub sales I would need to match that.

I am happy for you that you are doing well!!!

I'm doing well enough, thanks. That's because I'm there. Have a nice weekend.

Well...I guess.. it is not just because you are there...but more so...hopefully.. because you have lots of very nice images....have a nice weekend too

We shop for images at sites that make it easy to find the product we need in the least amount of time.  The money we make is very time dependent so wading through the mess at IS is counter productive and time consuming.  We need what we need and NOT the images that will make them the most money.

Most of our clients have room in their advertising budgets for a few less or more dollars. Search time is a deal killer, we decided to stop purchasing images at IS because of the business time squandered finding the images we needed for our projects as well as its abysmal lack of ethics and absence of concern for its customers and suppliers.

Thanks very much for posting this.  Really summarizes the situation perfectly. 

We contributors can hypothesize until we are blue in the face, but nothing makes the point as succinctly as an actual volume buyer willing to share their experience. 

re: iStock's search: iStock's search capabilities are amazing these days. despite the odd technical hiccups, which occur everywhere, iStock's search allows you just about any combination of parameters to find images you're searching for quickly at various price points. say what you will, but iStock's search is probably the best search in the business right now, the CV notwithstanding.

It might be 'amazing' but not every buyer has the time to take evening classes to work out to to use it or learn Istock's 'special language'.

IMHO, SS's search engine is vastly superior to IS's. It is much faster in producing results, adding filters, choosing orientation, etc. Most importantly it is totally intuitive, even for novice buyers. The buyer doesn't need to learn all about price sliders because all images cost the same.

Want to find images of a small obscure place or particular flora or fauna? You can do that on SS whilst IS will often either find zero results or automatically choose a more mainstream choice for you. How frustrating for both buyers and contributors alike.

If you sold through SS or DT, where you can see the keywords actually used by the buyer, you be 'amazed' just how many times an image is found using keywords that IS would simply not allow or cater for despite the word being appropriate. The CV is simply not flexible enough to allow buyers to quickly find what they want.

Anyway, it seems to me that the buyers are making it pretty clear where they prefer to do business. So far this month my earnings at SS are almost double those at IS. The gap is widening on a monthly basis.