Author Topic: iStock surveying buyers again... (Read 38351 times)

loop · « **Reply #100 on:** May 09, 2012, 18:23 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 09, 2012, 17:43

Quote from: loop on May 09, 2012, 17:37

You dind't understand. These 10-25 come for a selection previously made (often) by me. And not always you get many results when the requirements are specific. Obviously, ypou can always miss something, everytime and everywhere, but thas was not my point.

No, I did understand. My point was that there has to be a limit on how deep you dig. Time is money and, ultimately, getting 25 "good enough" images in a morning's work make's more sense than spending an entire week hunting out the 25 most perfect.

That's why "good enough" will do.

No "good enough", but "best of what has been seen". Thre's a big difference. Anyway, my point was that people that thinks that if not selling at cents their files won't sell or almost won't sell is wrong, according to what I've seen.

cobalt · « **Reply #101 on:** May 09, 2012, 18:34 »

"more images from professional photographers"

That question stuck with me as well. Makes you really wonder what they think of us.

The text otherwise reminds me of feast - übercool writing that leaves me confused.

Well, I hope something useful comes of it. At least they are following up on the customers.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #102 on:** May 09, 2012, 18:39 »

At least you've read Feast ... Maybe they should have asked if buyers are looking at that effort.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #103 on:** May 09, 2012, 19:39 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 09, 2012, 18:16

"more images from professional photographers"

That's kind of a weird thing to say. "individual contributors" vs. "professional photographers"? Wth is that supposed to mean?

This is the crowdsourced amateur vs. polished professional crap again. People like you - who made a full time business from microstock - don't really fit the question. The question harks back to the old days when the trad agency contributors were "professionals" and the microstock contributors were viewed by them with disdain. They're trying to avoid using words like amateur.

Given that I believe many of those no longer buying at iStock are buying at other agencies whose collections are largely filled by the same "individual contributors", and, if you want more EdStock, Hulton Archive, et al. you can get it via Getty, I can't think why they bothered with this survey question.

They could replace it with some questions about site stability and malfunctions (forget making it easier to find "unique" or "interesting" content; there were a number of times when finding anything wasn't working); pricing? price stability?

lisafx · « **Reply #104 on:** May 09, 2012, 20:43 »

Quote from: Microstock Posts on May 09, 2012, 17:00

Remember when it was cool to be an istocker? By gum how things have changed.

qwerty · « **Reply #105 on:** May 09, 2012, 21:19 »

egad !!! I haven't been measuring my "cool quotient" at all.

Do Istock have a chart for the cool quotient for my portfolio ?
Of course it wouldn't update properly.

Obviously some customers are price sensitive. The balancing act that has been run by IS is increase prices to the point where you gain more money from the increase than you do by moving customers to cheaper options. eg maximise revenue. I believe that they've gone past the tipping point, more people have left than stayed to pay the higher prices. The rubber band has broken, they stretched it too far.

Things like bad treatment of contributors, problems with the search and site availabilty significantly effect their stratedgy. Some designers are willing to pay double (or much more) for an image if the search and site are available and work well. The cost of time at designers hourly rate if the seach doesn't work is much more significant.

Spend more time on keyword policing to improve the search. Time and time again you come across images that just don't fit the keywords. You could make the first few pages of a number of searches alot cleaner without too much effort. You wouldn't need to worry too much about policing the images low down in the best match search. Someone getting paid $15 / hour could easily do this work.

If you want customers: make the site work, don't treat them rudely; don't screw the suppliers (who are also customers)

If I was exclusive I'd be starting to get my images together ready when the walls come completely falling down.

lagereek · « **Reply #106 on:** May 09, 2012, 23:20 »

As an Art-Director at, Young&Rubicam, said to me some months back. " *! now I can see your shots there! Oh, so Getty, is the professional side of the business and IStock, the amateur side? is that why the images are cheaper?

I answered: yes thats why they are cheaper at IS, even their exclusive material, is a lot cheaper.

I mean what else can you answer?

antistock · « **Reply #107 on:** May 09, 2012, 23:25 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on May 09, 2012, 12:09

I just did a quick search on SS of some of the more unique travel locations I've been to and a few places had no images on SS.

if that matters do a quick search on Alamy for ANY possible travel destination and the offering is absolutely overwhelming compared to micros.
prices are also not expensive as in the past, you can easily buy a good image on alamy for 30-40 bucks which is in par with Vetta or even cheaper.

photo and photographer's exclusivity is why RM and specialist agencies exist, can't see any reason to abuse this terminology in the RF micro world, it's just a clever marketing BS.

antistock · « **Reply #108 on:** May 09, 2012, 23:35 »

Quote from: lagereek on May 09, 2012, 23:20

I mean what else can you answer?

RF micro agencies can only blame themselves for this.

if they want to be perceived as selling exclusive imagery they should just sell photos made by their exclusive photographers instead of allowing anybody and his dog to join the agency and upload the same images available everywhere else.

if you buy on Getty you know from the start all the images are exclusive to getty and the agencies they represent.
instead if you buy on IS or SS you keep seeing the same stuff over and over in most of the cases, but IS is more expensive so what's the point in all this ?

micro buyers are greedy and cheap, they couldnt care less about exclusivity and yadda yadda, all they want is the perfect image for the cheapest price, what IS is trying to do unsuccessfully is becoming a sort of midstock agency but this is obviously failing while SS is soon launching an IPO and soon outselling IS by a large margin, thus proving my point.

cthoman · « **Reply #109 on:** May 10, 2012, 00:15 »

Quote from: lagereek on May 09, 2012, 23:20

As an Art-Director at, Young&Rubicam, said to me some months back. " *! now I can see your shots there! Oh, so Getty, is the professional side of the business and IStock, the amateur side? is that why the images are cheaper?

I answered: yes thats why they are cheaper at IS, even their exclusive material, is a lot cheaper.

I mean what else can you answer?

Why can't an art director tell for themselves what is professional or good? That's their job. All they have to do is judge aesthetics, pick a direction or vision for the artwork, and manage the decisions for the design costs and expenses.

cobalt · « **Reply #110 on:** May 10, 2012, 01:50 »

microstock just takes advantage of selling digital products in a globalized world. The same reason why most iPhone apps cost between 99 cents to 4 Dollars. The prices are so low because they are planning to sell in extremly large volume, ideally with millions of downloads.

By continuously raising prices you decide to leave the mass market.

Maybe this is the best way to go forward, I don´t know. But it will be really interesting to see what SS does when they get the money from their ipo.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #111 on:** May 10, 2012, 03:04 »

Quote from: qwerty on May 09, 2012, 21:19

The balancing act that has been run by IS is increase prices to the point where you gain more money from the increase than you do by moving customers to cheaper options. eg maximise revenue. I believe that they've gone past the tipping point, more people have left than stayed to pay the higher prices. The rubber band has broken, they stretched it too far.

But weren't the disgruntled customers meant to fall off iStock into Thinkstock, so that Getty got all their pennies, anyway? Maybe they didn't bank on a lot of them going elsewhere. In any case, the marketing campaign to iStock buyers "Get the same picture cheaper at TS if you don't like our prices", or whatever it was they were saying was little short of insane. You can't announce that you are selling cheap tat at a high price, as Gerald Ratner found out (yes, I know it's not tat, but that is the message that iStock gives when it says you can buy it from them $20 or have the same thing from them for $1).

larsfrisk · « **Reply #112 on:** May 10, 2012, 04:55 »

Jamirae is obviously one of those fourteen year old forum trolls, or possibly someone from another stock site trying to badmouth iStockphoto. Can anyone confirm that this survey even exists?

ShadySue · « **Reply #113 on:** May 10, 2012, 05:06 »

Quote from: larsfrisk on May 10, 2012, 04:55

Jamirae is obviously one of those fourteen year old forum trolls, or possibly someone from another stock site trying to badmouth iStockphoto.

And you are ... ?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #114 on:** May 10, 2012, 05:25 »

Quote from: larsfrisk on May 10, 2012, 04:55

Jamirae is obviously one of those fourteen year old forum trolls, or possibly someone from another stock site trying to badmouth iStockphoto. Can anyone confirm that this survey even exists?

Oooohh! Someone who's got the iStock Koolaid!

Sunshine, if you had been at iStock in 2004, like some of us here, you would know who Jamie is and what her contribution has been. With 26,000 iStock sales she's probably got a rather more impressive record there than you have (please correct me if I'm wrong about that). Oh, and try checking her profile.

lagereek · « **Reply #115 on:** May 10, 2012, 05:29 »

Quote from: cthoman on May 10, 2012, 00:15

Quote from: lagereek on May 09, 2012, 23:20
As an Art-Director at, Young&Rubicam, said to me some months back. " *! now I can see your shots there! Oh, so Getty, is the professional side of the business and IStock, the amateur side? is that why the images are cheaper?

I answered: yes thats why they are cheaper at IS, even their exclusive material, is a lot cheaper.

I mean what else can you answer?

Why can't an art director tell for themselves what is professional or good? That's their job. All they have to do is judge aesthetics, pick a direction or vision for the artwork, and manage the decisions for the design costs and expenses.

He did! so he bought 4 pics at the Getty RM, house-collection, didnt even mind 100 times the price.

antistock · « **Reply #116 on:** May 10, 2012, 05:44 »

Quote from: lagereek on May 10, 2012, 05:29

He did! so he bought 4 pics at the Getty RM, house-collection, didnt even mind 100 times the price.

and rightfully so, i would be surprised if big corporation go cheap charlie buying SS subs for half a dollar rather than using Getty or specialist agencies for their needs.

he also probably needed exclusivity thus he picked up RM images to avoid having other people using the same image.

as for the price, i don't think it's even a problem for him unless he's on a tight budget but then again if even big corps like Y&R end up buying pics for 1$ we better find another job !

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #117 on:** May 10, 2012, 05:46 »

Quote from: lagereek on May 10, 2012, 05:29

Quote from: cthoman on May 10, 2012, 00:15
Quote from: lagereek on May 09, 2012, 23:20
As an Art-Director at, Young&Rubicam, said to me some months back. " *! now I can see your shots there! Oh, so Getty, is the professional side of the business and IStock, the amateur side? is that why the images are cheaper?

I answered: yes thats why they are cheaper at IS, even their exclusive material, is a lot cheaper.

I mean what else can you answer?

Why can't an art director tell for themselves what is professional or good? That's their job. All they have to do is judge aesthetics, pick a direction or vision for the artwork, and manage the decisions for the design costs and expenses.

He did! so he bought 4 pics at the Getty RM, house-collection, didnt even mind 100 times the price.

You could probably answer that iStock is the "low production cost" side of the business. I haven't looked at the Getty RM house collection for years but as I recall it, the locations, settings and production standards screamed that they had cost an awful lot to produce.

lagereek · « **Reply #118 on:** May 10, 2012, 06:00 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 10, 2012, 05:46

Quote from: lagereek on May 10, 2012, 05:29
Quote from: cthoman on May 10, 2012, 00:15
Quote from: lagereek on May 09, 2012, 23:20
As an Art-Director at, Young&Rubicam, said to me some months back. " *! now I can see your shots there! Oh, so Getty, is the professional side of the business and IStock, the amateur side? is that why the images are cheaper?

I answered: yes thats why they are cheaper at IS, even their exclusive material, is a lot cheaper.

I mean what else can you answer?

Why can't an art director tell for themselves what is professional or good? That's their job. All they have to do is judge aesthetics, pick a direction or vision for the artwork, and manage the decisions for the design costs and expenses.

He did! so he bought 4 pics at the Getty RM, house-collection, didnt even mind 100 times the price.

You could probably answer that iStock is the "low production cost" side of the business. I haven't looked at the Getty RM house collection for years but as I recall it, the locations, settings and production standards screamed that they had cost an awful lot to produce.

Yes the production costs are enormous, a fellow member there specializes in fitness and beauty. In the beginning of the 90s, when the keep-fit craze started, he rented an entire fitness-centre, models from Freddies which is a fashion model agency, few days later he got the bill, 11000 British pounds! and that was back in the 90s.
Ofcourse over the years the pics have well paid for themselves but even so.

RT · « **Reply #119 on:** May 10, 2012, 06:42 »

Quote from: antistock on May 10, 2012, 05:44

he also probably needed exclusivity thus he picked up RM images to avoid having other people using the same image.

Bearing in mind that lagerreek named the agency I think you should add a disclaimer to your comment above, because a professional ad agency would no doubt be fully aware that just buying a RM image from Getty or any other traditional agency does not offer them any form of exclusivity whatsoever.

cathyslife · « **Reply #120 on:** May 10, 2012, 07:03 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 10, 2012, 03:04

But weren't the disgruntled customers meant to fall off iStock into Thinkstock, so that Getty got all their pennies, anyway? Maybe they didn't bank on a lot of them going elsewhere. In any case, the marketing campaign to iStock buyers "Get the same picture cheaper at TS if you don't like our prices", or whatever it was they were saying was little short of insane. You can't announce that you are selling cheap tat at a high price, as Gerald Ratner found out (yes, I know it's not tat, but that is the message that iStock gives when it says you can buy it from them $20 or have the same thing from them for $1).

I'm sure that was the plan, but you are right, buyers aren't stupid. If they are mistreated and conned at one place (let's say istock, for instance) they aren't going to jump to another subsidiary of the same company, they're going to go to a different company altogether. It would be like saying I am totally opposed to Walmart's business plan and how they destroy communities and then continuing to shop at Sam's Club.

lagereek · « **Reply #121 on:** May 10, 2012, 07:45 »

Quote from: RT on May 10, 2012, 06:42

Quote from: antistock on May 10, 2012, 05:44

he also probably needed exclusivity thus he picked up RM images to avoid having other people using the same image.

Bearing in mind that lagerreek named the agency I think you should add a disclaimer to your comment above, because a professional ad agency would no doubt be fully aware that just buying a RM image from Getty or any other traditional agency does not offer them any form of exclusivity whatsoever.

RT! actually you hit on a very important point here ( I really didnt find out if they bought it exclusive or not) however, thats what I have been saying for years now, even if you buy exclusive-rights today, there is absoloutely no guarantee at all that a to 99% similar image doesnt exist somewhere else, does it? I mean with hundereds of millions of images, copying, etc, there is no security at all.
Which leads me to the IS, exclusivity lark, its just, BS, thats all.

lagereek · « **Reply #122 on:** May 10, 2012, 07:50 »

Quote from: antistock on May 10, 2012, 05:44

Quote from: lagereek on May 10, 2012, 05:29
He did! so he bought 4 pics at the Getty RM, house-collection, didnt even mind 100 times the price.

and rightfully so, i would be surprised if big corporation go cheap charlie buying SS subs for half a dollar rather than using Getty or specialist agencies for their needs.

he also probably needed exclusivity thus he picked up RM images to avoid having other people using the same image.

as for the price, i don't think it's even a problem for him unless he's on a tight budget but then again if even big corps like Y&R end up buying pics for 1$ we better find another job !

Correct! the price wasnt important but what I found laughable was that with all these, IS, collections, all the fuzz, this and that, it was still not regarded as more then an amateur outlet.,

best.

RT · « **Reply #123 on:** May 10, 2012, 08:06 »

Quote from: lagereek on May 10, 2012, 07:45

Quote from: RT on May 10, 2012, 06:42
Quote from: antistock on May 10, 2012, 05:44

he also probably needed exclusivity thus he picked up RM images to avoid having other people using the same image.

Bearing in mind that lagerreek named the agency I think you should add a disclaimer to your comment above, because a professional ad agency would no doubt be fully aware that just buying a RM image from Getty or any other traditional agency does not offer them any form of exclusivity whatsoever.

RT! actually you hit on a very important point here ( I really didnt find out if they bought it exclusive or not) however, thats what I have been saying for years now, even if you buy exclusive-rights today, there is absoloutely no guarantee at all that a to 99% similar image doesnt exist somewhere else, does it? I mean with hundereds of millions of images, copying, etc, there is no security at all.
Which leads me to the IS, exclusivity lark, its just, BS, thats all.

Actually I wasn't inferring towards similars that may be available on other sites by other contributors, I was referring to antistocks statement that inferred that buying s standard RM gives you some form of 'image' exclusivity, which as you know it doesn't. The only thing buying a RM licensed image from Getty does is to afford you the ability to ask them what industries/usage the image has been purchased for in the past, it doesn't however mean that another person at a later date can't purchase and use the image in the exact same industry/sector that you've used it for - if you want that then you need to purchase a RP or RM exclusive license which runs into the thousands.

lagereek · « **Reply #124 on:** May 10, 2012, 08:15 »

Quote from: RT on May 10, 2012, 08:06

Quote from: lagereek on May 10, 2012, 07:45
Quote from: RT on May 10, 2012, 06:42
Quote from: antistock on May 10, 2012, 05:44

he also probably needed exclusivity thus he picked up RM images to avoid having other people using the same image.

Bearing in mind that lagerreek named the agency I think you should add a disclaimer to your comment above, because a professional ad agency would no doubt be fully aware that just buying a RM image from Getty or any other traditional agency does not offer them any form of exclusivity whatsoever.

RT! actually you hit on a very important point here ( I really didnt find out if they bought it exclusive or not) however, thats what I have been saying for years now, even if you buy exclusive-rights today, there is absoloutely no guarantee at all that a to 99% similar image doesnt exist somewhere else, does it? I mean with hundereds of millions of images, copying, etc, there is no security at all.
Which leads me to the IS, exclusivity lark, its just, BS, thats all.

Actually I wasn't inferring towards similars that may be available on other sites by other contributors, I was referring to antistocks statement that inferred that buying s standard RM gives you some form of 'image' exclusivity, which as you know it doesn't. The only thing buying a RM licensed image from Getty does is to afford you the ability to ask them what industries/usage the image has been purchased for in the past, it doesn't however mean that another person at a later date can't purchase and use the image in the exact same industry/sector that you've used it for - if you want that then you need to purchase a RP or RM exclusive license which runs into the thousands.

'
Oh alright then, I got it wrong. Well, I didnt hang around to find out but when it comes to the bigger ad-agencies, I dont think the money is important as long as they find what theyre looking for, on the other hand it might just have been a standard licence. Even so its a hell of a lot more expensive then micro.

Surprisingly, clients dont mind paying for world-rights, exclusivity, etc. Back in November last year I had two such sales and BOY! it did zoom up the balance.

On another note. How . do you do your isolations, theyre next to perfect, some day you have to tell me the secret.

best.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock surveying buyers again... (Read 38351 times)

loop

cobalt

Sean Locke Photography

Jo Ann Snover

lisafx

qwerty

lagereek

antistock

antistock

cthoman

cobalt

BaldricksTrousers

larsfrisk

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

lagereek

antistock

BaldricksTrousers

lagereek

RT

cathyslife

lagereek

lagereek

RT

lagereek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors