MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: PaulieWalnuts on April 03, 2011, 09:13
-
I realize this change just happened but l'll keep this poll open for a few weeks or until the next shakeup happens so you can vote and also change the response.
This change was a big one giving huge preference to Vetta and Agency. I'm guessing most people here don't have much, or any, V/A stuff so I think we're going to see a lot of "down a lot" responses over the next couple weeks.
-
The price difference between these files is so huge that I would be very surprised if IS will be able to just sell them by pushing them up the search results. That's silly idea.
Hack, it is 700% more for Vetta and 1000% more for Agency than for standard non exclusive file (L size).
-
Oh! this time I think its a bit worse then that. I have already had 4 friends on my mail, all Diamond independants and this time around they are prepared to throw in the towel.
Im a bit surprised, we were all promised this new elusive best match, should be better then anything else, more fair, etc so eagerly we waited, as if we didnt guess, yet again it would be a total mess and screw-up.
Never thought I would say this but right now at this hour, the site simply aint worth the trouble anymore and instead of sitting worrying about their internal/external politics problems, one could just as well build on other sites.
-
The search I did wasn't as stacked with Vetta and Agency as the old search was. I searched "horse" with 200 results per page and most of the top photos were flames with a smattering of Vetta throughout. Wasn't that supposed to be one of the perks of Vetta though? Preference in the search?
ETA: I guess in order to get the Vetta stacked search I needed to move the slider to the middle. It was set all the way to the right, though I've never touched it. What a bizarre system. The slider is really stupid. If you didn't hear people talking about it in the forums, you'd never know it was there. Maybe they should make it a price sensitive slider than a keyword 'relevancy' slider.
-
The search I did wasn't as stacked with Vetta and Agency as the old search was. I searched "horse" with 200 results per page and most of the top photos were flames with a smattering of Vetta throughout. Wasn't that supposed to be one of the perks of Vetta though? Preference in the search?
Your slider must be set to the right. I just checked left and middle and it's mostly Vetta and Agency.
-
I agree on the sliderthing caspixel; i just did a search for "dog" and the first 6 pages were Vetta and Agency ONLY (apart from vectors). No trace at all from the other collections. The dogs i had on the first page and 2nd page of the best match are gone... didnt bother to look for them anymore after page 10.
No surprise, of course the favorite istock darlings are well represented (no, OVER represented) in this best match again. Bah, the shamelessness >:(
-
Trouble is they are doing away with the slider next week, leaving its default in the middle and right now, the middle is a down out killer.
-
Trouble is they are doing away with the slider next week, leaving its default in the middle and right now, the middle is a down out killer.
With the continuing drop in sales they must feel like they need to push the more expensive content (again) in order to boost revenue.
-
I won't vote for a few days, had no sales yesterday and none so far today, but sales at weekends for me are random and I had 6 1 sale weekend days in March. I guess we'll know more during the week. I can't go much further down.
I have noticed that my second best selling file is below 200 in pics only for its top keyword!
-
Ok, did few searches and as far as I can tell, all Vetta and Agency files simply go first in the Best Match and only after that the rest. I would say this is a bug or something that will get sorted another way in up to few days at max.
Because it does not make much sense. I can't imagine IS would think business works this way.
-
Ok, did few searches and as far as I can tell, all Vetta and Agency files simply go first in the Best Match and only after that the rest. I would say this is a bug or something that will get sorted another way in up to few days at max.
Because it does not make much sense. I can't imagine IS would think business works this way.
Yeah, well unfortunately this is exactly the way IS, think business nowdays. Not the slightest bit of logic anywhere. I spoke to a friend whom I have known for years, high up on the Getty ladder and he was as baffled as anybody else.
-
I know iStock have made some awful decisions of late, but I don't think even they are stupid enough to have done this one on purpose.
Probably another example of a person/some people in Calgary making changes to a complex system, which they don't understand. And yet again, it's obvious that basic change management procedures which would include documented testing evidence - standard practise elsewhere - are not bothered with at iStock. They're probably not fun enough.
So I reckon it's yet another pathetically preventable SNAFU.
Either that, or it was some some bright spark responding to a need to quickly increase company profits. "Hay duder, I know what we should do to get extra dough - we've got those collections where the pictures are really really expensive, but the royalties we pay out are really really low, right?... lets just put them at the very top of all the searches, then sit back and watch the money roll in! Sweet! What could possibly go wrong!"
-
Lobo, the poor guy has just shut down a slider thread, saying its just turning into another best match complaints thread. Well what . did they expect?
breakfast in bed?
-
Lobo, the poor guy has just shut down a slider thread, saying its just turning into another best match complaints thread. Well what . did they expect????????????
breakfast in bed?
Nonono,
He has ordered you to 'have a nice Sunday', though how he's expecting that with the best match the way it is beats me.
-
Looks like this will just push more buyers to the other sites and that's good for me because I don't upload to istock any more. The buyers can get cheaper prices and I get paid a higher commission and don't have the tedious istock upload procedure.
It's a real shame what's happening to istock and I still hope they get some new owners that realize they can increase profits by keeping their best contributors motivated to stay with them.
-
I'm not sure why everyone is so surprised. The search is back to where it was just a month or so ago, with all the high priced stuff at the top.
-
I'm not sure why everyone is so surprised. The search is back to where it was just a month or so ago, with all the high priced stuff at the top.
Exactly, they did their little test and I'm sure their profit went way down so they reverted back.
-
I'm not sure why everyone is so surprised. The search is back to where it was just a month or so ago, with all the high priced stuff at the top.
Exactly, they did their little test and I'm sure their profit went way down so they reverted back.
-----------------------------------------
Its never been like this before, pure V&A.
-
Hope it was like one month ago, but sadly my port doesnt look the same nor the searches where I could find my files do it either.
If this is intentional human stupidity definitely has no limits.
-
I'm not sure why everyone is so surprised. The search is back to where it was just a month or so ago, with all the high priced stuff at the top.
Exactly, they did their little test and I'm sure their profit went way down so they reverted back.
What they don't realize, though, is that is WHY their profit went down. They are driving people away having the high priced stuff at the top, so even if they change it back, the customers are already gone.
-
I'm not seeing the vetta agency images at the beginning, a search for "business" gets the first vetta/agency image at #26 while out of the first 200 results I only see 3 (2 agency and 1 vetta). Seems pretty good for me since I have 0 agency and only 3 vetta.
-
I'm not sure why everyone is so surprised. The search is back to where it was just a month or so ago, with all the high priced stuff at the top.
Exactly, they did their little test and I'm sure their profit went way down so they reverted back.
What they don't realize, though, is that is WHY their profit went down. They are driving people away having the high priced stuff at the top, so even if they change it back, the customers are already gone.
Exactly, and most likely they wonīt come back ever.
-
Lobo, the poor guy has just shut down a slider thread, saying its just turning into another best match complaints thread. Well what . did they expect????????????
breakfast in bed?
Nonono,
He has ordered you to 'have a nice Sunday', though how he's expecting that with the best match the way it is beats me.
Yeah, urging patience until early next week when we can't even get a photo in the results?!?! He needs to wake up. There's really no excuse for this.
-
My standard best match reference search returns about 40,000 results of which I typically have 3 on the first page of 200, and 20 or more in the first 5 pages. Today I had to get to page 40 before I found my first image. Checking out the last page, its almost entirely my images. Slider in the middle
-
I'm not seeing the vetta agency images at the beginning, a search for "business" gets the first vetta/agency image at #26 while out of the first 200 results I only see 3 (2 agency and 1 vetta). Seems pretty good for me since I have 0 agency and only 3 vetta.
-----------------------------------------------------
I think your slider is to the right. Set it to the middle and check again. Amazingly with slider to the middle I see a Yuri image on the second page. Given the V&A bias this shows just how much demand that image has. (or he's getting a personal best match boost).
-
Good business images are really strong, even with such a biased best match towards V&A is difficult to kill them all. Try a different search where there is not that much demannd and you will have difficulty in finding files from the regular collection.
-
I'm not seeing the vetta agency images at the beginning, a search for "business" gets the first vetta/agency image at #26 while out of the first 200 results I only see 3 (2 agency and 1 vetta). Seems pretty good for me since I have 0 agency and only 3 vetta.
Maybe it's a location thing. Could you try a photo search for 'fashion'...
In the UK, with the slider in the middle, the first image that I spotted which was not Vetta or Agency was a Yuri blue flamer, in position #7284. That's on page 37 (200 results per page).
A two minute test of this change would've revealed that V&A are bunched up at the front of results. So either what we're seeing is the desired outcome, or absolutely no useful testing whatsoever was done. Not exactly a way to inspire confidence in the way the company is being run, nor a way to 'regain the trust' of customers or contributors.
But a great way to ensure that everybody knows that iStock could not give a flying 'h*ck'.
-
"fashion" results mixed with slider to the right but almost all photos are vetta when in the middle, some illustrations and video made it. Southeast Asia btw for the search.
-
"fashion" results mixed with slider to the right but almost all photos are vetta when in the middle, some illustrations and video made it. Southeast Asia btw for the search.
Good thing they are doing away with the slider and making the "default" the middle position, right? ::)
-
All of the moves iStock has been doing lately has me thinking they are intentionally trying to thin the herd of less attractive contributors. They want iStockers that are committed to iStock and their entire philosophy and the rest can take a flying leap...
-
"fashion" results mixed with slider to the right but almost all photos are vetta when in the middle, some illustrations and video made it. Southeast Asia btw for the search.
Good thing they are doing away with the slider and making the "default" the middle position, right? ::)
Hadn't heard that yet but to be a "best match" shouldn't the slider be set to most relevant? My guess is that anything else will result in a lot of complaints and a poor search.
-
"fashion" results mixed with slider to the right but almost all photos are vetta when in the middle, some illustrations and video made it. Southeast Asia btw for the search.
Good thing they are doing away with the slider and making the "default" the middle position, right? ::)
Hadn't heard that yet but to be a "best match" shouldn't the slider be set to most relevant? My guess is that anything else will result in a lot of complaints and a poor search.
http://video.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=320612&page=1 (http://video.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=320612&page=1)
And I think iStock's version of "best match" is different from what others think. Just like their idea of what makes people happy is different and their idea of trust is different.
-
All of the moves iStock has been doing lately has me thinking they are intentionally trying to thin the herd of less attractive contributors. They want iStockers that are committed to iStock and their entire philosophy and the rest can take a flying leap...
A lot of the agency suppliers aren't remotely 'committed' to iStock: they were 'brought in' - not working their way up - they can even sell their files RF off their own sites, which the really 'committed' exclusives can't.
(Lots of committed contributors also have Agency files).
They're just experimenting with what brings them the best 'profitability'.
-
NO!! the simple truth is, the site is so incredibly screwd up that they havent got the faintest how on earth to handle it, meanwhile in deep crap they have to patronize the Vettas and exclusives from a total walk-out, saving the little face that is left.
Its quite obvious we are dealing with some pretty scared people here. people that will do just about anything to keep their jobs, a whole bunch of yes-men.
-
I can't even find the slider so don't know where it is set but I'm finding the opposite from the rest of you. On a search that I use as a reference to see how things have changed I usually have 2 images in the first 100 the first of them being at about no 50. I now have 7 on the first page with the first one being at no 6.
My current best seller which is in a different search has also moved up the first page from the bottom line to almost half way up.
-
Ouch! I think this one is going to hurt. I've just tried a few of my regular 'test searches' and it looks like we've had a huge shuffle of the pack. Images older than a year or so appear to have been punished badly in favour of newer images almost irrespective of how well either have been selling. If it stays like this it will produce some vast changes in the fortunes of individual contributors.
-
Ouch! I think this one is going to hurt. I've just tried a few of my regular 'test searches' and it looks like we've had a huge shuffle of the pack. Images older than a year or so appear to have been punished badly in favour of newer images almost irrespective of how well either have been selling. If it stays like this it will produce some vast changes in the fortunes of individual contributors.
All of the images of mine that have better placement now are over a year old. I don't know why I've struck lucky on this. Makes a change as I usually get hit badly. A couple of them that have now made first page for the first time in ages are nearly 5 years old.
Maybe I'm being rewarded for the total hammering I took in the last fotolia re-shuffle ;)
-
OK I've found the slider now and it was totally to the right. Putting it to the middle makes my images dissapear!!!
-
OK I've found the slider now and it was totally to the right. Putting it to the middle makes my images dissapear!!!
Exactly!! I was just waiting for you to find that slider. BTW, the middle setting is going to be their default.
-
I'm a diamond independent. By chance, I did a search a few days ago on "salad", and was really happy that several of my images were on the front page. I just tried that again, and they have disappeared from view. I stopped searching after the first few pages.
It's early Monday morning here, and I think I'll just go back to bed and have a little cry. :'(
-
OK I've found the slider now and it was totally to the right. Putting it to the middle makes my images dissapear!!!
Exactly!! I was just waiting for you to find that slider. BTW, the middle setting is going to be their default.
i can't find it. where's the slider? seriously.. are buyers supposed to know this ???? is the default the middle of this slider thingy?
-
okay.. wow. the slider is all the way at the bottom under "display preferences" .. how weird is that. I didn't move mine, it was in the middle and I searched on 'desert' the results were vetta followed by agency.. and pretty much that was it on the main page.
this will certainly help my sales on the other sites as it will definitely drive away customers who freak out on the outrageous pricing.
-
OK I've found the slider now and it was totally to the right. Putting it to the middle makes my images dissapear!!!
Exactly!! I was just waiting for you to find that slider. BTW, the middle setting is going to be their default.
i can't find it. where's the slider? seriously.. are buyers supposed to know this ???? is the default the middle of this slider thingy?
Do a search and at the bottom left will be a link named "Display Settings". Click it and you'll see the "Best match sort" slider setting.
ETA: Beat me to answering it :)
-
okay.. wow. the slider is all the way at the bottom under "display preferences" .. how weird is that. I didn't move mine, it was in the middle and I searched on 'desert' the results were vetta followed by agency.. and pretty much that was it on the main page.
this will certainly help my sales on the other sites as it will definitely drive away customers who freak out on the outrageous pricing.
Odd, because mine, by default was set all the way to the right, which actually shows a more mixed search. However, in yet another dumb move, iStock is going to remove the slider (that no one even knows exists) and make the default the middle position. Should really help your sales at other agencies then! ;)
-
There's only one sure fire way of beating the best match search fiasco and that's to shoot subject matter which isn't already saturated in the files. Not sure what that might be but.....
-
There's only one sure fire way of beating the best match search fiasco and that's to shoot subject matter which isn't already saturated in the files. Not sure what that might be but.....
There are plenty of untapped subjects, but the real secret is finding ones that buyers want. I haven't cracked that one! Otherwise there's no point in having an iStockwhack. :(
-
I'm a diamond independent. By chance, I did a search a few days ago on "salad", and was really happy that several of my images were on the front page. I just tried that again, and they have disappeared from view. I stopped searching after the first few pages.
It's early Monday morning here, and I think I'll just go back to bed and have a little cry. :'(
Yep. My best sellers have dropped several pages. This doesn't look good.
-
The more I look at the results of searches the less I think that buyers will like what they see. If Vetta/Agency don't happen to be in their budget then they're going to have to spend longer searching to find the good stuff. That'll be the same buyers whose patience has already been severely stretched over the last few months.
Istock do appear determined to cook their golden goose as quickly as possible. They seem to have forgotten that they came into existence mainly due to greedy agencies with over-priced images. Now they are rapidly trying to re-invent themselves into what they once used to despise. To me it looks like a recipe for disaster and the customers' goodwill is being squandered in a short-term cash grab. Heigh-ho.
-
The more I look at the results of searches the less I think that buyers will like what they see. If Vetta/Agency don't happen to be in their budget then they're going to have to spend longer searching to find the good stuff. That'll be the same buyers whose patience has already been severely stretched over the last few months.
Istock do appear determined to cook their golden goose as quickly as possible. They seem to have forgotten that they came into existence mainly due to greedy agencies with over-priced images. Now they are rapidly trying to re-invent themselves into what they once used to despise. To me it looks like a recipe for disaster and the customers' goodwill is being squandered in a short-term cash grab. Heigh-ho.
Agreed.
The other thing that helped bring IS into existence was the high priced agencies keeping the little guy out (and the rapid advances in digital imaging). They seem to be working on messing that up too. I don't think they can destroy the advances in digital imaging though, but I wouldn't be surprised if they somehow appeared to be trying at this point.
-
Is what they fail to appreciate (and I don't care how many times they say otherwise), is that many peoples' livelihoods are tied to iStock. I don't rely on the site for 100% of my income but know a couple that do. With the site wackiness, callous i-don't-give-a-crap comments from lobo, it's looking more and more like Getty, iStock or whoever just doesn't care. The entire site is broken. How can anyone effectively manage their photo business when their agent shifts the playing field every 5 days on a whim or if an IT person fat fingers the best match algorithm? You can't.
-
Looks like someone "restarted" best match and it probably needs some activity to get going. At least, I hope this is whatīs happening. I just donīt understand why they donīt let contributors now "Hey guys, we are pushing some software buttons this week-end". Just so that we know what is going on.
For many here istock is a considerable income and with all the issues people are jittery enough already. A little understanding can go a long way.
-
I don't know what they are smoking there in Calgary... I was puzzled for a while reading this thread - which slider people are talking about? I think I found it now, at the very bottom under "Display settings" - it says "Choose the level of importance of keyword relevance". Seriously? Why would I want irrelevant results to be displayed in my search?... ??? That's question number one.
Question number 2 - why oh why can't they just have "Show me cheap stuff" and "Show me expensive stuff" options? Wouldn't that make things simple and transparent for buyers and fair to contributors? It's depressing but I think I know the answer to this one - they think they can trick and confuse the customers into spending more money that they should. Although (sadly) it's a common practice with many companies these days, buyers are getting smarter and not taking this anymore - they just leave and take their business elsewhere. That's what I do. That's what many people who buy on Istock will do (and I know are doing already). Too bad....
-
Looks like someone "restarted" best match and it probably needs some activity to get going. At least, I hope this is whatīs happening. I just donīt understand why they donīt let contributors now "Hey guys, we are pushing some software buttons this week-end". Just so that we know what is going on.
For many here istock is a considerable income and with all the issues people are jittery enough already. A little understanding can go a long way.
They've always been poor at communicating things and managing the firestorms that erupt in the forums. After 10 years you think they would've gotten a clear communication strategy hammered out. I guess not.
-
I don't know what they are smoking there in Calgary... I was puzzled for a while reading this thread - which slider people are talking about? I think I found it now, at the very bottom under "Display settings" - it says "Choose the level of importance of keyword relevance". Seriously? Why would I want irrelevant results to be displayed in my search?... ??? That's question number one.
Question number 2 - why oh why can't they just have "Show me cheap stuff" and "Show me expensive stuff" options? Wouldn't that make things simple and transparent for buyers and fair to contributors? It's depressing but I think I know the answer to this one - they think they can trick and confuse the customers into spending more money that they should. Although (sadly) it's a common practice with many companies these days, buyers are getting smarter and not taking this anymore - they just leave and take their business elsewhere. That's what I do. That's what many people who buy on Istock will do (and I know are doing already). Too bad....
Whats frustrating is the fact that even if the site gets back to normal, even with a good best match, even if everything starts to work to perfection, its just too late, the irreparable damage is done, blasted out all over the Internet and public forums.
In business you get one chance, thats it and the cover is blown.
Sad!
-
I don't know what they are smoking there in Calgary... I was puzzled for a while reading this thread - which slider people are talking about? I think I found it now, at the very bottom under "Display settings" - it says "Choose the level of importance of keyword relevance". Seriously? Why would I want irrelevant results to be displayed in my search?... ??? That's question number one.
Question number 2 - why oh why can't they just have "Show me cheap stuff" and "Show me expensive stuff" options? Wouldn't that make things simple and transparent for buyers and fair to contributors? It's depressing but I think I know the answer to this one - they think they can trick and confuse the customers into spending more money that they should. Although (sadly) it's a common practice with many companies these days, buyers are getting smarter and not taking this anymore - they just leave and take their business elsewhere. That's what I do. That's what many people who buy on Istock will do (and I know are doing already). Too bad....
Whats frustrating is the fact that even if the site gets back to normal, even with a good best match, even if everything starts to work to perfection, its just too late, the irreparable damage is done, blasted out all over the Internet and public forums.
In business you get one chance, thats it and the cover is blown.
Sad!
They have had many chances this last year. They always chose the dark side or just fumbled though.
-
Just remember what they told us - "Money is not what will make you happy"
-
I know what you mean but in a sesnse theyre right! I dont believe for a minute that money is everything and although Im earning very well at IS and Diamond and all, it still only represents a very small part of my overall income, in fact not even worth to get agitated about, however some people here could probably live on my IS income alone, depending on where they live.
Most of us here I think gets flustered and annoyed when things arent working properly, causing hassles and irritations or leaving us in a sort of limbo state, not knowing whats happening, coming or going. IS, is very good at this, in fact if they could earn money on creating states of uncertainties, we would all earn a fortune. ;)
-
Looks like someone "restarted" best match and it probably needs some activity to get going. At least, I hope this is whatīs happening. I just donīt understand why they donīt let contributors now "Hey guys, we are pushing some software buttons this week-end". Just so that we know what is going on.
For many here istock is a considerable income and with all the issues people are jittery enough already. A little understanding can go a long way.
They've always been poor at communicating things and managing the firestorms that erupt in the forums. After 10 years you think they would've gotten a clear communication strategy hammered out. I guess not.
Yep. I'd think the same about a testing strategy. Or a working change management system. But as usual they seem very sure that they know better... and hey apparently they might do some more 'tinkering' with the best match at some point in the week - oh brilliant! No need for anybody to have a clue what they're doing when they can just 'tinker' around with the live search. What fun!
-
Jeez! they must be petrified! the slightest hint of a slider or best match thread is locked within seconds. Difficult to voice any opinion on IS now. Wonder if this is going to stay? or if its just a test version?
-
Looks like someone "restarted" best match and it probably needs some activity to get going. At least, I hope this is whatīs happening. I just donīt understand why they donīt let contributors now "Hey guys, we are pushing some software buttons this week-end". Just so that we know what is going on. For many here istock is a considerable income and with all the issues people are jittery enough already. A little understanding can go a long way.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=320732&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=320732&page=1)
"Generally we're getting more and more satisfied with the overall sort... ...Again, we've been happy so far with the trends we're seeing since this went live. We saw room for improvement and have been working there and getting happier..."
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=320732&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=320732&page=1[/url])
"Generally we're getting more and more satisfied with the overall sort... ...Again, we've been happy so far with the trends we're seeing since this went live. We saw room for improvement and have been working there and getting happier..."
So they totally changed the direction they'd been moveing in, rather than tweak slightly.
Maybe it was the masseuse's turn to tweak the buttons.
-
Ouch! I think this one is going to hurt. I've just tried a few of my regular 'test searches' and it looks like we've had a huge shuffle of the pack. Images older than a year or so appear to have been punished badly in favour of newer images almost irrespective of how well either have been selling. If it stays like this it will produce some vast changes in the fortunes of individual contributors.
Yeah, my best-selling image - with almost 1,000 sales - is now buried under 700+ other files in the most relevant search, despite being in the top three or four when the same search is switched to "by download". Several imitations of it are much higher up the best match ... but, of course, they are newer.
-
I don't know why other buyers sort by best match anyway. I never did. And now, best match doesn't mean the buyer is getting the best match of the image they are looking for, it means they are getting istock's best match to the image that makes them the most money. What a joke that has turned into.
-
At the moment it looks as if they're messing about with the results without fully understanding what the changes are doing to the results. Something along the line of "Well we did this before and it worked out well. If we do it twice as much - Ah s**t it broke!"
Seems to me that they need to get the thing back to returning some sort of reasonable results.
And then I have a totally radical suggestion:
LEAVE THE BLASTED THING ALONE FOR A WHILE.
-
Hi Dave!
Yes thats exactly what it is, they have lost control over the whole thing and its running amok, turning into the Micro worlds worst best match and actually encouraging independants to leave the site.
Only here in Scandinavia and England, we are 6 Diamonds (1 black) and 2 Gold, independant contributors chatting to each other and are pretty convinced they wish to get rid of us. Pitty really. We are all commercial freelance photographers, so none of us depend on Micro.
It could ofcourse be a test version which would be the thing to do, but I doubt it.
Many are now convinced this is leading up to a sell-out, Getty is planning to sell the place, preassures from above, H&F, etc.
best! Oh and Im still a non smoker. Christian
-
It seems like they're testing different scenarios to see how revenue, profits, and sales volume are affected.
Clearly, this one is heavy Vetta/Agency. I'd guess they'll leave it this way for a while unless they see sales volume or buyer activity dropping. If volume stays up then this best match will probably boost revenue and profits quite a bit.
-
Isn't the tweaking of the best match to favor newer images done every year (probably several times/year)? They eventually go back to favoring the best sellers. If they didn't do that, would new uploads even have a chance to sell?
-
It seems like they're testing different scenarios to see how revenue, profits, and sales volume are affected.
Clearly, this one is heavy Vetta/Agency. I'd guess they'll leave it this way for a while unless they see sales volume or buyer activity dropping. If volume stays up then this best match will probably boost revenue and profits quite a bit.
Why the f*ck don't they just split the freakin site already. If you want Vetta, premium, exclusive - click here. If you want microstock - click here. It's not like they are losing money on the independents, I would think the independents and their 85% agency fees are propping up the luxury offerings.
-
If certain contributors are propped up by this best match, wouldn't it also be possible for the best match to demote (put further back on the ebb line) certain contributors? Contributors that actively voice their concerns and protest here or on istock would be on this if there was such a thing.
-
If certain contributors are propped up by this best match, wouldn't it also be possible for the best match to demote (put further back on the ebb line) certain contributors? Contributors that actively voice their concerns and protest here or on istock would be on this if there was such a thing.
Sure! after what I can see, you, yourself have just been put back on the ebb-line, you know, demoted, that is. Im truly sorry for you.
best.
-
If certain contributors are propped up by this best match, wouldn't it also be possible for the best match to demote (put further back on the ebb line) certain contributors? Contributors that actively voice their concerns and protest here or on istock would be on this if there was such a thing.
Most definitely it would be possible to demote certain contributors. Since VB Inc. now has me on ignore and he won't see this, I will voice my opinion for others, who are open-minded and understand that everyone has the right to post their feelings and opinions in an open forum.
I think istockphoto has been working towards a goal, ever since Getty bought the company, and that is to make a lot of money and then sell. They will promote and demote whoever and whatever accomplishes that goal. I have no doubt that my files were "demoted" a long time ago, because a) I was only a gold contributor b) because I was an independent contributor c) because it is not my full-time career, and therefore did not turn myself into a factory. Fortunately, I don't have to worry about whether istock wants to "demote" me because I speak freely here or anywhere else...because I pulled my files the beginning of the year. Don't for a second think that that didn't hurt my income, because it did. Some things are more important to me. Others may not be in the same position as I am, and that's ok.
Most others here post anonymously, for that exact reason (like VB Inc). They don't have to worry about payback.
-
I have no doubt that my files were "demoted" a long time ago,
Maybe you demoted yourself by still shooting at the same level you had been, and the same subjects as a lot of people contribute. I looked at your SS portfolio, and I see paper clips on white, some standard food on white, things found outside the home, etc. Those kind of things fight with all the other new "stock shooters" for sales, so sales diminish across the crowd equally as more come in. It isn't necessarily a conspiracy.
-
If certain contributors are propped up by this best match, wouldn't it also be possible for the best match to demote (put further back on the ebb line) certain contributors? Contributors that actively voice their concerns and protest here or on istock would be on this if there was such a thing.
Sure! after what I can see, you, yourself have just been put back on the ebb-line, you know, demoted, that is. Im truly sorry for you.
best.
Thats why i dont post on istock forums... and i go all incognito here =D
-
I have no doubt that my files were "demoted" a long time ago,
Maybe you demoted yourself by still shooting at the same level you had been, and the same subjects as a lot of people contribute. I looked at your Shutterstock portfolio, and I see paper clips on white, some standard food on white, things found outside the home, etc. Those kind of things fight with all the other new "stock shooters" for sales, so sales diminish across the crowd equally as more come in. It isn't necessarily a conspiracy.
I don't remember using the words conspiracy, and you are absolutely correct. All of those things certainly play into my "demotion", no doubt (which I acknowledged in my prior post, as a), b) and c). But how do you then explain others who have consistently contributed better photos, people photos, etc. and who have inadvertently found themselves "demoted"?
VB Inc. is saying that just by posting here in this forum and speaking negatively, people are getting "demoted". I suspect people were getting "demoted" long before all the negative talk started here, meaning whatever "demotions" there may be, doesn't have to do with posting in this forum.
-
If certain contributors are propped up by this best match, wouldn't it also be possible for the best match to demote (put further back on the ebb line) certain contributors? Contributors that actively voice their concerns and protest here or on istock would be on this if there was such a thing.
Sure! after what I can see, you, yourself have just been put back on the ebb-line, you know, demoted, that is. Im truly sorry for you.
best.
Thats why i dont post on istock forums... and i go all incognito here =D
And I bet you are still getting "demoted", which means it has NOTHING TO DO WITH posting here in this forum. It has to do with istock/getty's games.
-
There's no point in them secretly demoting critics. It doesn't stop criticism. Any demotion is unlikely to be personal, more that you happen to represent a segment of contributors that are not in favour for business reasons.
-
There's no point in them secretly demoting critics. It doesn't stop criticism. Any demotion is unlikely to be personal, more that you happen to represent a segment of contributors that are not in favour for business reasons.
My point, exactly.
-
If certain contributors are propped up by this best match, wouldn't it also be possible for the best match to demote (put further back on the ebb line) certain contributors? Contributors that actively voice their concerns and protest here or on istock would be on this if there was such a thing.
Sure! after what I can see, you, yourself have just been put back on the ebb-line, you know, demoted, that is. Im truly sorry for you.
best.
Thats why i dont post on istock forums... and i go all incognito here =D
We are only selling pics here you know, no big deal, just cheapo pics off the peg. No more no less. We are all, including you, scraping the bottom of the barrell. Words like conspiracy doesnt belong here. Not important enough.
-
No conspiracy IMO. At least not against individuals. Groups of people may get hurt in the fallout from changes, but there's no malice in that, it's just "business" trying to get the biggest profit. I still think these big changes are counter productive myself? If they push buyers far enough with this business of putting more and more expensive content from a limited contributor set in front of them, then they will either leave, or learn new behaviour where they ignore the best match and use the other sort orders to get what they want. The only reason best match is so powerful is that it offers the line of least resistance to buyers. Put in a search term and there's what the buyers want. Relevant results with a choice of styles and prices. They don't necessarily want to see what brings in the biggest profit for the seller. Microstock is after all's said and done the supermarket of the stock business. Supermarkets try to make sure that of you're going to buy then the choice and the price you want is there on the shelf in front of you. Carefully arranged yes, but still there to see.
'Nuff said.
Hiya Chris. Glad to hear you're still smoke free. All we both need to do now is pack in the beer and we can be really healthy (and miserable!) :-)
All the best
Dave
-
No conspiracy IMO. At least not against individuals. Groups of people may get hurt in the fallout from changes, but there's no malice in that, it's just "business" trying to get the biggest profit. I still think these big changes are counter productive myself? If they push buyers far enough with this business of putting more and more expensive content from a limited contributor set in front of them, then they will either leave, or learn new behaviour where they ignore the best match and use the other sort orders to get what they want. The only reason best match is so powerful is that it offers the line of least resistance to buyers. Put in a search term and there's what the buyers want. Relevant results with a choice of styles and prices. They don't necessarily want to see what brings in the biggest profit for the seller. Microstock is after all's said and done the supermarket of the stock business. Supermarkets try to make sure that of you're going to buy then the choice and the price you want is there on the shelf in front of you. Carefully arranged yes, but still there to see.
'Nuff said.
Hiya Chris. Glad to hear you're still smoke free. All we both need to do now is pack in the beer and we can be really healthy (and miserable!) :-)
All the best
Dave
Hi Dave! thats it, bring on the Lagers, some lovely caves down in Cornwall to sit and get well merry.
all the best. Chris
-
There's no point in them secretly demoting critics. It doesn't stop criticism. Any demotion is unlikely to be personal, more that you happen to represent a segment of contributors that are not in favour for business reasons.
Yeah, there is no logical sense in demoting vocal critics. Let's make them publicly insult us less by giving them more to complain about?
-
VB Inc. is saying that just by posting here in this forum and speaking negatively, people are getting "demoted". I suspect people were getting "demoted" long before all the negative talk started here, meaning whatever "demotions" there may be, doesn't have to do with posting in this forum.
If that's true, I wish they would be open about that policy. Although I don't agree with Fotolia's punishing contributors for posting negatively here, at least they are up front about it, so we know that going in. If Istock is penalizing people for speaking their minds here, it would have to be pretty recent, because I have been critical of Istock for months and they are still my top selling site (though less so than a couple of years ago).
Just read Balderick's post. Makes sense that we are more likely being penalized as a group (non-vetta/agency, and non-exclusive).
ETA: by "penalized as a group", I don't mean for posting in the forums. I mean just because they want to promote other images at the front of the searches.
-
Never heard anything like that ever. If you overdo it on the forums, you get a time out, if the forums and you donīt get along probably a longer ban. But your files? Why on earth would they have someone sitting there watching the forums to turn file position up and down?? Iīd be woaying in the forums till the sun comes up if I thought it would help my downloads.
I know this place is as negative as can be about istock and I also know that in the last months has mucked up a lot but sometimes I wonder....
-
I know this place is as negative as can be about istock and I also know that in the last months has mucked up a lot but sometimes I wonder....
When you have any business that has one massive screw up after another for many months, coupled with terrible communication (or none at all) , it creates a fertile environment for conspiracy theories.
-
This is annoying I can't believe that buyers are going to think that there is affordable content on Istock anymore.
Searching photos
"surfing" the first 140 photos are agency or vetta (first non-vetta/agency photo needed 400 download)
"industry sunset" 47 of the first 50 are vetta
business team 44 of the first 50 are vetta or agency
girl environment 48 of the first 50 are vetta or agency
Needless to say from what I can see its going to be hard sell for independents at the moment.
-
The customer complaints are already starting:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=321072&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=321072&page=1)
-
Looks like the "best match" has become a "shotgun wedding".
-
I like this
"A result of this is that the Vetta and Agency images have temporarily been boosted to the top of the results today, although I've been told that this is an ongoing project and they are continuing to make adjustments. So I anticipate the results returning to something closer to normal in the near future."
= oh well we won't give you what you really want,(i.e. ability to filter vetta and agency out) but we'll tweek the system again to make it less obvious (which will end in some other disaster)
Question = What is normal search results ? The only normal part of istock in the last 12 months has be the disarray.
I wonder if sales of agency / vetta has offset the loss of customers these ongoing fiasco are causing.
-
Given the overall lack of competence in iStock's IT crew, I don't think they could implement a contributor-specific targeting scheme even if they wanted to.
In spite of my negative opinion of iStock's recent behavior, I don't think they would try to retaliate against vocal critics. I do think the clubby atmosphere around Vetta (an "in" group that has way more Vetta images than seem warranted) has created an oligarchy that is why we don't see the ability to filter out Vetta and Agency, but that's not the same thing as shuffling problem contributors to the back.
I've seen lots and lots of best match shifts and it can be very tempting to read more into what's happening than is really there.
The big, big worry is that in their lust for soaking the customers they'll drive too many of them away. I don't think they're currently presenting a good mix of results, but I'm hoping they'll keep "tweaking" some more and improve it.
-
Given the overall lack of competence in iStock's IT crew, I don't think they could implement a contributor-specific targeting scheme even if they wanted to.
In spite of my negative opinion of iStock's recent behavior, I don't think they would try to retaliate against vocal critics. I do think the clubby atmosphere around Vetta (an "in" group that has way more Vetta images than seem warranted) has created an oligarchy that is why we don't see the ability to filter out Vetta and Agency, but that's not the same thing as shuffling problem contributors to the back.
I've seen lots and lots of best match shifts and it can be very tempting to read more into what's happening than is really there.
The big, big worry is that in their lust for soaking the customers they'll drive too many of them away. I don't think they're currently presenting a good mix of results, but I'm hoping they'll keep "tweaking" some more and improve it.
I really hope they keep tweaking because my sales have shriveled up to zilch. I used to get 15 or sales a day.
-
I know this place is as negative as can be about istock ...
Oh, I would like to be negative right there at iStock forums if they wouldn't delete or lock threads.
It is not even about Agency or Vetta., new best match results are just bad pick from a collection.
-
Given the overall lack of competence in iStock's IT crew, I don't think they could implement a contributor-specific targeting scheme even if they wanted to.
In spite of my negative opinion of iStock's recent behavior, I don't think they would try to retaliate against vocal critics. I do think the clubby atmosphere around Vetta (an "in" group that has way more Vetta images than seem warranted) has created an oligarchy that is why we don't see the ability to filter out Vetta and Agency, but that's not the same thing as shuffling problem contributors to the back.
I've seen lots and lots of best match shifts and it can be very tempting to read more into what's happening than is really there.
The big, big worry is that in their lust for soaking the customers they'll drive too many of them away. I don't think they're currently presenting a good mix of results, but I'm hoping they'll keep "tweaking" some more and improve it.
I agree! there is no conspiracy or malice here and I do not believe for one minute of any punishment, etc.
Funny this. This search, best match, or whatever you want to call it, is nothing new, its been going on since the computerization of images, long before Micro, it went on in the old Trad-agency world, always trying to find the perfect solution but always only resulting in a compromize. Stan kanney of the Image-Bank, came to the conclusion, there is no such thing as a good Search, its only a matter of trying to keep everyone happy, still keeping the customers. We never heard about it because there was no Internet, nothing. ofcourse in them days , a search was only meant to be for the picture-finders, inside the Agency, so that they could quickly find the trannies and send them by post to the clients.
Today! this search, is meant to be for a gazillion of buyers, well no wonder mayhem breaks out for every change, constant battle of blood, sweat, toil and tears.
So I think we find that most annemosity, jealousy, etc, is in fact among the contributing members, i.e. the photographers and for all we know, in this case the IS-Admin could be hammered and clobberd every day by unhappy contributors why their files cant be seen, why they wernt good enough for Vetta, why such and such indepentant shots have priority in the best match?
Alberto Sciama, friend of mine who used to own PICTOR-International told me once, I spend 95% of my time here at the agency, just trying to make peace and keep you guys happy.
-
An odd effect of the latest best match is that I am seeing quite a lot of strange, old files that have few downloads selling while my existing best-sellers seem to be out of contention. I am blessed with lots of crappy old files so it looks as if I will be OK. I've a feeling times may be hard for those with small, tightly edited, very high quality portfolios.
Maybe the idea is that if agency and vetta go first followed by my crappy old files, then buyers will think they have no choice but to splash out for the V&A.
-
Given the overall lack of competence in iStock's IT crew, I don't think they could implement a contributor-specific targeting scheme even if they wanted to.
In spite of my negative opinion of iStock's recent behavior, I don't think they would try to retaliate against vocal critics. I do think the clubby atmosphere around Vetta (an "in" group that has way more Vetta images than seem warranted) has created an oligarchy that is why we don't see the ability to filter out Vetta and Agency, but that's not the same thing as shuffling problem contributors to the back.
I've seen lots and lots of best match shifts and it can be very tempting to read more into what's happening than is really there.
The big, big worry is that in their lust for soaking the customers they'll drive too many of them away. I don't think they're currently presenting a good mix of results, but I'm hoping they'll keep "tweaking" some more and improve it.
Spot on........................I don't think we will see in the near future the actual best match favouring V&A so strong like it is now. They are at a testing and experimenting phase to see how they can optimize to the max revenues. But short-term profits is usually not a synonym of long-term-profits....I also think the Vetta "oligarchy" might be an important pushing force that explains were we are now. But at the end of the day even that "club" has no power if some at H&F/Getty decides the contrary to what is happening now. The only thing I am sure is that we are all in a spinning wheel that never stops.
-
I know this place is as negative as can be about istock and I also know that in the last months has mucked up a lot but sometimes I wonder....
When you have any business that has one massive screw up after another for many months, coupled with terrible communication (or none at all) , it creates a fertile environment for conspiracy theories.
I agree with that, I certainly wish for better communication. Just wanted to add my 2 cents.
I donīt like the current best match either, mostly because the search results look strange. V/A is very beautiful but there is a reason why it is sold in small quantities, it is just not generic enough. And many bestsellers have dissappeared, so the buyers are not really getting a Best Match.
I am confident they will improve it, or the system will swing back to normal, I donīt know how these software things work.
-
I'll hold off voting for a while more. Yesterday had what are now high-average dls for me, though last year would have been low-average. Total mix from my second best seller to two new editorials, first sale of a file that was uploaded in July 2007 and three lowish sellers. HOWEVER, apart from one, none of these, if searched on by the most obvious keyword/s, would be in a search with (m)any Vetta/Agency files.
-
An odd effect of the latest best match is that I am seeing quite a lot of strange, old files that have few downloads selling while my existing best-sellers seem to be out of contention. I am blessed with lots of crappy old files so it looks as if I will be OK. I've a feeling times may be hard for those with small, tightly edited, very high quality portfolios.
Maybe the idea is that if agency and vetta go first followed by my crappy old files, then buyers will think they have no choice but to splash out for the V&A.
Are we seeing the same best match? Im seeing lots of top sellers, blue flames and everything, ofcourse it could be my searches. In any event its 1000% better then the best match we had over the weekend.
-
(Not a reply to any post above)
One thing that we (or at least I) keep forgetting is a certain proportion of sales comes from files already in lightboxes, so best match only has an effect on the others in the short term.
-
Are we seeing the same best match? Im seeing lots of top sellers, blue flames and everything, ofcourse it could be my searches. In any event its 1000% better then the best match we had over the weekend.
I was too until I scrolled down to the bottom of the page and realised my slider was all the way over on the right. When I set it to the middle I got the search with mainly Agency/Vetta
-
I'd seemed to survive all the recent 'tweaks' relatively unscathed including the big Sunday one as Monday was well within the spread of Mondays this year so far, but after what looked like a minor change in my portfolios best match results overnight today I am only at 16% of where I would be on an average Tuesday at this time of day.
-
The slider's disappeared for me now, look's like the results are now as it was set in the middle.
If these are the new "best match" results with no option to modify them then it looks to me as if most of us are in for a tough time.
-
The slider's disappeared for me now, look's like the results are now as it was set in the middle.
If these are the new "best match" results with no option to modify them then it looks to me as if most of us are in for a tough time.
Isn't it funny that when it's disadvantageous things (cutting commissions, removing slider, fraud clawback) they can implement it at top speed or sooner. Anything people actually want (fixing sRGB problem, returning unpaid royalties etc etc) seem to throw up insuperable difficulties.
So now, despite some, admittedly a FEW, buyers requesting a way to filter out V/A, they are now forced to wade through them without even the consolation of moving the slider for a more mixed search.
It would e interesting to discover whether more sales of V&A are resulting from this tactic. I presume if sales were falling they'd change it in an instant.
-
Wow, I have just done a search on my current best sellers main keyword and where I used to appear on the first page of the best match search as my image is about to become blue flame, about 3/4 of the results in the first 100 have 0 or 1 dl and most aren't very relevant to the keyword. The only upside to this that I cas see is that the results are so bad that buyers may well look and see what search by dls brings up and I will be back on the first page
-
On the verge of having another customer leave because of this "new" best match:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=321102&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=321102&page=1)
...Or is it as I am sure the majority of customers have assumed (myself included) that indeed it is Managements intention to never implement this feature in hopes that we will cave and somehow start paying 1000-1800% more?
"Wishful thinking" comes to mind.
My latest search, "consultant", yielded only 36 regular images out of a page of 200! all down the very bottom. For some customers that would equate to many pages before hitting (for some) something affordable.
There are filters to essentially exclude non collection images - why . isn't there one for the reverse? Whatever the logic, its a pain in the a$$ and hence an answer as to whether or not this feature is coming would be appreciated.
So. Is it coming or should I just start making up lightboxes somewhere else and save myself the hassle?
-
Yes, the slider has been removed, as much as I would have liked to keep it. I havent had time to look at any best match results yet, even so, even if it turns out to be a good best match, I think the chances of earnings going back to normal is pretty slim, the damage is probably done already.
-
My downloads have dropped right off today. Coincidence, happenstance or "Enemy action" I wonder.
Yesterday was a good day. So it might be that buyers had learnt where the slider was.
Whatever the case, do iStock really think that this is properly representational of the collection.
What about giving some other contributors a chance, apart from a handful of those with Vetta and Agency?
This one really needs sorting!
-
My downloads have dropped right off today. Coincidence, happenstance or "Enemy action" I wonder.
Yesterday was a good day. So it might be that buyers had learnt where the slider was.
Whatever the case, do iStock really think that this is properly representational of the collection.
What about giving some other contributors a chance, apart from a handful of those with Vetta and Agency?
This one really needs sorting!
Hi mate!
I think everyone has taken a fall today, the calm after the storm, you know. Might pick up after buyers getting used to new best match, dont know? I dont want to be the devils-advocate, but I know from experience that its extremely hard to do a come-back after all the commotion thats been hitting us lately. If they manage to do that, they have got my full support and respect for life.
BTW, soon youre a Diamond, congrats!
all the best Dave! Christian
-
I know this place is as negative as can be about istock and I also know that in the last months has mucked up a lot but sometimes I wonder....
When you have any business that has one massive screw up after another for many months, coupled with terrible communication (or none at all) , it creates a fertile environment for conspiracy theories.
I agree with that, I certainly wish for better communication. Just wanted to add my 2 cents.
I donīt like the current best match either, mostly because the search results look strange. V/A is very beautiful but there is a reason why it is sold in small quantities, it is just not generic enough. And many bestsellers have dissappeared, so the buyers are not really getting a Best Match.
I am confident they will improve it, or the system will swing back to normal, I donīt know how these software things work.
I agree with your posts...especially this one. I have to add that this best match incarnation seems to be working out well for me, but the swings always scare me because they can just as easily not work out for me as happened in 2008. the search has been fairly stable until a few months ago, I'd like to see it stabilize again. Pushing Vetta and Agency to the front will alienate frustrated buyers from those collections, and it seems like a naked attempt to make more money, which buyers won't appreciate. As a contributor, I don't appreciate it either. it's a short-sighted approach to increasing profits, where Getty needs to see that they could REALLY affect positive direction in the industry if they were to place appropriate value on our work and on their relationship with contributors and make a bold move to prioritize those values.
-
I know this place is as negative as can be about istock and I also know that in the last months has mucked up a lot but sometimes I wonder....
When you have any business that has one massive screw up after another for many months, coupled with terrible communication (or none at all) , it creates a fertile environment for conspiracy theories.
I agree with that, I certainly wish for better communication. Just wanted to add my 2 cents.
I donīt like the current best match either, mostly because the search results look strange. V/A is very beautiful but there is a reason why it is sold in small quantities, it is just not generic enough. And many bestsellers have dissappeared, so the buyers are not really getting a Best Match.
I am confident they will improve it, or the system will swing back to normal, I donīt know how these software things work.
I agree with your posts...especially this one. I have to add that this best match incarnation seems to be working out well for me, but the swings always scare me because they can just as easily not work out for me as happened in 2008. the search has been fairly stable until a few months ago, I'd like to see it stabilize again. Pushing Vetta and Agency to the front will alienate frustrated buyers from those collections, and it seems like a naked attempt to make more money, which buyers won't appreciate. As a contributor, I don't appreciate it either. it's a short-sighted approach to increasing profits, where Getty needs to see that they could REALLY affect positive direction in the industry if they were to place appropriate value on our work and on their relationship with contributors and make a bold move to prioritize those values.
Stacey my dear girl. It would work out well for you, youre exclusive, Its worked out pretty jolly for myself, only I would have liked a bit more diversity within my port.
BTW. your IS portrait, looks like Judy garland. ;D
-
Christian - I think you restated my point, lol. it doesn't matter if it works out for me right now or not, the value is being placed on the wrong things IMO, at least by appearances. and that kind of approach is totally myopic. I personally feel the Vetta/Agency presence in the best match sort is temporary. that isn't based on any inside knowledge, it's just my analysis. I don't think it makes sense from any point of view, other than a temporary state while they tweak the best match. if it is intentional, I'm shaking my head wondering what the h*ll is going on.
-
Christian - I think you restated my point, lol. it doesn't matter if it works out for me right now or not, the value is being placed on the wrong things IMO, at least by appearances. and that kind of approach is totally myopic. I personally feel the Vetta/Agency presence in the best match sort is temporary. that isn't based on any inside knowledge, it's just my analysis. I don't think it makes sense from any point of view, other than a temporary state while they tweak the best match. if it is intentional, I'm shaking my head wondering what the h*ll is going on.
Yup! I agree to that, and I really hope the Vetta/agency is temporary, scares buyers away but you know? Getty rules, right.
changed my mind, you look like a young Audrey Hepburn ;)
-
Christian - I think you restated my point, lol. it doesn't matter if it works out for me right now or not, the value is being placed on the wrong things IMO, at least by appearances. and that kind of approach is totally myopic. I personally feel the Vetta/Agency presence in the best match sort is temporary. that isn't based on any inside knowledge, it's just my analysis. I don't think it makes sense from any point of view, other than a temporary state while they tweak the best match. if it is intentional, I'm shaking my head wondering what the h*ll is going on.
Yup! I agree to that, and I really hope the Vetta/agency is temporary, scares buyers away but you know? Getty rules, right.
changed my mind, you look like a young Audrey Hepburn ;)
lol. I've been told Audrey Hepburn a lot. though she was very wispy and petite...I'm tall, 5' 10" and not wispy, lol. anyways, I think we'll see a shift back to a more balanced best match sort as they tweak. at least that's what I'm hoping. I have barely any Vetta and just one Agency image, so this new sort really stands out to me obviously. ironically, a few contributors I'm close with are quite Vetta heavy and have been experiencing slow sales. so, to say the least, sales right now are bizarre..
-
FYI, update from Andrew:
"We're continuing the Best Match dial turning also. We're working on getting to a set of results where Vetta and Agency are less prominent than they are now but slightly more prominent than they were last week."
-
FYI, update from Andrew:
"We're continuing the Best Match dial turning also. We're working on getting to a set of results where Vetta and Agency are less prominent than they are now but slightly more prominent than they were last week."
Sigh... why don't they quit turning dials and give customers clear option to search Vetta and Agency only, exclusive stuff only, or search anything and everything sorted by good old relevance? Seriously, if I was an Istock buyer I'd be so pissed - I really don't appreciate being fooled or tricked into buying one thing or another. I'd go shop some other place - I think lots of them went to shutter, I had 3 ELs today already:)
-
FYI, update from Andrew:
"We're continuing the Best Match dial turning also. We're working on getting to a set of results where Vetta and Agency are less prominent than they are now but slightly more prominent than they were last week."
Sigh... why don't they quit turning dials and give customers clear option to search Vetta and Agency only, exclusive stuff only, or search anything and everything sorted by good old relevance? Seriously, if I was an Istock buyer I'd be so pissed - I really don't appreciate being fooled or tricked into buying one thing or another. I'd go shop some other place - I think lots of them went to shutter, I had 3 ELs today already:)
Yup, nothing pisses me off more as a buyer than companies that don't give me the option to filter out price points I can't afford. I'm sure that's why they came up with ThinkStock, try to shuffle the price conscious customers there instead of losing them to a competeing agency
-
- I think lots of them went to shutter, I had 3 ELs today already:)
I've also had my first EL in quite a while. Let's hope the migration continues! ;D
-
FYI, update from Andrew:
"We're continuing the Best Match dial turning also. We're working on getting to a set of results where Vetta and Agency are less prominent than they are now but slightly more prominent than they were last week."
Sigh... why don't they quit turning dials and give customers clear option to search Vetta and Agency only, exclusive stuff only, or search anything and everything sorted by good old relevance? Seriously, if I was an Istock buyer I'd be so pissed - I really don't appreciate being fooled or tricked into buying one thing or another. I'd go shop some other place - I think lots of them went to shutter, I had 3 ELs today already:)
Yup, nothing pisses me off more as a buyer than companies that don't give me the option to filter out price points I can't afford. I'm sure that's why they came up with ThinkStock, try to shuffle the price conscious customers there instead of losing them to a competeing agency
I referred 3 pissed off customers to other agencies yesterday. people tweeting things like "can anyone recommend a cheaper place for stock imagery other than istock? they've gotten outrageous lately"
yeah.. business is picking up for the competitors! I guess money from a happy, loyal customer is not what makes istock happy. ;)
-
you know, I have to say that I think it's a really dangerous game referring customers away from sites you dislike TO sites you happen to like at any given time. a) I think it's unprofessional and looks petty, b) I think it's as slimy as the business practices many of you are criticizing. it's a move that can only bite you in the a55 eventually. but whatever, that's not how I do business.
I also can't imagine dragging my clients into my relationship with my agencies. who does that? seems quite ridiculous to me. no matter how I feel about my agency (ies).
-
Could a greasemonkey script be used to enable buyers to exclude v/agency ?
-
Could a greasemonkey script be used to enable buyers to exclude v/agency ?
hmm, good question.
-
you know, I have to say that I think it's a really dangerous game referring customers away from sites you dislike TO sites you happen to like at any given time. a) I think it's unprofessional and looks petty, b) I think it's as slimy as the business practices many of you are criticizing. it's a move that can only bite you in the a55 eventually. but whatever, that's not how I do business.
I also can't imagine dragging my clients into my relationship with my agencies. who does that? seems quite ridiculous to me. no matter how I feel about my agency (ies).
Yeah, I agree with you totally. Next time 3 bitter angry people ask me for alternatives to Istock I will tell them to man up and stop complaining. If they complain about prices, customer service, site usability they shouldn't be allowed to purchase photographs anyway.
-
you know, I have to say that I think it's a really dangerous game referring customers away from sites you dislike TO sites you happen to like at any given time. a) I think it's unprofessional and looks petty, b) I think it's as slimy as the business practices many of you are criticizing. it's a move that can only bite you in the a55 eventually. but whatever, that's not how I do business.
I also can't imagine dragging my clients into my relationship with my agencies. who does that? seems quite ridiculous to me. no matter how I feel about my agency (ies).
don't get your undies in a bunch. I did not give a referral because I dislike istock. I'm doing it to help the buyers and show them they have more options. They asked for referrals to other stock agencies, I was giving them a referral. It's not like I added something like "well istock really sucks so go try this place instead" there was no malintent toward istock. I still refer folks to istock from my blog as well so don't try to call me out as doing something slimy when all I am doing is helping a customer who asks for it.
-
Could a greasemonkey script be used to enable buyers to exclude v/agency ?
evenso then you get into the whole issue with having to teach buyers something new and make them add some script thing to do something that the site should already do for them. geez.. even amazon lets me sort by price for goodness sake. I just don't get why there's such a resistance to providing customer service over pushing high-priced products on people who don't want to pay for that sort of thing.
-
you know, I have to say that I think it's a really dangerous game referring customers away from sites you dislike TO sites you happen to like at any given time. a) I think it's unprofessional and looks petty, b) I think it's as slimy as the business practices many of you are criticizing. it's a move that can only bite you in the a55 eventually. but whatever, that's not how I do business.
I also can't imagine dragging my clients into my relationship with my agencies. who does that? seems quite ridiculous to me. no matter how I feel about my agency (ies).
Yeah, I agree with you totally. Next time 3 bitter angry people ask me for alternatives to Istock I will tell them to man up and stop complaining. If they complain about prices, customer service, site usability they shouldn't be allowed to purchase photographs anyway.
I think it's obvious that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about contributors bragging about actively campaigning to buyers to get them away from iStock (and FWIW, I would say the same if it was being done to any other agency). it's a silly game to play IMO.
-
FYI, update from Andrew:
"We're continuing the Best Match dial turning also. We're working on getting to a set of results where Vetta and Agency are less prominent than they are now but slightly more prominent than they were last week."
Sigh... why don't they quit turning dials and give customers clear option to search Vetta and Agency only, exclusive stuff only, or search anything and everything sorted by good old relevance? Seriously, if I was an Istock buyer I'd be so pissed - I really don't appreciate being fooled or tricked into buying one thing or another. I'd go shop some other place - I think lots of them went to shutter, I had 3 ELs today already:)
Yup, nothing pisses me off more as a buyer than companies that don't give me the option to filter out price points I can't afford. I'm sure that's why they came up with ThinkStock, try to shuffle the price conscious customers there instead of losing them to a competeing agency
I referred 3 pissed off customers to other agencies yesterday. people tweeting things like "can anyone recommend a cheaper place for stock imagery other than istock? they've gotten outrageous lately"
yeah.. business is picking up for the competitors! I guess money from a happy, loyal customer is not what makes istock happy. ;)
Only 3? You're not trying hard enough... :)
-
you know, I have to say that I think it's a really dangerous game referring customers away from sites you dislike TO sites you happen to like at any given time. a) I think it's unprofessional and looks petty, b) I think it's as slimy as the business practices many of you are criticizing. it's a move that can only bite you in the a55 eventually. but whatever, that's not how I do business.
I also can't imagine dragging my clients into my relationship with my agencies. who does that? seems quite ridiculous to me. no matter how I feel about my agency (ies).
don't get your undies in a bunch. I did not give a referral because I dislike istock. I'm doing it to help the buyers and show them they have more options. They asked for referrals to other stock agencies, I was giving them a referral. It's not like I added something like "well istock really sucks so go try this place instead" there was no malintent toward istock. I still refer folks to istock from my blog as well so don't try to call me out as doing something slimy when all I am doing is helping a customer who asks for it.
sorry then. your earlier post sounded a lot like posts from some of the other contributors who are ACTIVELY campaigning against iStock via every medium they have at their disposal. regardless of what agency we're talking about, this practice is sure to backfire.
-
you know, I have to say that I think it's a really dangerous game referring customers away from sites you dislike TO sites you happen to like at any given time. a) I think it's unprofessional and looks petty, b) I think it's as slimy as the business practices many of you are criticizing. it's a move that can only bite you in the a55 eventually. but whatever, that's not how I do business.
I also can't imagine dragging my clients into my relationship with my agencies. who does that? seems quite ridiculous to me. no matter how I feel about my agency (ies).
Yeah, I agree with you totally. Next time 3 bitter angry people ask me for alternatives to Istock I will tell them to man up and stop complaining. If they complain about prices, customer service, site usability they shouldn't be allowed to purchase photographs anyway.
I think it's obvious that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about contributors bragging about actively campaigning to buyers to get them away from iStock (and FWIW, I would say the same if it was being done to any other agency). it's a silly game to play IMO.
Bragging? I was not bragging. I brought it up to point out how buyers are reacting to istock's latest push on high priced imagery. You really should be directing your anger at istock for driving away customers and causing them to seek out other companies in the first place.
-
you know, I have to say that I think it's a really dangerous game referring customers away from sites you dislike TO sites you happen to like at any given time. a) I think it's unprofessional and looks petty, b) I think it's as slimy as the business practices many of you are criticizing. it's a move that can only bite you in the a55 eventually. but whatever, that's not how I do business.
I also can't imagine dragging my clients into my relationship with my agencies. who does that? seems quite ridiculous to me. no matter how I feel about my agency (ies).
don't get your undies in a bunch. I did not give a referral because I dislike istock. I'm doing it to help the buyers and show them they have more options. They asked for referrals to other stock agencies, I was giving them a referral. It's not like I added something like "well istock really sucks so go try this place instead" there was no malintent toward istock. I still refer folks to istock from my blog as well so don't try to call me out as doing something slimy when all I am doing is helping a customer who asks for it.
sorry then. your earlier post sounded a lot like posts from some of the other contributors who are ACTIVELY campaigning against iStock via every medium they have at their disposal. regardless of what agency we're talking about, this practice is sure to backfire.
Seriously, i have better things to do then to actively campaign against istock, especially since i still contribute there.
-
If anyone asks me where to buy photos (and my clients do!) iStock is NEVER in the list that I give them. Why would I point them to an agency that pays such low commission when there are others where they can get images for less and the contributor makes more? Call it silly if you like, but neither my bottom line nor my conscience will let me recommend iStock.
-
;) point taken. sorry to have included you in the group. but for the record, there are a lot of people who are actively campaigning. I'm sure you see it on FB, twitter and everywhere as much as I do. it's ridiculous. and the irony is that it gives so much more power to the agencies they 'like' right now.
-
If anyone asks me where to buy photos (and my clients do!) iStock is NEVER in the list that I give them. Why would I point them to an agency that pays such low commission when there are others where they can get images for less and the contributor makes more? Call it silly if you like, but neither my bottom line nor my conscience will let me recommend iStock.
and yet your conscience submits images to iStock, your latest uploads are as recent as February 2011.
in any case, I don't care who likes or doesn't like iStock. the point is that campaigning against any one agency because you're mad at them will surely backfire at some point. and involving buyers not already involved in disagreements with agencies is ridiculous.
-
If anyone asks me where to buy photos (and my clients do!) iStock is NEVER in the list that I give them. Why would I point them to an agency that pays such low commission when there are others where they can get images for less and the contributor makes more? Call it silly if you like, but neither my bottom line nor my conscience will let me recommend iStock.
In your case, I find that very hard to believe. Your an IS member since 2004 and youve managed a Silver position. Sorry! but in what position would you be in to recommend buyers? Most people here have got serious stakes to protect!
SNP, is quite right, to activly work against something will for sure backfire. Think about that instead of jumping on the bandwagon.
best ;)
-
Wow, this is so suprising, exclusive contributors speaking out against trying to convert IStock customers. I wonder if they have some ulterior motive for disagreeing with this tactic.
I'm shocked, I fully expected exclusives to support this endeavor.
-
Wow, this is so suprising, exclusive contributors speaking out against trying to convert IStock customers. I wonder if they have some ulterior motive for disagreeing with this tactic.
I'm shocked, I fully expected exclusives to support this endeavor.
;D
Stacey or Christian, could you let me know what you mean when you say attempts to direct buyers to other sites will surely "backfire"? I mean that question in all sincerity.
I genuinely don't see the down side of directing buyers elsewhere, if one is not an Istock exclusive contributor. How can directing buyers to other sites backfire on an independent?
As for being "childish", I am afraid I don't see that either. When I was a child, I had to abide by whatever rules my parents laid down and take my punishments as they doled out. That's how I feel treated by Istock.
As an adult, I make my own decisions and have multiple options to control my own destiny, such as directing buyers wherever I choose, without being patronized or admonished by some domineering authority.
-
Cant answer for Stacey! but me, well I dont believe in shotgun tactics, you know an eye for an eye and all that jazz. Now IS have wronged us all but it isnt really IS its Getty ofcourse. Now if you go out of your way and purposlely tell buyers not to use IS, well I would crap on my own doorstep, wouldnt I, chances are they were after one of my pics?
I do not believe that one should act maliciously and make a campign out of gossip or in this case throw potential IS buyers off the track. I really see no purpose in it.
In our case it can backfire since we are both pretty big members of IS, independants ofcourse but still.
best.
-
Cant answer for Stacey! but me, well I dont believe in shotgun tactics, you know an eye for an eye and all that jazz. Now IS have wronged us all but it isnt really IS its Getty ofcourse. Now if you go out of your way and purposlely tell buyers not to use IS, well I would crap on my own doorstep, wouldnt I, chances are they were after one of my pics?
I do not believe that one should act maliciously and make a campign out of gossip or in this case throw potential IS buyers off the track. I really see no purpose in it.
In our case it can backfire since we are both pretty big members of IS, independants ofcourse but still.
best.
Thanks for answering my question, Christian. I guess I just see this from a different perspective. I haven't read the facebook or twitter posts, so maybe I am missing something.
To me, offering angry, disaffected customers other options is not about being malicious, or gossipy. It is simply good business. Direct buyers to sites where they will find what they want easily, and affordably. I don't see how making disgruntled customers happy could possibly backfire.
-
Cant answer for Stacey! but me, well I dont believe in shotgun tactics, you know an eye for an eye and all that jazz. Now IS have wronged us all but it isnt really IS its Getty ofcourse. Now if you go out of your way and purposlely tell buyers not to use IS, well I would crap on my own doorstep, wouldnt I, chances are they were after one of my pics?
I do not believe that one should act maliciously and make a campign out of gossip or in this case throw potential IS buyers off the track. I really see no purpose in it.
In our case it can backfire since we are both pretty big members of IS, independants ofcourse but still.
best.
Thanks for answering my question, Christian. I guess I just see this from a different perspective. I haven't read the facebook or twitter posts, so maybe I am missing something.
To me, offering angry, disaffected customers other options is not about being malicious, or gossipy. It is simply good business. Direct buyers to sites where they will find what they want easily, and affordably. I don't see how making disgruntled customers happy could possibly backfire.
Youre right! nothing wrong with that at all. Only some people here go a lot further ( if you care to believe them) theyre prepared to start some kind of worldwide hate and smear campaign and when you look at their ports or whatever, it clearly shows they have never really been too involved, nor do they stand much to lose. its just a jump on the bandwagon, thats all.
best.
-
I honestly dont think its a jump on the bandwagon, its just the most sensible thing to do as non-exclusive.
iStock has lied, deceived, suspectively cheated, shown incredible greed and arrogance while cutting my already miserable commissions there etc; the only thing i can do about that is try to convert customers to sites that are better value for them, pay me A LOT more commission and treat me with respect. Again, its the most sensible thing to do and has nothing to do with hate campaigns.
-
I honestly dont think its a jump on the bandwagon, its just the most sensible thing to do as non-exclusive.
iStock has lied, deceived, suspectively cheated, shown incredible greed and arrogance while cutting my already miserable commissions there etc; the only thing i can do about that is try to convert customers to sites that are better value for them, pay me A LOT more commission and treat me with respect. Again, its the most sensible thing to do and has nothing to do with hate campaigns.
Come on mate, switch off will you, how many times here havent we read the same old garbage, theyre going to do this and that, blue murders, revenge, blimey the list is endless. All mouth, screaming and halloring, then when you look at their investment in IS, its mostly a couple of hundred files and some of them with 3-4 years as members.
Im not defending anything here but lets put it this way, Ive been with the original main-core of the Getty-RM, since 1992, Ive got used to it, nothing of this Getty/IS business comes as a surprise to me, in fact, I expected it, just surprised it didnt start earlier.
-
I don't see how the number of files someone has relates to their right to express opinion.
Aren't they within their rights (just like you) to act in whatever manner they deem appropriate for their individual situation as long as it's legal?
Full time microstockers seem to think that just because this isn't someone else's only income that the money generated from microstock isn't important to them. Sorry to correct you, but I use every penny that I earn.
-
I don't see how the number of files someone has relates to their right to express opinion.
Aren't they within their rights (just like you) to act in whatever manner they deem appropriate for their individual situation as long as it's legal?
Full time microstockers seem to think that just because this isn't someone else's only income that the money generated from microstock isn't important to them. Sorry to correct you, but I use every penny that I earn.
Well said.
-
Wow, this is so suprising, exclusive contributors speaking out against trying to convert IStock customers. I wonder if they have some ulterior motive for disagreeing with this tactic.
I'm shocked, I fully expected exclusives to support this endeavor.
;D
Stacey or Christian, could you let me know what you mean when you say attempts to direct buyers to other sites will surely "backfire"? I mean that question in all sincerity.
I genuinely don't see the down side of directing buyers elsewhere, if one is not an Istock exclusive contributor. How can directing buyers to other sites backfire on an independent?
As for being "childish", I am afraid I don't see that either. When I was a child, I had to abide by whatever rules my parents laid down and take my punishments as they doled out. That's how I feel treated by Istock.
As an adult, I make my own decisions and have multiple options to control my own destiny, such as directing buyers wherever I choose, without being patronized or admonished by some domineering authority.
Lisa - you know how much I like you and respect you. but I've also told you privately and in other threads how wrong I think your attempts to pull buyers away from iStock are. I don't want to make any emotional arguments, so to answer your question from a purely business standpoint (my business standpoint anyways). Directing buyers away from any one agency has many negative effects in my opinion. most of which I'd think would be obvious and common sense.
1) its effect on you: it potentially burns your bridge to the 'bad' agency and it makes you incredibly vulnerable to the 'good' agency you're sending buyers to
2) you're directly attempting to hurt fellow contributors who are exclusives at the agency you are working to pull business away from. and your seeming disregard for this is compounded by the fact that you're still collecting income from iStock despite actively pushing buyers away from iStock
3) your 'position' or 'stance' or whatever you want to call it purports that there are JUST two camps, villains and saints. you've clearly vilified iStock/Getty, ergo the other agencies are saints. this does seem childish. in my opinion, the truth is somewhere in the middle and the vilification is more appropriately focused on decisions rather than on entire agencies. the sooner EVERY agency realizes that its health is directly related to the long-term health of its suppliers the better.
let's say you get all your clients to quit buying at iStock/Getty. you push them all over to Shutterstock or Fotolia, or Dreamstime....then what? what stops them from lowering commissions too (as Fotolia has actually just done). I think it's a short-sighted and vengeful approach to running your business. I'm not questioning your feelings, I sympathize and have been vocal about how unfairly I feel independents are being treated at iStock. don't underestimate how unsure and worried many of us are as exclusives right now too. but I strongly disagree with dragging clients into it and purposefully smearing agencies.
-
Could a greasemonkey script be used to enable buyers to exclude v/agency ?
Unfortunately with the new JavaScript/Ajax stuff, I don't see anyway to do a filter. I could hide them, but then you'd just get empty pages of nothing.
-
Could a greasemonkey script be used to enable buyers to exclude v/agency ?
Unfortunately with the new JavaScript/Ajax stuff, I don't see anyway to do a filter. I could hide them, but then you'd just get empty pages of nothing.
can you have empty pages of something? ;)
-
Directing buyers away from any one agency has many negative effects in my opinion. most of which I'd think would be obvious and common sense.
1) it's effect on you: it potentially burns your bridge to the 'bad' agency and it makes you incredibly vulnerable to the 'good' agency you're sending buyers to
2) you're directly attempting to hurt fellow contributors who are exclusives at the agency you are working to pull business away from. and your seeming disregard for this is compounded by the fact that you're still collecting income from iStock despite actively pushing buyers away from iStock
3) your 'position' or 'stance' or whatever you want to call it purports that there are JUST two camps, villains and saints. you've clearly vilified iStock/Getty, ergo the other agencies are saints. this does seem childish. in my opinion, the truth is somewhere in the middle and the vilification is more appropriately focused on decisions rather than on entire agencies. the sooner EVERY agency realizes that its health is directly related to the long-term health of its suppliers the better.
let's say you get all your clients to quit buying at iStock/Getty. you push them all over to Shutterstock or Fotolia, or Dreamstime....then what? what stops them from lowering commissions too (as Fotolia has actually just done). I think it's a short-sighted and vengeful approach to running your business. I'm not questioning your feelings, I sympathize and have been vocal about how unfairly I feel independents are being treated at iStock. don't underestimate how unsure and worried many of us are as exclusives right now too. but I strongly disagree with dragging clients into it and purposefully smearing agencies.
Thanks a lot for explaining. While I respect your right to your own opinion, you won't be surprised to learn that I disagree with your conclusions. :)
I can certainly see how you would interpret many of my recent posts to be "vilifying" Istock, but from my perspective they have cast themselves in the role of "villain" without any help from me.
As for thinking that I am portraying other agencies as "saints" or "angels" - you seem to have missed many, many critical posts about other sites, that I have made over the years. I don't blame you if you have skipped over threads that don't relate to Istock, but I would appreciate your not mischaracterizing my opinions about other agencies since your clearly have not read many of them.
To be honest, I am first and foremost, directing buyers who are interested in my work to MY OWN website. Which would seem to be a sound business decision, no? If they want a larger collection of work, then I would direct them to the other major micros, and yes, even Istock if what they were looking for is something I know a particular exclusive has the best of what's available. But now, Istock would not be my first choice anymore, and I have removed their address from my business cards.
And your charge that I, and others, are "directly attempting to hurt fellow contributors who are exclusives", completely contradicts your statement that "I don't want to make any emotional arguments". Surprisingly, when I make decisions about my business, it is my own interests I put first, rather than that of the general population of Istock exclusives.
I'll grant you that "disregard" for exclusives is prevalent, but you should take it up with your exclusive agent, Istock. No other contributor, exclusive or independent, owes you anything, including regard. It is your agent who owes you, and it is they who are torpedoing your potential future livelihood.
Time to stop blaming the messengers.
-
I don't disagree with how you feel, but yes, I guess we agree to disagree on your approach. as you say, we're all protecting our own interests, but I think we'd agree that our interests overlap in many areas in terms of protecting contributors in the industry as a whole...to each his own in terms of how you choose to manage the situation.
-
Could a greasemonkey script be used to enable buyers to exclude v/agency ?
Unfortunately with the new JavaScript/Ajax stuff, I don't see anyway to do a filter. I could hide them, but then you'd just get empty pages of nothing.
---------------------------------------
If the search ever gets back to something close to rational, I bet there would be a lot of interest from buyers in being able to hide Vetta and Agency, even if it just leaves an empty space. I imagine it would save buyers some time and dashed hopes when looking for the perfect image only to find it out of their price range cause they did not check out the camera first.
However my guess is Istock would not be too happy if you created something like that. :)
-
Could a greasemonkey script be used to enable buyers to exclude v/agency ?
Unfortunately with the new JavaScript/Ajax stuff, I don't see anyway to do a filter. I could hide them, but then you'd just get empty pages of nothing.
---------------------------------------
If the search ever gets back to something close to rational, I bet there would be a lot of interest from buyers in being able to hide Vetta and Agency, even if it just leaves an empty space. I imagine it would save buyers some time and dashed hopes when looking for the perfect image only to find it out of their price range cause they did not check out the camera first.
However my guess is Istock would not be too happy if you created something like that. :)
probably not....lol
-
I don't disagree with how you feel, but yes, I guess we agree to disagree on your approach. as you say, we're all protecting our own interests, but I think we'd agree that our interests overlap in many areas in terms of protecting contributors in the industry as a whole...to each his own in terms of how you choose to manage the situation.
What you are also over-looking is that by being exclusive to one particular agency, most especially the market leader (as was possibly), you are gifting it far too much power over the market and contributors. To me your choice to be exclusive is damaging to all other agencies, thereby distorting the market and so potentially damaging my business at all other agencies.
If you are choosing to distort the market in your favour (by opting for exclusivity) then you can't blame independent contributors for trying to shift the market back to their interests.
-
To be honest, the efforts of a few independents to drive traffic elsewhere are probably minimally effective, at best. If Istock's sales are dipping, the site/search problems and the higher prices are most likely the culprit.
-
Well I think we all agree over the last couple of years Istock been busy damaging their own reputation with buyers and contributors. Of course exclusive contributors wouldn't want all that crap to be public and known to customers cause it's damaging their sales.
However, I as non-exclusive don't care much if Istock loses half of it's customers. These people still have need to buy images and they'll buy them somewhere else, and I'll make sure my portfolio is present there.
And yes, that would mean I've wasted time uploading to Istock - but hey, this is how this business is done. Over the years, I've spent time uploading to LuckyOliver, Photoshelter, MediaMagnet, Stockxpert, Albumo, USPhotostock, ImageCatalog,... this is not the entire list probably, but all of them closed their doors. So some other sites picked up their customers, and I am still alive and selling.
And I don't care if Istock was an industry leader for a while - that can change in a blink of an eye. And looks like that blink is happening right now unless people who are making decisions on Istock have an epiphany and stop abusing both buyers and contributors....
-
...
2) you're directly attempting to hurt fellow contributors who are exclusives at the agency you are working to pull business away from. and your seeming disregard for this is compounded by the fact that you're still collecting income from iStock despite actively pushing buyers away from iStock
...
This is truly illogical.
If Lisa contributes to 10 agencies and chooses to direct buyers to one of the ten (for whatever reason; it could be she's close to a new royalty level there, or it could be her best earner or it could be that she knows the buyer is price conscious and that agency is the cheapest) she's not trying to hurt those who don't have a portfolio there.
And it's fine to do business with companies that you hate, loathe and despise - if I didn't, I wouldn't have a bank, a cell phone company or a cable company. I have at various times worked for or done business with companies that I couldn't stand; companies that I wouldn't lift a finger to help because they'd behaved so badly to their customers or employees. This is just part of the ugly truth of adult life.
I've chosen to be an exclusive with iStock and I completely get other contributors acting in their own interests and that their interests aren't mine. As I pointed out in an earlier post in another thread, sometimes iStock is the cheapest place to buy images from independents, especially those from top sellers like Lisa or Yuri. If you were a volume buyer of images, a SS subscription might be the best deal rather than IS. I don't mind anyone pointing these things out to buyers, for whatever reason. In the long run, I think someone who gives a buyer bad advice on purpose out of spite will only be hurting themselves (they'll lose all credibility), so I don't suppose that person could do IS or anyone else much harm anyway.
We don't have to pass some sort of morality test to collect our weekly earnings from IS - we only have to produce and upload images that sell. Heaven protect me from some sort of regime that you can't collect earnings from IS unless you post at least 50 woo yays a week or refer 10 buyers or...
-
---------------------------------------
If the search ever gets back to something close to rational, I bet there would be a lot of interest from buyers in being able to hide Vetta and Agency, even if it just leaves an empty space. I imagine it would save buyers some time and dashed hopes when looking for the perfect image only to find it out of their price range cause they did not check out the camera first.
However my guess is Istock would not be too happy if you created something like that. :)
I do have a script that changes the color of the background to make it more obvious...
IS_search_buyerTools.user.js
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297012&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297012&page=1)
-
...
2) you're directly attempting to hurt fellow contributors who are exclusives at the agency you are working to pull business away from. and your seeming disregard for this is compounded by the fact that you're still collecting income from iStock despite actively pushing buyers away from iStock
...
This is truly illogical.
If Lisa contributes to 10 agencies and chooses to direct buyers to one of the ten (for whatever reason; it could be she's close to a new royalty level there, or it could be her best earner or it could be that she knows the buyer is price conscious and that agency is the cheapest) she's not trying to hurt those who don't have a portfolio there.
And it's fine to do business with companies that you hate, loathe and despise - if I didn't, I wouldn't have a bank, a cell phone company or a cable company. I have at various times worked for or done business with companies that I couldn't stand; companies that I wouldn't lift a finger to help because they'd behaved so badly to their customers or employees. This is just part of the ugly truth of adult life.
I've chosen to be an exclusive with iStock and I completely get other contributors acting in their own interests and that their interests aren't mine. As I pointed out in an earlier post in another thread, sometimes iStock is the cheapest place to buy images from independents, especially those from top sellers like Lisa or Yuri. If you were a volume buyer of images, a Shutterstock subscription might be the best deal rather than IS. I don't mind anyone pointing these things out to buyers, for whatever reason. In the long run, I think someone who gives a buyer bad advice on purpose out of spite will only be hurting themselves (they'll lose all credibility), so I don't suppose that person could do IS or anyone else much harm anyway.
We don't have to pass some sort of morality test to collect our weekly earnings from IS - we only have to produce and upload images that sell. Heaven protect me from some sort of regime that you can't collect earnings from IS unless you post at least 50 woo yays a week or refer 10 buyers or...
JoAnn, I didn't accuse Lisa of anything. Lisa responded to my post and we discussed it. secondly, you've paraphrased what I said and what you seem to think I meant by it, and you're wrong. what I suggested was that actively campaigning to destroy business--which is in fact what some contributors are trying to do according to what they're bragging about here and elsewhere--while still uploading to the site you're steering business away from is illogical.
I'm not preaching morality or anything else. in fact I'm usually on the end of accusations claiming how immoral it is to be exclusive with iStock/Getty these days. morality has nothing to do with any of it. I completely agree that we all have to do what's in our individual best interests. I have zero issue with pointing buyers to any agency you want to point them to, especially and obviously in the case of independents. I was simply referring to smear tactics, which I disagree with.
-
WEDNESDAY MORNING in Europe!
well this so called"tweaking" have not worked over here and not over there or down-under either (according to IS forum) on the contrary, sales overall are down just about 70% for Independants AND Exclusives, may they be diamonds or beginners.
I suppose we simply............................... tweak on and on and on. Its a search-engine, not rocket-science.
-
FYI, update from Andrew:
"We're continuing the Best Match dial turning also. We're working on getting to a set of results where Vetta and Agency are less prominent than they are now but slightly more prominent than they were last week."
Why does this read to me as "We've completely lost control of what the program is doing but we're hoping the computer will let us straighten things out soon".
Has iStock actually built HAL from 2001?
I can almost hear the hardware talking to him:
"Look Andy, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.
"I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you..."
-
FYI, update from Andrew:
"We're continuing the Best Match dial turning also. We're working on getting to a set of results where Vetta and Agency are less prominent than they are now but slightly more prominent than they were last week."
Why does this read to me as "We've completely lost control of what the program is doing but we're hoping the computer will let us straighten things out soon".
Has iStock actually built HAL from 2001?
I can almost hear the hardware talking to him:
"Look Andy, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.
"I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you..."
lol. I can totally picture that too.
WEDNESDAY MORNING in Europe!
well this so called"tweaking" have not worked over here and not over there or down-under either (according to IS forum) on the contrary, sales overall are down just about 70% for Independants AND Exclusives, may they be diamonds or beginners.
I suppose we simply............................... tweak on and on and on. Its a search-engine, not rocket-science.
that's a pretty big blanket Christian, lol. I don't think you can state how much we're ALL up or down. this best match tweak has positively affected my sales...but I know it can just as easily swing the other way tomorrow. the best match is definitely strange right now. they are definitely tweaking. and tweaking. and tweaking.
-
Stacey! actually I can more or less. Ive got collegues and friends, also with same cannister rank as myself in many corners and when chatting to them, its pretty gloomy.
however as you say, lets hope they tweak a bit more, shall we.
best. Chris.
-
:)
-
we should ask Istock to implement a "worst match" option. It might get us some sales
-
FYI, update from Andrew:
"We're continuing the Best Match dial turning also. We're working on getting to a set of results where Vetta and Agency are less prominent than they are now but slightly more prominent than they were last week."
Why does this read to me as "We've completely lost control of what the program is doing but we're hoping the computer will let us straighten things out soon".
Has iStock actually built HAL from 2001?
I can almost hear the hardware talking to him:
"Look Andy, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.
"I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you..."
:) Whenever I read something from istock, I will hear that voice now.
-
Well I normally have around 15-20 dls just in the first two hours in the morning (european) time, yesterday, 4 and this morning 2. yet, Im pretty favored in this present best match, most relevant searches in my categories will show plenty om my pics on first two pages, great! and yet hardly anything.
Is it that buyers have totally abandoned us and that this is nothing at all to do with best match changes, etc? something is not right here, it doesnt add up?
Im putting this to the test!, the more they tweak this best match, the more it should also gradually show result, even if theyre slow.
-
Why does this read to me as "We've completely lost control of what the program is doing but we're hoping the computer will let us straighten things out soon".
Has iStock actually built HAL from 2001?
I can almost hear the hardware talking to him:
"Look Andy, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.
"I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you..."
Thank you for that! Love starting the day with a good laugh :D
-
Well I normally have around 15-20 dls just in the first two hours in the morning (european) time, yesterday, 4 and this morning 2. yet, Im pretty favored in this present best match, most relevant searches in my categories will show plenty om my pics on first two pages, great! and yet hardly anything....
I'm on Pacific Time, so when I get up, Europe's day is nearly over. This morning there was just one sale overnight - like a weekend, not a Wednesday. Things are very erratic.
The big thing I still don't have in focus is what on earthy possessed them to start messing with this in the first place? This nonsense about local relevance? And to do this while they still have a huge pile of unfixed bugs just seems crazy (I'd want to test changes in small doses and on an otherwise working system, not just keep on randomly tweaking this and that hoping I'll get something that looks good).
-
Here's something funny. I am in the hole a few dollars from the last clawback. I have 5 images left up in my port, and I actually had a sale early this morning! So I'm a tad bit less in the hole now, but I should check my files. Maybe they are number 1 in the best match. :o
-
Strange thing is that sales are looking fairly "normal" for me. Not a good week by any standards, but not really bad as you might expect with the changes.
It looks to me as if apart from the temporary comeback of the slider, the sort is actually slightly less V&A centric today. Not by much though, and there are still far too many files from individual contribs clumped together. Get to about page three (200 a page) and it looks more or less like a list sorted by age, again with big clumps of individuals work (although that might be expected with an age sort)
All in all it still looks an awful mess to me. Got to agree with jsnover above. Why did they make these huge changes? Seems like madness to me.
The fact that it's extremely slow being put right leads me to believe that it might be having the desired effect for them though.
-
Well I normally have around 15-20 dls just in the first two hours in the morning (european) time, yesterday, 4 and this morning 2. yet, Im pretty favored in this present best match, most relevant searches in my categories will show plenty om my pics on first two pages, great! and yet hardly anything....
I'm on Pacific Time, so when I get up, Europe's day is nearly over. This morning there was just one sale overnight - like a weekend, not a Wednesday. Things are very erratic.
The big thing I still don't have in focus is what on earthy possessed them to start messing with this in the first place? This nonsense about local relevance? And to do this while they still have a huge pile of unfixed bugs just seems crazy (I'd want to test changes in small doses and on an otherwise working system, not just keep on randomly tweaking this and that hoping I'll get something that looks good).
You know thats EXACTLY what I have been asking myself, why, with all the troubles and overhanging anger from contributors, do they start messing with this??? they could have waited until things had settled a bit but no, they simply had to go ahead knowing full well it was going to stir.
Now this leads me to believe, that something or somebody have got them in a vice and simply forced them to move ahead.
-
All in all it still looks an awful mess to me. Got to agree with jsnover above. Why did they make these huge changes? Seems like madness to me.
Out of desperation? Either istocks growth might have stopped or they are starting to see declining revenue. Lots of diamonds both exclusive and non saying downloads dropping like mad recently. Lots of indies saying bme on shutterstock seems to indicate buyer migration. They are tinkering with the best match to try to maximize whatever profit imo.
-
Well I normally have around 15-20 dls just in the first two hours in the morning (european) time, yesterday, 4 and this morning 2. yet, Im pretty favored in this present best match, most relevant searches in my categories will show plenty om my pics on first two pages, great! and yet hardly anything....
I'm on Pacific Time, so when I get up, Europe's day is nearly over. This morning there was just one sale overnight - like a weekend, not a Wednesday. Things are very erratic.
The big thing I still don't have in focus is what on earthy possessed them to start messing with this in the first place? This nonsense about local relevance? And to do this while they still have a huge pile of unfixed bugs just seems crazy (I'd want to test changes in small doses and on an otherwise working system, not just keep on randomly tweaking this and that hoping I'll get something that looks good).
I'm all for them constantly trying to improve the best match - and I think local relevancy could actually be a really cool feature if implemented correctly. But it really just seems like all of the departments are doing their own thing without communicating with each other. Like there's a dev team working on bug fixes while another team works on best match and another team works on rolling out editorial and they're all just working on their own stuff without a unified plan. They need to take a step back and fix everything and stop testing things on the live site. :\
-
All in all it still looks an awful mess to me. Got to agree with jsnover above. Why did they make these huge changes? Seems like madness to me.
Out of desperation? Either istocks growth might have stopped or they are starting to see declining revenue. Lots of diamonds both exclusive and non saying downloads dropping like mad recently. Lots of indies saying bme on shutterstock seems to indicate buyer migration. They are tinkering with the best match to try to maximize whatever profit imo.
Making changes is fine, it's making these huge changes that make a mess of the results that I don't get. Seems to me that every time they do something like this they alienate a few more contribs, and much more importantly lose buyers. The idea that fewer, larger sales make more profit is OK up to a point, but somewhere along the way a balance point has to be reached. We might already be there. One thing is sure, offering buyers what looks like a smaller cross section of less relevant material, just because it's more profitable to the company seems like a recipe for a disaster long term.
I really, really hope I'm wrong.
-
I wonder how many files just aren't being seen because of search bugs.
Old news: Weeks ago, I had a direct IT ticket put in on my behalf because my "Highland cattle" (A CV phrase) don't show up in a search for highland cattle. They are still not showing on that search. Plenty of others pics, not of 'highland cattle' do show up because they are keyworded 'cattle' and (mostly wrongly) Highland (Highland Region [Scotland]).
Last night I discovered that none of my four files of the Grand Central Station shows up on a search for Grand Central Station. As I'm banned, I wrote to a Mod to ask who to contact. Here's the issue:
I have four editorial pics up from "Grand Central Station". They've been up for a few weeks now. I can find them in a search for New York and/or station.
But they don't show up in a search, even just in my own port, for Grand Central Station.
NB Grand Central Station is in the CV.
If you type it in, you get a hint under as you type. If you type on the hint, it truncates to Grand Central, shows 59 pics of GCS, none of them mine.
If I type in "Grand Central Station" in quotation marks, the results go down to 53 hits, and again I'm not in there.
I don't have editorial switched off - I can see an editorial file in the general search, and, as I said, I can see the files in under NY and/or station.
I tried logged in via Firefox and logged out in IE, same results.
On of my CN tried it too, same results.
(Actually it's affecting loads of other pics, not just mine. searching for GCS, I could only see one editorial file: searching New York and station there are several.)
I wonder how many other files are being 'lost' during searches like this. In both of my cases: Highland Cattle and Grand Central Station, they're invisible on their main keyword phrase.
-
About 40% drop for me.
Fotolia and SS are kicking ass though, even DT is doing better than usual... - it does look like buyers are moving over.
-
Well I normally have around 15-20 dls just in the first two hours in the morning (european) time, yesterday, 4 and this morning 2. yet, Im pretty favored in this present best match, most relevant searches in my categories will show plenty om my pics on first two pages, great! and yet hardly anything....
I'm on Pacific Time, so when I get up, Europe's day is nearly over. This morning there was just one sale overnight - like a weekend, not a Wednesday. Things are very erratic.
The big thing I still don't have in focus is what on earthy possessed them to start messing with this in the first place? This nonsense about local relevance? And to do this while they still have a huge pile of unfixed bugs just seems crazy (I'd want to test changes in small doses and on an otherwise working system, not just keep on randomly tweaking this and that hoping I'll get something that looks good).
I'm all for them constantly trying to improve the best match - and I think local relevancy could actually be a really cool feature if implemented correctly. But it really just seems like all of the departments are doing their own thing without communicating with each other. Like there's a dev team working on bug fixes while another team works on best match and another team works on rolling out editorial and they're all just working on their own stuff without a unified plan. They need to take a step back and fix everything and stop testing things on the live site. :\
^ what you said x 2 :) Difydave, I can't see them offering irrelevant results on purpose. doesn't make sense. sales are up for a lot of people too, though that's not meant as a defense. we're all weary of the changes including me, even though this best match shift has my dls up by a good 15%. I find the inconsistency very unsettling even when it happens to be working out for me. many times it hasn't worked out for me. I'd like to see the best match humming along as it seemed to be, without big shifts. I liked the very minor shifts from day to day, without any major tweaks. since the new search and website releases, it's been so up and down.
-
even though this best match shift has my dls up by a good 15%.
Is there a pattern to your increase in downloads? Is it older files that are selling well for you? Or are you just selling more of what you usually sell.
-
even though this best match shift has my dls up by a good 15%.
Is there a pattern to your increase in downloads? Is it older files that are selling well for you? Or are you just selling more of what you usually sell.
it's a weird mix. still getting new sales, but old files are being dug up and selling too, quite a bit. I'm also selling editorial files somewhat regularly now. I have a huge portfolio, so swings seem to hit me less hard because I have a little bit of everything. however, where I lose out is niche stuff. I don't have much in the way of niche images that buyers associate with just me. for example, I know a Yuri file or a Sean Locke file by appearance for the most part. there are lots of contributors whose work has a very very distinct style. I haven't 'branded' my work with a consistent, very recognizable style, which I sometimes wish I had. Interestingly, I have very little Vetta or Agency, so you'd think the push for V/A in the sort would have hurt me, but it didn't.
-
-snip-
I wonder how many other files are being 'lost' during searches like this. In both of my cases: Highland Cattle and Grand Central Station, they're invisible on their main keyword phrase.
I have a a small herds worth of Highland Cattle missing in action too :-(
-
(Grand Cental Station)
Follow-up: the problems was confirmed and I was advised to take out a Support ticket and have done so.
-
-snip-
I wonder how many other files are being 'lost' during searches like this. In both of my cases: Highland Cattle and Grand Central Station, they're invisible on their main keyword phrase.
I have a a small herds worth of Highland Cattle missing in action too :-(
poor cows...
-
... even though this best match shift has my dls up by a good 15%.
I think the initial cock-up change to the best match hugely favoured newish images so anyone who had significantly increased their portfolio over the last year or so (like you) should have benefited.
It does seem however now that the latest incarnation of the best match (i.e. since yesterday) is now a nice balance of both new images and older best sellers. For example I have over 100 flamed images in my port but yesterday only 4 of them were in the first 400 images in my port, sorted by best match. In contrast today I have 21 flames in the first 100 images, sorted by best match.
Sales do indeed appear to be picking up for me today so hopefully they'll stop messing about with the best match. So far this month IS are generating just 25% of my microstock income compared to over 34% last April.
-
Is it just me or does it look like they rolled back this latest best match? The slider is back and the Vetta/Agency domination is
gone scaled back
-
Is it just me or does it look like they rolled back this latest best match? The slider is back and the Vetta/Agency domination is gone scaled back
Andrew said they were going to do this temporarily today. it's in the sticky on the best match thread.
@ gostwyck: I think your best match analysis is correct. it did seems to heavily favour new, and now seems to have settled into a mix. today notwithstanding as it's weird again right now.
-
today notwithstanding as it's weird again right now.
Truth about best match is that we like it when it pleases us and think there is definitely something wrong when it doesn't.
-
About 40% drop for me.
Fotolia and Shutterstock are kicking ass though, even Dreamstime is doing better than usual... - it does look like buyers are moving over.
Exactly! best weeks ever with SS, DT and FT, each one up at least 30% brillant!
-
About 40% drop for me.
Fotolia and Shutterstock are kicking ass though, even Dreamstime is doing better than usual... - it does look like buyers are moving over.
Exactly! best weeks ever with Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Fotolia, each one up at least 30% brillant!
As long as the losses at istock are made up somewhere else, it doesn't really matter to me where the bucks come from. I suspect that over the next few years, we might see the tide shift some other way at some point, too. I guess microstock really is all about ebb and flow.
-
today notwithstanding as it's weird again right now.
Truth about best match is that we like it when it pleases us and think there is definitely something wrong when it doesn't.
That's only part of the truth. After you've been selling somewhere for a number of years, and if you have a medium to large-ish portfolio, you get a sense of a typical sales level and monthly peaks and valleys through the year. When things are like the weekends during the week, but only on some days of the week (and there's no holiday to explain that) it's reasonable to say that there's something odd going on.
It's true that sometimes you can take advantage of some weirdness - in 2008 there was a patch where new files dominated the search results, so I uploaded some images from a prior trip that I hadn't processed as fast as I could to take advantage of that. I didn't complain when it stopped as it was obviously not the ideal way to present things to the buyer. Nothing stays the same long enough, at the moment, for us even to attempt anything of that sort.
It is also true that people with more years represented in their portfolio can occasionally see some good from these best match train wrecks - an old image gets sales because it temporarily gets some exposure.
What I like is some sort of consistency and predictability.
-
today notwithstanding as it's weird again right now.
Truth about best match is that we like it when it pleases us and think there is definitely something wrong when it doesn't.
That's only part of the truth. After you've been selling somewhere for a number of years, and if you have a medium to large-ish portfolio, you get a sense of a typical sales level and monthly peaks and valleys through the year. When things are like the weekends during the week, but only on some days of the week (and there's no holiday to explain that) it's reasonable to say that there's something odd going on.
It's true that sometimes you can take advantage of some weirdness - in 2008 there was a patch where new files dominated the search results, so I uploaded some images from a prior trip that I hadn't processed as fast as I could to take advantage of that. I didn't complain when it stopped as it was obviously not the ideal way to present things to the buyer. Nothing stays the same long enough, at the moment, for us even to attempt anything of that sort.
It is also true that people with more years represented in their portfolio can occasionally see some good from these best match train wrecks - an old image gets sales because it temporarily gets some exposure.
What I like is some sort of consistency and predictability.
Consistency adds security! far more worth then anything.
-
Another vote for "consistancy and predictability" here.
We could do with it.
-
My IS sales still appear nearly random these days (and down a lot). Some other sites appear to be doing well.
to go back to earlier discussions. I think sending buyers to somewhere that gives a better % is good for everyone but exclusives. I don't know that it makes much difference though. If it really did, it would make IS rethink their strategy, and that would be good for all I believe. What would be nuts is for contributors to send buyers to a place that didn't make sense, and at the moment that place is IS - the search is horrible, the prices are high, and the percentage is the lowest in the industry, why would an independent send people there?
I had some other witty/snarky comments to things said a few pages back, but I'll just hold my fingers.
-
Downloads this week are down about 15% from anything in the last 3 months.
-
I'm noticing this week that I'm getting a lot of 1st sales on older files that I uploaded thinking they could be decent sellers but they faded into oblivion instead. And less sales on my usual best sellers.
But it's hard to tell.
-
Im beginnin g to suspect we see differant BMs!! there are reports of seeing only new files, then only old files, dls of only new files and dls of only old files?????
whats going on?? all my sales yesterday and today are old great sellers!
Are we seeing the same best match on a global scale?
-
Whatever the customers are seeing, wherever they are, they sure aint seeing my files today, again :-(
-
Just taking a look at my portfolio, it seems like newer files are being shown more prominently in this recent best match tweak. good news for my recent files.
It also seems like they pushed the vectors back a little further with this tweak. my portfolio is 2/3rd vectors and i am seeing more photos i uploaded last year at the front of my portfolio.
-
I'm having strange sales today. older files I haven't seen in a while.
-
[Double post]
-
I've had nothing since an overnight (UK time) XSm.
best match strangeness: one of my 'usual' searches, the top is Vetta with 3Ds (very large file size) and a lot of Vectors thrown in, and my flamer is about position 60.
Another search, where there are only 2 Vettas, it's all new or seldom-downloaded files at the top and my flamer is around position 150.
I still haven't voted, and will do so tomorrow night when I see how the full week has gone. Last week was dreadful, this week, until today, was looking at least a bit better.
-
My sales have more or less died for the moment too*. I wonder if this is all part of the something coming which people seem to have been hinting at for a while.
My iStockphoto income has been fairly predictable and relatively steady through previous BMs for ages.
* seem well down anyhow
-
Actually scratch that. No significantly discernible trend. More like a feeling :)
-
Actually scratch that. No significantly discernible trend. More like a feeling :)
yeah, like you said in an earlier post, when it works out it's great and when it doesn't, it's broken :D
-
exactamundo
-
I just had a client send me some photos they bought at iStock. They said, "iStock photos are expensive!". Clearly they didn't know that the search was dominated by Agency/Vetta. I wish they would have consulted me first. I could have saved them some money.
-
Whatever the customers are seeing, wherever they are, they sure aint seeing my files today, again :-(
I just can't fathom how two mid-week days can be like the worst weekend ever. Suddenly my portfolio is either invisible or undesirable. Given the depth of the trough I'm in, I hope someone's having a good day!
Yesterday was about 1/10th of a good day and 1/7 of a typical day and today looks about the same - truly pitiful.
-
Whatever the customers are seeing, wherever they are, they sure aint seeing my files today, again :-(
I just can't fathom how two mid-week days can be like the worst weekend ever. Suddenly my portfolio is either invisible or undesirable. Given the depth of the trough I'm in, I hope someone's having a good day!
Yesterday was about 1/10th of a good day and 1/7 of a typical day and today looks about the same - truly pitiful.
Well misery loves company, and I'd say that my today looks like yours, I've had the odd bad day here and there but nothing like this sudden portfolio death syndrome, even in September 2006 when all my best sellers at the time died. Today looks like being less 20% of recent Thursdays, ie 80% down.
-
I am having a really good day. the majority of my downloads today are some "forgotten" files which havent had a lot of action, but a few of my good sellers are seeing some download action as well.
-
I am having a really good day. the majority of my downloads today are some "forgotten" files which havent had a lot of action, but a few of my good sellers are seeing some download action as well.
I'm so jealous! From my sales I thought it was a slightly better than average Sunday. :(
-
The week has been down. I'll probably end the week down about $300 than "expected." Though I probably could have expected more, given it's April and that has historically been my best month.
-
I am having a really good day. the majority of my downloads today are some "forgotten" files which havent had a lot of action, but a few of my good sellers are seeing some download action as well.
I'm so jealous! From my sales I thought it was a slightly better than average Sunday. :(
yes, well it doesn't make up for the rest of this week which has been pretty slow -- although yesterday it started to pick up and today has turned out pretty good. I am still way down from where I should be for the week from my "new average" since going independent. But then I guess I"m still trying to figure out what that "new average" really is for me.
-
I had a slow day too, weird dls.
-
I had 30 dls yesterday. Only 4 of them were images that had less than 500 dls. It seems to me that the buyers are so sick of the best match that they are searching for images by most dls. Obviously these images do tend to sell a lot but I don't remember ever seeing such a high percentage of my best sellers selling.
-
Yes I had a good day yesterday, mostly popular files with plenty of DLs, still it all counts.
-
I voted "no change" because my sales followed a downward trend since mid-2010, and are now (march-april) slightly recovering, but still way below what they used to be, and still too little to identify a sure effect of this - and previous - best match change: there may well be other reasons
-
I had 30 dls yesterday. Only 4 of them were images that had less than 500 dls. It seems to me that the buyers are so sick of the best match that they are searching for images by most dls. Obviously these images do tend to sell a lot but I don't remember ever seeing such a high percentage of my best sellers selling.
If only !
For me today is now worse than Christmas day, worse day at this time since my first month back in 2005.
-
I had 30 dls yesterday. Only 4 of them were images that had less than 500 dls. It seems to me that the buyers are so sick of the best match that they are searching for images by most dls. Obviously these images do tend to sell a lot but I don't remember ever seeing such a high percentage of my best sellers selling.
If only !
For me today is now worse than Christmas day, worse day at this time since my first month back in 2005.
Dire
-
I had 30 dls yesterday. Only 4 of them were images that had less than 500 dls. It seems to me that the buyers are so sick of the best match that they are searching for images by most dls. Obviously these images do tend to sell a lot but I don't remember ever seeing such a high percentage of my best sellers selling.
If only !
For me today is now worse than Christmas day, worse day at this time since my first month back in 2005.
Sorry to hear that. I hope it picks up for you soon. It happened to me once in a reshuffle about 3 years ago. I never have got back to the amount of dls that I used to get then.
-
I had 30 dls yesterday. Only 4 of them were images that had less than 500 dls. It seems to me that the buyers are so sick of the best match that they are searching for images by most dls. Obviously these images do tend to sell a lot but I don't remember ever seeing such a high percentage of my best sellers selling.
not in my port they aren't. and I ended up with an amazing day yesterday - best in a while, though it was about what I used to average way back before all the site changes and price hikes.
anyhow.. most of the photos bought from my port had less than 50 downloads -- dont think there was a sort on downloads there unless the key word they searched on was not very popular for downloads.
-
I changed my vote from a little to a lot. Sum total of $ for the week is several hundred down on what it has been this year, and this year was already down by several hundred on the "good old days" of early last year.
-
I am way down too. So it definitely is not just affecting independents. I have previously seldom been little affected monetarily by best match changes.
The only reason previously that I did not want to call this a 'discernible trend' is that I am never sure whether I am just dealing with what used to be called ebb and flow.
I am wondering whether this is part of the something coming which some people have been darkly hinting at for ages.
-
I had a day that was like my old normal on Tuesday . . . and the weird part was that I had multiple sales of one image, a far out of season image, and none of the search choices made it come up in the middle of the search. I think customers are heading straight for the back.
-
So Thursday was double Wednesday, but given that Wednesday was about 10% of a good day, that still leaves Thursday at 20% of a good day and today's not looking any better so far.
I think it's "Sudden Portfolio Death" syndrome as Mike noted earlier.
If this is how things are going to be from now on, the decision to move to independence makes itself. Dropping 80% to 90% of your sales is a big push out the door - which is perhaps what they're after anyway. Mid-level folks like me are just expensive - they want Sean's and Yuri's and lots of cheap newbies...
-
So Thursday was double Wednesday, but given that Wednesday was about 10% of a good day, that still leaves Thursday at 20% of a good day and today's not looking any better so far.
I think it's "Sudden Portfolio Death" syndrome as Mike noted earlier.
If this is how things are going to be from now on, the decision to move to independence makes itself. Dropping 80% to 90% of your sales is a big push out the door - which is perhaps what they're after anyway. Mid-level folks like me are just expensive - they want Sean's and Yuri's and lots of cheap newbies...
I had a couple of days where my sales stopped completely midweek which hasn't happened in over a year. I seriously am beginning to think about turning in my crown and looking elsewhere to sell photos. While my income has been relatively steady, drops like this are a bit much for me to handle. What's to say my best sellers won't get shuffled to the back of the line with no notice from iStock? The only constant at iStock is that nothing is constant. I have a feeling this is going to continue to be a year of ups and downs for everyone. Enjoy the ride.
-
I'm down about 20% on this month last year so far. I dropped a royalty level in the changes, so that explains some of it. The ups and downs of the site explains the rest. Generally April is my best month and if things don't pick up soon then I will be well down over the next couple of weeks. I'm not at the stage of giving up the crown yet though, generally for me things take a week or so to pick back up after a big change. This uncertainty though, and the fact that you know that they can and will change things so drastically at any time is to say the least unsettling. It also strikes me that the forums are a lot less uninhibited than they used to be in the old days.
No change on the sort order or the slider yet today. It's taken all week to get nowhere as far as I can see. No sign of the V&A files getting much less prominent either.
-
Odd. Throughout this my results have been staying around what has become average, which is about 20% down on last year (but 15% of that can be put down to commission changes). Maybe it's because I operate in niches that are not full of V&A rivals.
-
This week %30 down.
-
Today is looking like a Saturday. About 20% of an average weekday. It can't get much worse than this!
At this point I HAVE to consider non-exclusive. This in the week that I get POTW! :(
I hope that it is just a 1 week best match experiment and it gets fixed next week.
-
... This in the week that I get POTW! :(
...
Congrats on that - I hadn't noticed (I never see the Photos landing page; it's such a shame they moved it there). I hate to use the word irony as it always elicits lots of comments about its misuse, but I think it's ironic that your sales tank as you are featured - sort of "take that you b#st*rd!!"
Perhaps it will get better next week, but absolutely nothing from admins along the lines of "we're working on trying to fix it". I'm trying to flesh out plan B just in case :(
-
I hope that it is just a 1 week best match experiment and it gets fixed next week.
Is anybody at HQ going to take responsibility for all these "experiments"? ???
-
Is anybody at HQ going to take responsibility for all these "experiments"? ???
Oh yes __ none other than JJRD (for it is he);
"I will be the one fighting first thing in the morning at HQ to have this solved... and knives will be flying.
Yes, I am putting my ass on the line here... and if I may add, I am enjoying it.
Because I care, have always cared."
Fear not fair maiden, JJ is on the case.
-
Yeah, he's always cared about his ass.
-
I can't believe how much my iStock sales have tanked. Down 79% compared to March, and down 77% compared to April, 2010. Granted, things could pick up for the rest of the month. But it's weird to have iStock represent a mere 5% of my current earnings.
(Parenthetically, I'm still removing my portfolio a few images at a time. But I'm removing the nonsellers and not-recent-sellers, which wouldn't explain such a precipitate drop.)
-
At this point I HAVE to consider non-exclusive. This in the week that I get POTW! :(
Congratulations Adam! Sorry it hasn't resulted in increased sales. I think the bump you used to get from IOTW or POTW is gone now that those are no longer on the front page.
-
At this point I HAVE to consider non-exclusive. This in the week that I get POTW! :(
Congratulations Adam! Sorry it hasn't resulted in increased sales. I think the bump you used to get from IOTW or POTW is gone now that those are no longer on the front page.
okay... I have to admit.. . at first I read that and thought you were congratulating Adam for considering non-exclusive :) haha! then I realized he was photog of the week. how cool is that?! definitely congrats Adam! even if it is buried on the site now it's still a great achievement to be recognized for your amazing talent and work!
-
I'm too new at this to have comparisons to previous years, but my DL trend has been odd nevertheless. 1, maybe two DL's on any given day, with a handful of zeros is typical and to be expected with just under 100 photos online. Slow start to April - no DL's until on on the 4th, so imagine my surprise to find SIX DL's on Tuesday. Back to zeros until a few DL's today. I attribute it to whatever is happening with the search and best match changes.
-
I'm too new at this to have comparisons to previous years, but my DL trend has been odd nevertheless. 1, maybe two DL's on any given day, with a handful of zeros is typical and to be expected with just under 100 photos online. Slow start to April - no DL's until on on the 4th, so imagine my surprise to find SIX DL's on Tuesday. Back to zeros until a few DL's today. I attribute it to whatever is happening with the search and best match changes.
Same here. April began terrible. No DL's for days. Suddenly 11 downloads on thursday. Friday only 1 download. Why are they playing with best match? Just leave it there.
-
Seems to have been a huge change since this morning. I've been regularly searching disinterestedly on 'horse'. This a.m. BST the first page was still more or less all Vetta with a few Agency sprinkled in.
Now it seems to be flamers, mostly not Vetta files.
Iin a search I am involved in, where there is only one Vetta file in the search, this a.m. I had 15+ new files in the top 200, now only 1 and 3 in the second 200. New files knocked well back now.
PLUS there is very little, if any, discernable 'boost' to exclusive files.
-
I just tried a couple searches I do regularly and I have to admit I really don't see any change from yesterday. Maybe it changed back already? Or perhaps the changes don't seem to effect these particular searches.
-
Seems to have been a huge change since this morning. I've been regularly searching disinterestedly on 'horse'. This a.m. BST the first page was still more or less all Vetta with a few Agency sprinkled in.
Now it seems to be flamers, mostly not Vetta files.
Iin a search I am involved in, where there is only one Vetta file in the search, this a.m. I had 15+ new files in the top 200, now only 1 and 3 in the second 200. New files knocked well back now.
PLUS there is very little, if any, discernable 'boost' to exclusive files.
I see some changes on my standard search, maybe 20% change on the first page of 200.
I think there is some type of slots system in action. I can't see it much at the front, but at the very end are all of my files that have 1 sale, surrounded by other independents files who have 1 sale. A couple of pages in from the bottom, are exclusives with 1 sale. Just about everyone of the contributors are names that I recognize, people who are likely to have many different files in this particular search. The files are all very relevant and would in fact be absolutely appropriate to be on the first page of results. None of the files are new. So if you have files in the front of the search, some of your less successful files in the results get sent to the back.
Of course there is one senior admin contributor with a whole bunch of spamtastic Vetta's in the first page, completely inappropriate for the search results.... ::)