|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - caspixel
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 41
301
« on: April 21, 2011, 09:53 »
I saw those comments was was sorely tempted to reply with a reality check, not only about Getty but about other examples of corporations that made a mistake, stubbornly stuck to it when things were changing around them and the company tanked in the end.
I decided to save my breath to cool my porridge as the saying goes.
Probably the wiser choice as your post most likely would have been deleted.
302
« on: April 21, 2011, 09:32 »
Why do (some) people over at iStock keep insisting that Getty knows what it is doing and is a successful company? Getty was in real financial trouble prior to the purchase by H&F (and probably still is, but since they are private and don't have to publish financials no one but H&F knows the extent). Getty never saw microstock coming and have been resisting it all along. If they are trying to push iStock into a midstock agency, obviously they haven't been following the past "successes" of that business model.
I also think it's interesting that we haven't heard KKT brag about iStock's financials lately. That seemed to be his favorite thing to do (right before taking more from buyers and contributors).
303
« on: April 20, 2011, 18:47 »
Who wants to make bets on when that 10% bonus disappears. I know they *said* it will be in place until Dec 31, 2012, but they've said a lot of things.
304
« on: April 20, 2011, 09:01 »
305
« on: April 20, 2011, 01:04 »
Shouldn't they say "we're transitioning from the most successful photo sales model ever invented - and we invented it - to a model that has failed every time someone tried to introduce it".
Yup. Remember how successful iStockPro was. 
306
« on: April 19, 2011, 23:30 »
Obviusly, buyers are old enough to know what they are buying and what they are paying. Saying otherwise would mean callling them fools.
Oh look! Case in point: Nope. Ive spent thousands of dollars with iStock over the last few years for myself, for clients, for contract positions.
There NEEDS to be a way to exclude Vetta searches. I have had three occasions over the last few weeks when i missed that a photo was a vetta photos.
Send the photo to client, get approval, finalize the layout, get ready to finish production oops, vetta.
Ive given up in istock for the moment and gone over to veer.coms marketplace, which actually lets you set a max credit amount in the search.
Vetta really doesnt seem to be what istock said it to be in the beginning sorry, istock but I think youve got it wrong on this one and have lost my faith on this one here.Not to mention, they are also bailing. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325652&page=3#post6316632
307
« on: April 19, 2011, 15:01 »
I have read more than one post where a customer has complained about accidentally selecting Vetta files for their customers' projects. I have even had a client buy some photos at iStock and mentioned to me how expensive they were (now if they had come to me first and asked where to buy stock photos, I would have directed them to another site). If a person doesn't know their way around iStock then it's easy to see how they could be tricked. I don't think they are fools. It's an honest mistake. If you didn't know to look for the different camera icons - which are very small and unobtrusive - then how would you know there are different collections?
308
« on: April 19, 2011, 14:44 »
I like how people are trying to offer "solutions". Clearly iStock does not want to implement anything like that or it would have already been done. Personally, I think they want to trick the buyer into buying the higher priced stuff.
309
« on: April 19, 2011, 14:15 »
There are three others too jamirae. I posted them in the Best Match thread. Of course now all those threads are locked or deleted over on iStock.
Added here, just for posterity's sake:
Nic_Taylor - a long time exclusive contributor: There seriously needs to be a way to exclude Vetta and Agency collections. I've been with iStock for over 7 years and I'm getting sick and tired of image searches taking way too long because Vetta and Agency images are getting way way way to much freaking top placement in searches. I have bought from iStock because prices were cheap, key word there WERE. That's what iStock built it's name on and that's what people have always expected. If I was willing to pay $200-$300 I would be buying pics from Getty or some other site rather than iStock.
And don't give me this "we're working on it" bull-crap. I've been buying photos from other sites instead of iStock lately because I've gotten fed up with Vetta and Agency pictures that I can't exclude. I have never and will never buy them and there needs to be a way to remove them from searches.
FCDC - a buyer: Don't get me wrong -- I love iStock. I have spent thousands and thousands of dollars with iStockphoto.com over the past few years, between my own freelance business, other clients and contract work I've done.
That said, I'm at my end -- there HAS to be a way to exclue Vetta and Agency photos from the search.
There's nothing wrong with V/A -- but when introduced, it was promised to be a small, selective group of images, a very small percentage.
Today was the third time in 2 weeks where I searched for an image, got it approved by the client and went to final production -- only to realized, oops -- thats a Vetta image and my client is unwilling to pay that amount.
I am giving my business to Veer.com -- who lets you filter their marketplace photos by credit; sorry, istock -- you gotta do something different here.
-- Frustrated in DC
akirk- a buyer: These days when I search for an image, all I see are images costing 50 or more credits. What happened to the days of cheap photos? Time to hit Fotolia i guess.
310
« on: April 19, 2011, 13:50 »
Wow. THREE threads over on iStock today complaining about wanting to exclude Vetta and Agency. And all three said they are or will be taking their business elsewhere.
Nic_Taylor - a long time exclusive contributor: There seriously needs to be a way to exclude Vetta and Agency collections. I've been with iStock for over 7 years and I'm getting sick and tired of image searches taking way too long because Vetta and Agency images are getting way way way to much freaking top placement in searches. I have bought from iStock because prices were cheap, key word there WERE. That's what iStock built it's name on and that's what people have always expected. If I was willing to pay $200-$300 I would be buying pics from Getty or some other site rather than iStock.
And don't give me this "we're working on it" bull-crap. I've been buying photos from other sites instead of iStock lately because I've gotten fed up with Vetta and Agency pictures that I can't exclude. I have never and will never buy them and there needs to be a way to remove them from searches.
FCDC - a buyer: Don't get me wrong -- I love iStock. I have spent thousands and thousands of dollars with iStockphoto.com over the past few years, between my own freelance business, other clients and contract work I've done.
That said, I'm at my end -- there HAS to be a way to exclue Vetta and Agency photos from the search.
There's nothing wrong with V/A -- but when introduced, it was promised to be a small, selective group of images, a very small percentage.
Today was the third time in 2 weeks where I searched for an image, got it approved by the client and went to final production -- only to realized, oops -- thats a Vetta image and my client is unwilling to pay that amount.
I am giving my business to Veer.com -- who lets you filter their marketplace photos by credit; sorry, istock -- you gotta do something different here.
-- Frustrated in DC
akirk- a buyer: These days when I search for an image, all I see are images costing 50 or more credits. What happened to the days of cheap photos? Time to hit Fotolia i guess.
Looks like no one is minding the store either. Two of those posts mention contributors. akirk's post is 16 hours old and FCDC's has been up for almost an hour at my posting time.
311
« on: April 15, 2011, 22:32 »
iStock could go on for months not making any kind of announcement. And they have effectively muzzled the leaders of the charge by making them swear not to disclose anything until that time. Rebellion quashed.
312
« on: April 15, 2011, 19:22 »
Great letter. Go get 'em. And keep us posted on the progress.
313
« on: April 15, 2011, 18:28 »
Apparently not.
314
« on: April 15, 2011, 13:50 »
To answer my own question, here's the words straight from the horse's mouth (sort of - it's via that Canon article where KKT was interviewed), so we have to take it with a grain of salt, considering he thinks all the contributors only sell stock to buy a new lens cap:
"Thompson also clearly has an eye on the long-term benefits of the site's search engine which has recently been overhauled. He describes it as awesome in delivering results based on a customer/client's location."
So it's supposed to be based on a client's location. So so stupid. Not all a designer's clients are local. Can they really be *that* dumb at iStock? (rhetorical question, of course)
315
« on: April 15, 2011, 13:42 »
A few more hours and we may have another addition to the broken promises list 
I'll get the "Istock Epic Fail" thread warmed up so that it's ready for action.
LOL!
316
« on: April 15, 2011, 12:50 »
waiting anxiously for the news they are supposed to deliver today.. They will deliver it today right...?? That's what they said... Why would they not, right?
If you go by past performance, yes, important news is delivered on a Friday afternoon, usually it contains something that is a negative for the contributors, and then no one can contact HQ for at least the weekend and can only stew and post on the forums. ala drama queens.
Or alternately, they won't release the new announcement for several more months. And it will still be a crappy deal.
317
« on: April 15, 2011, 09:25 »
after Bruces departure, none in the Admin is a fully fledged business-man as such, l
Bruce was a fully fledged business man? I thought he was a rocker and a photographer who happened to stumble upon a great idea that took on a life of its own. From my understanding, he had several failed ventures before iStock. I think one of the reasons iStock flourised is BECAUSE Bruce WASN'T a fully fledged business man. If he was, he never would have cared about the contributors or the buyers, just the bottom line.
318
« on: April 14, 2011, 14:39 »
Must be bad news. They'll wait until Friday at 4:45PM to release it.
319
« on: April 14, 2011, 14:34 »
If you go to a department store the fancy stuff is always in the window. I guess it's like that ?
I agree with this, nicely said.
Yes but in a department store it is usually easy to find the cheaper stuff if that is what you want.
Lots of times stores will put sale stuff in the windows to entice people to come in and buy the more expensive stuff.
320
« on: April 13, 2011, 20:16 »
Sooo, how does it work? Based on the buyer's location? What?
321
« on: April 13, 2011, 18:49 »
I think that istock is trying to do what a lot of companies are trying to do now...control the buyers. They are trying to custom tailor every freakin search to every region, person, past history, past buying trends, etc. ad nauseum.
The regional thing is really beyond stupid. With things being global like they are, why should they assume that designers don't have clients from all over the world. As for the rest of it, I couldn't agree more with the things that people are saying. How would iStock *possibly* know what projects people are working on? What arrogance.
I'm not a fan of it either, but I definitely see the impact it's had already. I've noticed a very large shift in the time of day the bulk of DL's occur from American business hours to European business hours.
Wouldn't you rather have both though? What if there are Americans who need your photos too?
322
« on: April 13, 2011, 16:44 »
Sounds like another one for the BBB of Canada.
323
« on: April 13, 2011, 16:43 »
I think that istock is trying to do what a lot of companies are trying to do now...control the buyers. They are trying to custom tailor every freakin search to every region, person, past history, past buying trends, etc. ad nauseum.
The regional thing is really beyond stupid. With things being global like they are, why should they assume that designers don't have clients from all over the world. As for the rest of it, I couldn't agree more with the things that people are saying. How would iStock *possibly* know what projects people are working on? What arrogance.
324
« on: April 12, 2011, 17:56 »
What makes us happy is our clients getting the most relevant possible results.
That's actually open to interpretation. What constitutes relevant? Relevant to whom? If it meant "most relevant to the clients' needs" then they wouldn't be happy packing the front of the search with files that people apparently don't want. But he now thinks that the major, necessary shake-up has taken place.
If the quote means "most relevant to our profit margins".... well... that may be different (though in the long-run its hard to see how iStock's best interests can be different from their clients' interests).
Exactly. I read that as What makes us happy is our clients getting the most relevant (to our profit margins) possible results. It's been pretty clear from their non-response to customers requesting a way to block A/V that they really don't care about what the customers want. iStock wants to push what *it* thinks is relevant to itself, not what the customers think is relevant. This is iStock's NEW 'relevant', just like there is a NEW 'trust'.
325
« on: April 12, 2011, 15:57 »
What a fascinating and very telling response. All that talk of how *iStock* wants the best match and not a word on what the customers might want to see in the best match. I think they forgot who actually buys the images.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 41
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
