pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Vetta  (Read 23861 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: August 27, 2009, 05:02 »
0
Constantly complaining, because the shot they really want is at Corbis or Getty or that illusive phootshoot, but instead they are forced to settle for less, because the end client doesn't care anyways. Vetta solves this, because now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget.

Yea, like those images weren't there before Vetta. Most of the Vetta images were uploaded to istock long before introduction of Vetta. Now they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement.

And you'd prefer your best images to have a lower price tag and poorer search placement?


No, why? I'm all for Vetta. I love when micros raise prices, even though I'm not exclusive to IS.


hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #51 on: August 27, 2009, 05:20 »
0
So I could persuade my client to spend 50 quid on an image from Vetta, that he might still see being used by his competitor down the street.. I just see it as flawed sorry.. I love Istock pay-as-you-go. My clients not only have very little to pay me right now with the recession, but there's no way I can get them to put aside a real budget for expensive microstock images, it has to be the old-fashioned way for me and my clients anyway.. and surely the big clients, if they have 50 quid to spare, could persuade the client to go 100-200 and get exclusive rights to the image while they're at it.. I dunno, as a buyer it's annoying to see images I can't afford in the search results..

Also, if they see the same image being used by another company I can explain well, that's what you get when you're only prepared to spend 1-5 quid a download! And they accept that. Spend more and less chance of that happening.. what do I do if it happens with a Vetta image, scoff at their 50 quid? Can't! 50 quid is 50 quid!

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #52 on: August 27, 2009, 05:29 »
0
This is Vetta:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066731-senior.php

This almost identical image is not:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066670-senior.php

I mean as a buyer you have to wonder whose leg they are trying to pull!!!!

« Reply #53 on: August 27, 2009, 05:30 »
0
Constantly complaining, because the shot they really want is at Corbis or Getty or that illusive phootshoot, but instead they are forced to settle for less, because the end client doesn't care anyways. Vetta solves this, because now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget.

Yea, like those images weren't there before Vetta. Most of the Vetta images were uploaded to istock long before introduction of Vetta. Now they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement.

And you'd prefer your best images to have a lower price tag and poorer search placement?


No, why? I'm all for Vetta. I love when micros raise prices, even though I'm not exclusive to IS.

OK, I misunderstood - it's just that your post "they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement" read like you didn't approve!

Anyway, as iStock mentioned in a forum post somewhere, they have to start someplace.  Going forward, Vetta will be populated by new images not previously available in the rest of the collection, and hopefully originally conceived with the awareness that putting extra effort and cost into the concept will be repaid by the higher price point.

Of course, whether or not it will work remains to be seen, but many contributors are reporting Vetta sales so it's promising.

michealo

« Reply #54 on: August 27, 2009, 05:32 »
0
This is Vetta:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066731-senior.php

This almost identical image is not:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066670-senior.php

I mean as a buyer you have to wonder whose leg they are trying to pull!!!!


I have no comment as to whether this is right or wrong but probably the only reason the second one isn't is because of the number of dls ie over the 100 qualifying point for Vetta

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #55 on: August 27, 2009, 05:34 »
0
This is Vetta:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066731-senior.php

This almost identical image is not:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066670-senior.php

I mean as a buyer you have to wonder whose leg they are trying to pull!!!!


I have no comment as to whether this is right or wrong but probably the only reason the second one isn't is because of the number of dls ie over the 100 qualifying point for Vetta


I see, well then there is something very wrong with their system/pricing.. it's looking from an outsiders point of view as if they have two vastly different prices, for the same image/same quality.. most buyers wouldn't care why this happened, they would just feel someone was trying to rip them off, as I do to be honest after spotting that particular example! And I even now know why it happened it didn't make me feel any better!!

michealo

« Reply #56 on: August 27, 2009, 09:16 »
0
This is Vetta:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066731-senior.php

This almost identical image is not:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066670-senior.php

I mean as a buyer you have to wonder whose leg they are trying to pull!!!!


I have no comment as to whether this is right or wrong but probably the only reason the second one isn't is because of the number of dls ie over the 100 qualifying point for Vetta


I see, well then there is something very wrong with their system/pricing.. it's looking from an outsiders point of view as if they have two vastly different prices, for the same image/same quality.. most buyers wouldn't care why this happened, they would just feel someone was trying to rip them off, as I do to be honest after spotting that particular example! And I even now know why it happened it didn't make me feel any better!!


I think one has to look at Vetta as a work in progress, there may be some issues like this but it is a fantastic starting point.

And it is reassuring when elsewhere it seems to be a race to the bottom in terms of pricing.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #57 on: August 27, 2009, 09:25 »
0
This is Vetta:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066731-senior.php

This almost identical image is not:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066670-senior.php

I mean as a buyer you have to wonder whose leg they are trying to pull!!!!


I have no comment as to whether this is right or wrong but probably the only reason the second one isn't is because of the number of dls ie over the 100 qualifying point for Vetta


I see, well then there is something very wrong with their system/pricing.. it's looking from an outsiders point of view as if they have two vastly different prices, for the same image/same quality.. most buyers wouldn't care why this happened, they would just feel someone was trying to rip them off, as I do to be honest after spotting that particular example! And I even now know why it happened it didn't make me feel any better!!


I think one has to look at Vetta as a work in progress, there may be some issues like this but it is a fantastic starting point.

And it is reassuring when elsewhere it seems to be a race to the bottom in terms of pricing.



What to me would be reassuring, is if they did it right, and they didn't underestimate the intelligence of buyers.. as a buyer how would you feel if you bought image1 above, thinking what a great image, Vetta is great, I never would have paid that much before but I did and I love the image.. then you return the next day and stumble across image2 above, for -4 times the price.. wouldn't you feel like someone was playing you for a fool?

I'm all for increasing prices in microstock, but they need to seriously revise how they are presenting this thing to buyers because if it flops, it simply re-affirms people's belief that photos aren't WORTH that much, when the reality would be that it was marketed and presented atrociously! At least do it right if you are going to do it at all, and right at the beginning too, what's the point in getting a bad reputation because of this from launch, and then spending the rest of the time un-doing the damage you did to your brand.. it doesn't make any sense to me!

« Reply #58 on: August 27, 2009, 17:25 »
0
Constantly complaining, because the shot they really want is at Corbis or Getty or that illusive phootshoot, but instead they are forced to settle for less, because the end client doesn't care anyways. Vetta solves this, because now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget.

Yea, like those images weren't there before Vetta. Most of the Vetta images were uploaded to istock long before introduction of Vetta. Now they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement.

And you'd prefer your best images to have a lower price tag and poorer search placement?


No, why? I'm all for Vetta. I love when micros raise prices, even though I'm not exclusive to IS.

OK, I misunderstood - it's just that your post "they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement" read like you didn't approve!

Anyway, as iStock mentioned in a forum post somewhere, they have to start someplace.  Going forward, Vetta will be populated by new images not previously available in the rest of the collection, and hopefully originally conceived with the awareness that putting extra effort and cost into the concept will be repaid by the higher price point.

Of course, whether or not it will work remains to be seen, but many contributors are reporting Vetta sales so it's promising.

I was actually kinda making fun of those emo designers. But their behavior is what all microstocks actually should take into account more. Designers were unhappy about microstock images and didn't value them. Now they are happy with essentially the same images. All it took to raise images value is to bump the price.

« Reply #59 on: August 28, 2009, 00:17 »
0
I was actually kinda making fun of those emo designers. But their behavior is what all microstocks actually should take into account more. Designers were unhappy about microstock images and didn't value them. Now they are happy with essentially the same images. All it took to raise images value is to bump the price.


I think it was more that these images are not typical stock and did not attract lots of views and sales, so they sank to the botton and spent some time with the dross, because the search enginge was ignoring them, now they have been found and added to a 'category' where they can be found but the search engine.

Another reason could be that the Exclusive Artist is lazy, uploaded and added 50 keywords without really looking at them for relevence and position, this will also make a good image sink with the dross, and in any search by the buyer the image might be returned but in the middle of a set of many images due to bad keywording.
 
Maybe the the real problem is the oversupply and weighting of 'popular' images, so the search engine developers should stop weighting images by views and downloads, stack images by the same artist in a search, add in a randomize function that re-sorts every search so we do not get the same set of images each time we do a search as, "Hello!, this is the forth time I have done this same search and got the same images, I have already seen them why do you think I want to see them again?"

When I searched for 'Christmas Tree' on iStock there are  7559 results, I can start from the first page or go to the last page and work back, but what your suitable image is number 3750 I will never see it, what I would like as a buyer would be that each time I re-run the search I get a set of fresh images shown to me, but then that would be fair to the customer and all contributors, which some contributors would not like.

David  ;D        
« Last Edit: August 28, 2009, 02:42 by Adeptris »

lisafx

« Reply #60 on: August 28, 2009, 15:59 »
0

When I searched for 'Christmas Tree' on iStock there are  7559 results, I can start from the first page or go to the last page and work back, but what your suitable image is number 3750 I will never see it, what I would like as a buyer would be that each time I re-run the search I get a set of fresh images shown to me, but then that would be fair to the customer and all contributors, which some contributors would not like.
    

The above sounds reasonable, but whenever something like this has been proposed in the istock forums it is the customers who object. 

Apparently a lot of them are still not using the lightbox functionality.  Seems that when they download a comp and come back a few days later to purchase the image they want to be able to find it in roughly the same place it was before.

 


« Reply #61 on: August 28, 2009, 18:38 »
0
why not just another option in the search for random ?

« Reply #62 on: August 29, 2009, 01:03 »
0
The above sounds reasonable, but whenever something like this has been proposed in the istock forums it is the customers who object. 

Apparently a lot of them are still not using the lightbox functionality.  Seems that when they download a comp and come back a few days later to purchase the image they want to be able to find it in roughly the same place it was before.

It would be a matter of education, if you like it add it to a lightbox, buyers can not have it both ways, any agency that has done a 'What the buyers want' survey have said, 'buyers are fed up with the same old microstock style images', 'buyers want different styles', 'buyers want more diversity', Ya-De-Ya Ya-De-Ya.

The image they think are not there might be, but the search engine and the buyers search habits mean that they never see the images that are there.

I did do some analysis of the search statistics from Alamy, these were only from buyers, and there were searches where the buyers had looked at 10 to 20 pages with 120 thumbnail images a page, but I averaged it over six months of data and the average search was 1.2 pages, and on average they zoomed and took a closer look at only 1 in 100 images, which means that the images presented were not really what the buyer was after, how much of this was regular searches returning familiar images.

Like any store that sell product that you are likely to 'buy once' you have to rotate the products on display to catch the eye and make the sales, by randomizing the searches it would give more artists a chance of a sale, and buyers a better look at what is in the collection without have to move through loads of pages.

The search for 'Christmas Tree' on iStock which returned 7559 results, lets remove all the other weighting and look at keyword relevence and placement and randomize them, there are images in the 7559 that will have low placement of relevent keywords, and these will still be at the back of the randomized search, but the images where the keywords are relevent and placed high would be the in the front of the search, and each search would give a good mix of thumbnails.   

If not anything else give buyers a randomize or 'go to page' #x option.

David  ;D 

lisafx

« Reply #63 on: August 29, 2009, 08:20 »
0

It would be a matter of education, if you like it add it to a lightbox, buyers can not have it both ways, any agency that has done a 'What the buyers want' survey have said, 'buyers are fed up with the same old microstock style images', 'buyers want different styles', 'buyers want more diversity', Ya-De-Ya Ya-De-Ya.



C'mon David, Istock has been trying to "educate" buyers to the peculiarities of their search engine for literally years. 

Majority of buyers aren't interested in being taught how to search.  The best search engine is one that is intuitive and as hassle-free as possible for buyers.

Obviously as contributors we have a different agenda for how we would like images displayed to be "fair" to all of us.  But as has been discussed many times, fairness to contributors is secondary to an easy buying experience.


« Reply #64 on: August 29, 2009, 12:05 »
0
Apparently a lot of them are still not using the lightbox functionality.  Seems that when they download a comp and come back a few days later to purchase the image they want to be able to find it in roughly the same place it was before.
[/quote]


I have downloaded comps before & the file number is part of the name on the comp file.
Surely the buyers are not so dense as to not realize that they can just type in that number and go right to the file again?

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #65 on: August 29, 2009, 12:06 »
0
I'd use a randomise if it was there! First thing I hate with Istock is trawling through the first bunch of images you get that every Tom/dick/harry has used on their advertising.. I want an image that pops, that I haven't seen used by other people, and just that fits the bill.. A totally random search could do it who knows, I like it on my site even :)

You're both right though, because Lisa is right in that, you don't want anymore buttons or that disambiguation thing that wrecks my head completely as a buyer, you just want to type in the keywords and go! I have often typed in a search, disambiguated, and I see 5 images displayed, lol, really, I have gone through 2000 images sometimes looking for the right one, I would rather have loads more results displayed than so little having narrowed the thing down to an unrealistic specific.. because of disambiguation also, certain keywords don't really exist.. I can't remember what I typed in the other day instead of 'couple', like 'pair' or, I must keep track of these things.. anyway no results until I happened upon the accepted keyword and voila my results..

Actually the second thing that has started to annoy me is when I click on the Vetta image that my client won't budget for (I pay for stock images out of my own maintenance fee unfortunately), and it's out of my range.. but apparantly you can turn it off I'm just a lazy buyer, must suss that out tho!
« Last Edit: August 29, 2009, 12:08 by hqimages »

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #66 on: August 29, 2009, 12:13 »
0
Here it is kinda, dont think this is the same one I did but close:

keywords- couple in swimming pool

Try it, I get one image, ONE! lol! I got the right search eventually but, those keywords should be giving 1000's of results off the bat!!

« Reply #67 on: August 29, 2009, 13:34 »
0
This is Vetta:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066731-senior.php

This almost identical image is not:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9066670-senior.php

I mean as a buyer you have to wonder whose leg they are trying to pull!!!!


I love this!!!!  The notion that buyers are lazy idiots seems to be behind this...  If they built Vetta on new, previously unreleased material, its value would be clear.  Seeing this case (and I bet there are hundreds) will only devaluate the collection in the long run.

lisafx

« Reply #68 on: August 29, 2009, 17:00 »
0

I have downloaded comps before & the file number is part of the name on the comp file.
Surely the buyers are not so dense as to not realize that they can just type in that number and go right to the file again?

What can I tell you?  These are comments I have read from buyers over and over again in the istock forums every time there is a marathon thread on the subject of best match. 

« Reply #69 on: August 29, 2009, 19:24 »
0
If you want "random" try moving the relavance slider for best match around a bit.  I know it's asking a lot, but it might help.

If you need help searching, you can always post in the request forum.

« Reply #70 on: August 30, 2009, 22:16 »
0
If you want "random" try moving the relavance slider for best match around a bit.  I know it's asking a lot, but it might help.

If you need help searching, you can always post in the request forum.

Sweet...
cool tool for wasting time  ;D
Dude...

« Reply #71 on: September 02, 2009, 03:07 »
0
Vetta does my head in.  It proves that if you move a file to the top of the search it will get downloaded. 

I just wonder why unique and rare images should be in front of good stock photos on a stock site.  I say give the images their natural Best Match place and a separate Vetta search. 

As for the images in Vetta some are incedible and others aren't.  It almost seems it matter more who you are rather than what you produce.

« Reply #72 on: September 13, 2009, 18:01 »
0
I dont know about that kind of procedure but if it make profit in this example from juice industry...
First we squash fruits to get juice, than boil the juice to kill all vitamines, after that put sinthetic vitamenes in that dead juice?!?
Why?
Answer is what will science do if its not some kind of this experiment.
So I see that iStock is trying to do some kind of they science...
to transfuse blackhole to nothing screwing buyers and authors, or like dog who is running around tree to catch his own tail?!?
VV live long and prosper with 80% of my royalty, and thank you to screwing me from time to time...
Blind chicken sometimes pick the seed too...

« Reply #73 on: September 13, 2009, 20:21 »
0
I just wonder why unique and rare images should be in front of good stock photos on a stock site. 

That would be my question too.  Looking at many of the Vetta images I think - nice, clever, but why would anyone buy it? Maybe this just shows I know nothing about the people buying stock images.

I think IStock wants an artsy image, because many stock buyers are artsy types, even if the images they actually buy are pretty mundance.


« Reply #74 on: September 14, 2009, 02:26 »
0
I just wonder why unique and rare images should be in front of good stock photos on a stock site. 

That would be my question too.  Looking at many of the Vetta images I think - nice, clever, but why would anyone buy it? Maybe this just shows I know nothing about the people buying stock images.

I think IStock wants an artsy image, because many stock buyers are artsy types, even if the images they actually buy are pretty mundance.

Simple answer is brand marketing, and like any other storefront they put the interesting stock 'which is often not thier best sellers' on show, look around at other marketing methods, the main dealer car showrooms do not put the small affordable run-around or family car in prime spot but the top of the range fully loaded vehicle, why is this, because you already know they sells the staple products you see every day so they do not need them displayed as you walk in, but they will put a promotion or limited edition vehicle on display to catch the buyers eye, and once they are attracted into the store to have a look, hope to sell them the display vehicle or other more affordable products from the range and within thier budget, and once the prospect or customer knows that the showroom has different and interesting products on display they might pop back to have a look at what is new.

You may walk past hundreds of shop windows every day without a second glance, but there will be one or two that you may pause at becase you know they often have a fresh display of interesting products.

David  ;)   


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
54 Replies
23504 Views
Last post August 04, 2009, 21:49
by loop
12 Replies
7403 Views
Last post July 03, 2009, 11:01
by willie
19 Replies
8298 Views
Last post August 17, 2010, 01:08
by lagereek
88 Replies
21459 Views
Last post September 29, 2010, 18:06
by traveler1116
12 Replies
4795 Views
Last post July 05, 2011, 14:45
by Shank_ali

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle