Linking out to Getty from iStock and vice versa - Fair is Fair

Displaying 1 to 12 of 12 matches.
Joesboy
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:27AM
I notice that when I search on iS, I get an opportunity to continue the search on Getty, but when I search on Getty, I don't get a reciprocal direction to look on iStock. If that's the protocol, how about modifying it so we can get some of the Getty traffic over here. Or are we really children of a lesser god?

(Edited on 2013-02-16 09:34:12 by Lobo)
Lobo
Posted Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:33AM

Posted By Joesboy:
I notice that when I search on iS, I get an opportunity to continue the search on Getty, but when I search on Getty, I don't get a reciprocal direction to look on iStock. If that's the protocol, how about modifying it so we can get some of the Getty traffic over here. Or are we really children of a lesser god?

How about you title your thread so it reflects your question. For everyone who wonders why our forum search is borked and horrible maybe we should all start titling our thread appropriately. I'll take care of it for you this time, but please do us all a favor and try not to be some cryptic in your titles.

As for the link backs to Getty, it's been like that forever, or at least since the sale of iStock to Getty. You will find that in the event we dont have the content(rare) that people are looking for we are more interested in linking upward to Getty than say towards Thinkstock of photos.com. So I guess if we wanted to be totally fair to ALL collections we would need to consider that as well.

What are your thoughts on that?
JodiJacobson
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:30AM
I think it would even the playing field if Getty linked back to us. We are not a partner program so I don't think thinkstock and photos.com have to be included in the link...Besides aren't all the photo's on the partner sites also on Istock?  I think linking back to us would be a great boost for Istocks contributers.
OliverChilds
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:39AM
 I agree with Jodi, in the rare event that Getty customers can't find what they are looking for on the Getty site it would be logical and courteous to encourage them to continue their search on Istock.
Lobo
Posted Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:19PM

Posted By OliverChilds:
 I agree with Jodi, in the rare event that Getty customers can't find what they are looking for on the Getty site it would be logical and courteous to encourage them to continue their search on Istock.

Well I read you, but frankly that would mean they would also link back to thinkstock and photos.com. Hey, I can ask if you all like. I'm willing to bring it up if you all think that linking to lower cost libraries is something you would like to see here as well. It would have to be straight across the board if it was going to be fair.

Now, we can shake our heads and realize it isn't going to happen. We have more traffic than all of the properties. The work on Getty is typically at a higher price point so it make business sense for the linking from us to Getty. I don't think there is any logic in the reverse. I'm not the boss of links so I can't say for sure, but common sense points me towards not pulling your legs.
Lobo
Posted Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:21PM

Posted By JodiJacobson:
I think it would even the playing field if Getty linked back to us. We are not a partner program so I don't think thinkstock and photos.com have to be included in the link...Besides aren't all the photo's on the partner sites also on Istock?  I think linking back to us would be a great boost for Istocks contributers.

Not all the photos are at Thinkstock. All the NON-EXCLUSIVE content from iStock is there, but there are a number of Exclusives who haven't opted into that at all. So I'm sure you see the conundrum we face.
Joesboy
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Feb 16, 2013 7:46PM

Sorry for the thread title and thanks for saying it better, I see your point, could it be considered to remove the link back to Getty from iStock? Would that make sense or any difference? You know, tell buyers to look harder here because what the really want is here, rightwink


Is borked a word, it's not in the CV is it? In the US it has a very definite meaning unrelated to this kind of stuff, again

(Edited on 2013-02-16 19:48:57 by Joesboy)
ytwong
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:48PM

I think it makes more sense trying to sell them higher priced items than lower one... when people are shopping for more expensive products, you wouldn't try to sell them a cheaper one.


I don't think it is an issue of fairness
Lobo
Posted Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:34AM

Posted By Joesboy:

Sorry for the thread title and thanks for saying it better, I see your point, could it be considered to remove the link back to Getty from iStock? Would that make sense or any difference? You know, tell buyers to look harder here because what the really want is here, rightwink


Is borked a word, it's not in the CV is it? In the US it has a very definite meaning unrelated to this kind of stuff, again ;-)

(Edited on 2013-02-16 19:48:57 by Joesboy)


I can see it now:

At the end of searches: Not finding what you need? You're doing it wrong. Come on lazy pants.
MichaelJay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloads
Posted Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:18PM
Posted By Lobo: The work on Getty is typically at a higher price point so it make business sense for the linking from us to Getty. I don't think there is any logic in the reverse. I'm not the boss of links so I can't say for sure, but common sense points me towards not pulling your legs.


I agree there is no point on pushing people down the price range.


But why not have a link to iStock (instead of Getty as it is now) on Thinkstock and photos.com then? That would be up the chain, right?


Actually why not show "premium content available on iStock" on those two sites like it is on SXC? And maybe only show images not availble in the PP by definition like E+, V & TAC? At least for logged out customers this would be an idea - show them an alternative within the family instead of just letting them go. 
slobo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:40PM
Posted By MichaelJay:

Actually why not show "premium content available on iStock" on those two sites like it is on SXC? And maybe only show images not availble in the PP by definition like E+, V & TAC?


That sounds like a lot of work (filtering collections on iStock).


Getty bought iStock, not the other way around. They are using whatever tool they have to promote main company. Getty. I see nothing strange or wrong with that.
OliverChilds
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:32PM

It just seems wrong to me that there are links from istock to Getty and from istock to Thinkstock but no links from the other sites back to istock. If it were just a question of upselling my view might be different. If it were a tactic to keep buyers searching on Getty family sites I would understand, but if that is the case, why no links back to here?


 


ETA Link from ISP to TS 


http://www.istockphoto.com/help/buy-credits/subscriptions

(Edited on 2013-02-25 12:35:11 by OliverChilds)
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 1 to 12 of 12 matches.
Not a member?Join