MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: ShadySue on January 24, 2012, 17:01
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=340051&page=1#post6591923 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=340051&page=1#post6591923)
-
Here's the text for anyone who gets nauseated just going over to their forum:
Posting from member ‘iStock HQ’:
First of all – we wanted to acknowledge that we’ve heard your comments on the use of the iStock HQ member name, and we understand that not everyone is crazy about it and why. The reality is that there isn’t just one captain of this ship, so rather than giving the impression there is we decided to use this ‘voice’ in some situations where many of us are contributing or where there is a need to have an official statement from iStock. We will continue to do this as we feel it’s appropriate, but in response to your comments we’re also going to write an updated “who’s who” article introducing (or re-introducing) many of the people who manage the iStock and Getty Images businesses, help with these posts and are likely to show up in the forums and in other communications in the future covering various topics that we know are important to you.
Information sharing in a competitive environment:
There are many very good and very specific questions this thread about company strategy that we simply cannot answer for competitive reasons. We’ll do our best to answer questions and to supply you with the information you need to plan for your businesses and to be successful contributors here, but it’s a competitive environment we work in and there is some information we are not able to share in a public forum.
Ok, on to some questions…
(These first couple questions fall into the category described above, so apologies if they are fairly vague, we’re providing as much information as we can.)
How is the company doing?
iStock is a very healthy business that continues to grow. Maintaining growth is our #1 objective.
What steps are being taken to retain current buyers and attract new ones?
There are many programs in the works utilizing the brainpower and reach of our newly combined Getty Images and iStock teams to achieve this goal exactly. We agree it’s key to ongoing future success as a business and we are focused on it.
Several questions around exclusivity & royalties so here are a few comments on that subject:
There are currently no plans to alter royalty rates at iStock.
We highly value exclusive artists and their content and will continue to increase support for these contributors through information sharing on the Getty Images contributor site, working together at iStockalypse events, and through other methods yet to be introduced.
How will inspection change? Are Getty Images editors going to be involved directly with iStockphoto submissions?
The basic structure and processes for iStock inspection are not changing. We want to increase dialog between the iStock inspection team and Getty Images creative staff to share knowledge and information more openly in both directions. Whether this might eventually include any cross-pollination between teams is yet to be determined, but any activity of this kind would be collaborative in nature.
Are we going to see an influx of Getty content added to the iStock collection? Will wholly owned Getty Images content swamp search results in the near future? How is iStock going to balance things?
As has been seen with Agency, Vetta, vectors, editorial, video and other collections, we are increasingly distributing certain types of content across multiple Getty Images sites (including iStockphoto) when it helps to meet customer needs. Distribution has gone in both directions between iStock and Getty Images and will continue to do so. Some of the content moving from Getty Images to iStock is and will be wholly owned (particularly Edstock and Hulton Archive due to how this type of niche content is generated/acquired), but much of it is also not.
Our core objective with search is to present customers the content they are looking for, and that’s why you’ll see Best Match continue to change over time. We’re continually working towards getting the most relevant mix of content in front of customers, if we lose sight of this objective we’ll also lose our customers.
Video questions:
Several of you asked about editorial video, this is something that is still under consideration but there are no current plans or timelines to announce.
There were also questions about payments for iStock video content that is being distributed through GettyImages.com. Since this program was one of the first distribution programs between iStock and Getty Images there were some workarounds required to make it happen that we’re still in the process of cleaning up. This is underway and you’ll see communications with more specifics about it in the near future.
Video inspection times are longer than they should be and the submission and review processes have had many technical issues. The Video team are talking in more detail about what’s being done to remedy these things on the video forum here.
Site bugs & outages:
We fully acknowledge there have been and continue to be many unresolved bugs that impact contributors and customers in both big and small ways. We don’t like it either and we are working to do a better job managing this work. The integration happening now between Getty Images and iStock includes our technology teams, and some of the processes being introduced will help us towards this goal. The same applies for site outages, we know we can do better on this as well and it is one of our primary focuses right now.
We hope this helps alleviate some of the concerns raised in this thread and through the changes rolled out last week. We appreciate and value your partnership and will continue to provide as much information as possible to help you run your business and make valuable content. You may not always like the answers that we give you but our goal is to make sure that you have the information you need to make informed decisions about your business. We’ll be following up with the who’s who article in the next few weeks as mentioned earlier, as well as other communications we’ve discussed. For now we’d like to ask that you take what’s been shared here, and give us some time to do the work we’ve talked about in these posts.
Signing off for now,
The team at HQ
-
Well I hope that answers a lot of the burning questions. ::)
-
At least the dialogue is on-going. That is positive.
-
It's completely vague and has no clear answers as usual.
-
Indeed, no real info here.
But sales are good at least :)
-
"How is the company doing?
iStock is a very healthy business that continues to grow. Maintaining growth is our #1 objective."
They could hardly have been less specific about 'growth'. Growth in what? Images? Registered customers? Sales? Revenue? Staff (I guess not)?
-
The one bit of real info I could see in that post was that "There are currently no plans to alter royalty rates at iStock."
That is comforting as far as it goes. It would be much more comforting if the same "currently no plans" language had not been used so many times before regarding things that were later implemented.
-
Well I hope that answers a lot of the burning questions. ::)
It certainly answered all my questions... Oh wait, I didn't have any. ;D
-
That is comforting as far as it goes. It would be much more comforting if the same "currently no plans" language had not been used so many times before regarding things that were later implemented.
Quite.
-
At least the dialogue is on-going. That is positive.
I don't see any dialog, or request for dialog. This is written responses, mostly very general, to some of the written questions submitted in the earlier thread.
The other key element of dialog is that something might change as a result of the discussion - I don't count another Q&A sheet as a change. Once upon a time there were actual discussions between iStock management and contributors and things could change as a result. That's clearly gone and we apparently have some sort of committee in charge.
-
The one bit of real info I could see in that post was that "There are currently no plans to alter royalty rates at iStock."
That is comforting as far as it goes. It would be much more comforting if the same "currently no plans" language had not been used so many times before regarding things that were later implemented.
I'm sitting at 15% and don't find it so comforting....although I suppose they could have dropped it down to 10%. :(
-
The one bit of real info I could see in that post was that "There are currently no plans to alter royalty rates at iStock."
That is comforting as far as it goes. It would be much more comforting if the same "currently no plans" language had not been used so many times before regarding things that were later implemented.
Amen.
Wheww, i certainly feel a lot wiser and more "heard" after this post. They had to work for 2 days on a post that doesnt say anything, apart from 'nothing will change' (outside collections invading/dominating istock), or possibly might or might not change (review process)?
A bunch of non-answers, as i expected. At least good to know istock is very healthy and continues to grow, as we all see reflected in our numbers ::)
-
Two parts stood out for me.
Firstly the 'currently' no plans (as Lisa noted), and also:
"We highly value exclusive artists and their content and will continue to increase support for these contributors..."
Did I miss the part where they said they valued indies?
-
There's a reasonable amount of info in that statement, assuming it's all true:
1) iStock is apparently not plummeting into the abyss after all. It's a "very healthy business that continues to grow. Maintaining growth is our #1 objective." I'd guess the kind of growth they're talking about is growth in revenue.
2) No change to inspection system except some chats with Getty people.
3) "Currently" no plans to change royalties.
4) They plan to nurture exclusives in various ways.
5) They will continue to shovel Getty material on to iStock.
6) They'll continue to fiddle with Best Match.
7) They offer a mea culpa, almost an apology, for the bugs and site outages. Good move.
All in all, it seems things could be worse. (And may well be next January, but let's not get pessimistic too soon.)
-
Quit being so level-headed, RapidEye.
-
I don't see any reason to believe anything in that post. They've pulled that "currently" line before and then gone back on it. The company cannot possibly be healthy and growing. The general consensus is that earnings are down, almost across the board (except for a few rare exceptions). That's not healthy, certainly not growing. This company has lied to us many times before, and I'm not about to suddenly trust a word they say based on a forum post. Actions will prove their worth, and for now, istock is worth very little to me. I upload maybe 10% of my work there now, and that may drop to 0% very soon as there are no signs of things picking up at all.
That post means nothing and it just looks like business as usual at istock, which includes lots of questionable statements, empty promises, and possibly some more less than honest assessments of things.
-
Out of all the questions being addressed (or "answers" given), I would have loved to see a specific list of bugs that actually have been fixed in the last 6 months.
I wonder what their IT team is actually working on...
If they gave us a list of achieved bug fixes we could appreciate better their work instead of just seeing newer and more bugs...
-
...They plan to nurture exclusives in various ways...
Keep in mind how they've nurtured everyone in the past. When they cut royalties Kelly announced it as a way of "building upon the success of F5 ... with the goal of expanding our industry leadership in fresh, creative, quality, exclusive content." It was supposed to give most contributors the same or more money while making the company "sustainable" into the future. Kelly said that the changes "would not change most contributors' total compensation (except for the better)." Anyone feel better off since then? Are you exclusives doing better since the cuts?
Their idea of nurturing exclusives could be very different than yours. This is a company that cuts pay rates and spins it as a good thing. If they drop all exclusives to 20% but tell you it's for the long-term growth of the company and eventually it will pay off for you, will you still feel nurtured?
-
Two parts stood out for me.
Firstly the 'currently' no plans (as Lisa noted), and also:
"We highly value exclusive artists and their content and will continue to increase support for these contributors..."
Did I miss the part where they said they valued indies?
Yes, but so did they.
Made me look. #3 in terms of files on the system. 19,000 nice collection. http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/2134884/source/ref?esource=reflinkcon&lcrefid=3001992&lc_rm=Link&lcbanid=56776#ddb5764
The one bit of real info I could see in that post was that "There are currently no plans to alter royalty rates at iStock."
That is comforting as far as it goes. It would be much more comforting if the same "currently no plans" language had not been used so many times before regarding things that were later implemented.
Jumped right off the screen didn't it? Of course tomorrow things may change...
The best match just means they will be forcing what they own and sell to the front, followed by whatever makes the most money. This has nothing to do with "best match" for the buyers sake.
Oh no reason to change Indy royalty payment, they can't go any lower, and we know they are never going to be increased.
-
...They plan to nurture exclusives in various ways...
Keep in mind how they've nurtured everyone in the past. When they cut royalties Kelly announced it as a way of "building upon the success of F5 ... with the goal of expanding our industry leadership in fresh, creative, quality, exclusive content." It was supposed to give most contributors the same or more money while making the company "sustainable" into the future. Kelly said that the changes "would not change most contributors' total compensation (except for the better)." Anyone feel better off since then? Are you exclusives doing better since the cuts?
Their idea of nurturing exclusives could be very different than yours. This is a company that cuts pay rates and spins it as a good thing. If they drop all exclusives to 20% but tell you it's for the long-term growth of the company and eventually it will pay off for you, will you still feel nurtured?
I know this is not going to be what you want to hear, but to answer your question, yes, exclusives can do better under the RC system. Under the old system, you had to sell a certain number of images to enter the next canister pay level. The new RC is current-performance oriented. If I make a lot of quality sales in A, V and +, even though my DL# is less than the next level, I can get paid at a higher level or two. Some people don't participate in the + programs because they are afraid of lower DLs, I am not sure if it pays off better. Personally I like to be paid at higher rates.
The fact is, they are not dropping all exclusives to 20% so the debate is moot.
-
The fact is, they are not dropping all exclusives to 20% so the debate is moot.
They "currently have no plans" to do so.
-
The company cannot possibly be healthy and growing. The general consensus is that earnings are down, almost across the board (except for a few rare exceptions). That's not healthy, certainly not growing. This company has lied to us many times before, and I'm not about to suddenly trust a word they say based on a forum post.
Agreed __ 'healthy and growing' my arse.
Compare and contrast Shutterstock and Istockphoto. Virtually everyone at SS is reporting surging sales, the website works superbly, the traffic is way up and they're apparently 'recruiting like crazy'. There are at least 34 positions being currently advertised online for employment with SS.
Istock, on the other hand, has the majority of contributors (with mature portfolios) reporting falling sales, the website is falling apart, traffic has fallen off a cliff and they've just had to lay off 30 staff in Calgary (out of 100 or so?).
I've never heard of a 'healthy and growing' company laying off lots of staff before. I wonder how they are going to service all those new customers and deal with the extra demand, etc?
-
.
-
But you do hear that healthy and growing companies reorganize, don't you? That means to let go of old staff and put in their own people.
The company cannot possibly be healthy and growing. The general consensus is that earnings are down, almost across the board (except for a few rare exceptions). That's not healthy, certainly not growing. This company has lied to us many times before, and I'm not about to suddenly trust a word they say based on a forum post.
Agreed __ 'healthy and growing' my arse.
Compare and contrast Shutterstock and Istockphoto. Virtually everyone at SS is reporting surging sales, the website works superbly, the traffic is way up and they're apparently 'recruiting like crazy'. There are at least 34 positions being currently advertised online for employment with SS.
Istock, on the other hand, has the majority of contributors (with mature portfolios) reporting falling sales, the website is falling apart, traffic has fallen off a cliff and they've just had to lay off 30 staff in Calgary (out of 100 or so?).
I've never heard of a 'healthy and growing' company laying off lots of staff before. I wonder how they are going to service all those new customers and deal with the extra demand, etc?
-
But you do hear that healthy and growing companies reorganize, don't you? That means to let go of old staff and put in their own people.
But then, how to explain the loss of a video inspector when they desperately need more inspectors, not fewer, and all video inspections are being done in Calgary only?
-
But you do hear that healthy and growing companies reorganize, don't you? That means to let go of old staff and put in their own people.
Oh I see! We'll just have to wait a few more months to find out if your theory is right I guess. Do you think they might have to 'reorganize' again soon, to even fewer staff, because they are growing so fast?
-
I've never heard of a 'healthy and growing' company laying off lots of staff before. I wonder how they are going to service all those new customers and deal with the extra demand, etc?
Plenty of healthy companies lay off workers whose jobs cease to exist for operational reasons. In a takeover, such layoffs usually happen because of duplication. And it's always a good opportunity to get rid of pesky people at the swallowed company, too. So, on reflection, I don't think too much should be read into the layoffs.
And then the unlamented KKT blabbed on a Facebook forum early last December that it had been a record week for payouts to contributors at iStock, which is the spin way of saying the company had record revenues that week.
-
I've never heard of a 'healthy and growing' company laying off lots of staff before. I wonder how they are going to service all those new customers and deal with the extra demand, etc?
Plenty of healthy companies lay off workers whose jobs cease to exist for operational reasons. In a takeover, such layoffs usually happen because of duplication. And it's always a good opportunity to get rid of pesky people at the swallowed company, too. So, on reflection, I don't think too much should be read into the layoffs.
But then, how to explain the loss of a video inspector when they desperately need more inspectors, not fewer, and all video inspections are being done in Calgary only?
Echo, echo, echo ....
-
But you do hear that healthy and growing companies reorganize, don't you? That means to let go of old staff and put in their own people.
Oh I see! We'll just have to wait a few more months to find out if your theory is right I guess. Do you think they might have to 'reorganize' again soon, to even fewer staff, because they are growing so fast?
Fair enough!
-
Plenty of healthy companies lay off workers whose jobs cease to exist for operational reasons. In a takeover, such layoffs usually happen because of duplication. And it's always a good opportunity to get rid of pesky people at the swallowed company, too. So, on reflection, I don't think too much should be read into the layoffs.
And then the unlamented KKT blabbed on a Facebook forum early last December that it had been a record week for payouts to contributors at iStock, which is the spin way of saying the company had record revenues that week.
Personally I think you're clinging to straws desperately trying to avoid the truth that is staring you in the face. It's a bit sad when people set so much store in the 'blabbed' tweetface message from a long since sacked COO. Maybe they did actually have a really good week 13 months ago __ wowee.
It wasn't so long ago that virtually every week was a record breaker at Istock. I suspect they're still having record weeks now __ just in the wrong direction.
-
I hear about many exclusives opening accounts at Shutterstock and other agencies just to be ready in case they drop their exclusivity, I cannot imagine iStockHQ answering the questions any other way. If a large part of their content providers are preparing to jump ship, they will give whatever reply is necessary to keep them on board.
-
Two parts stood out for me.
Firstly the 'currently' no plans (as Lisa noted), and also:
"We highly value exclusive artists and their content and will continue to increase support for these contributors..."
Did I miss the part where they said they valued indies?
KT used exactly the same expression two years ago and they haven't done any "indie valuing" since then. I expressed dismay when that attitude was first adopted but, as I recall, my comment was just met with a certain smugness from some exclusives. Of course, the "high value" put on exclusives since then has included reneging on the "grandfathered canisters" and cutting their commission rates, so the statement needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. All Getty "highly values" is the chance to grab more money, it's not an art/artist appreciation society.
-
Don`t look at what they say, look how they act. Much more telling.
-
I've never heard of a 'healthy and growing' company laying off lots of staff before. I wonder how they are going to service all those new customers and deal with the extra demand, etc?
Plenty of healthy companies lay off workers whose jobs cease to exist for operational reasons. In a takeover, such layoffs usually happen because of duplication. And it's always a good opportunity to get rid of pesky people at the swallowed company, too. So, on reflection, I don't think too much should be read into the layoffs.
And then the unlamented KKT blabbed on a Facebook forum early last December that it had been a record week for payouts to contributors at iStock, which is the spin way of saying the company had record revenues that week.
A sensible operational reason for lay-offs would be combining the functions of the staff of the companies being merged, however, they tell us in this latest blurb that functions are not being combined (though they implied in the previous post that they were). The other reasons for layoffs would be shrinking income and less for staff to do.
Istock is NEVER going to say "our business is less than great" or "we are not growing" or "we're losing customers to rivals (though they accidentally implied it in HQ's previous post - remember the other companies taking advantage of opportunities that iStock is missing?), so assuming that if they say there is "growth" they mean "earnings growth" is naive. They could mean growth in collection size (and nobody doubts that there is).
As for KT's record payouts in December - wasn't that the month when payouts were shoehorned into one week - I think some people may have had a three-week wait instead of the normal two - cheques and paypal were done at the same time. And do they count PP into "record"?
IF the company was having record revenues, then the contributors must be too, then why weren't there howls of delight when this was compounded by the drop in RC levels shortly afterwards. Where were all the posts saying "I never thought I could get up to 40% but with the rising sales and falling RC levels now I'm going to do it, woo-yay". Instead of that, people were saying this would (or would not) let them maintain levels they were losing.
You can't just accept the great things a company says about itself while ignoring all the other evidence that says the opposite.
(Imagegami just said that better than I did)
-
They are saying a lot but telling us nothing! wealthy and growing? ::) yeah sure they are? might be able to fool the little Bronze exclusive but they sure as hell dont fool us, we are too long in the tooth for this glib.
-
Personally I think you're clinging to straws desperately trying to avoid the truth that is staring you in the face. It's a bit sad when people set so much store in the 'blabbed' tweetface message from a long since sacked COO. Maybe they did actually have a really good week 13 months ago __ wowee.
No, last month. My bad phrasing, sorry. As for clutching at straws, you could be right -- cognitive dissonance can be a powerful problem. My head isn't completely in the sand, though, or else I wouldn't be prepping my port for the lifeboats.
It wasn't so long ago that virtually every week was a record breaker at Istock. I suspect they're still having record weeks now __ just in the wrong direction.
Illogical, Captain. Since they started from a zero base, a record low week would be impossible.
-
But then, how to explain the loss of a video inspector when they desperately need more inspectors, not fewer, and all video inspections are being done in Calgary only?
Error when compiling the hit list? An excuse to get rid of an incompetent inspector? Perhaps a secret plan to move video inspections to Seattle? There seem to be some possible explanations.
-
I've never heard of a 'healthy and growing' company laying off lots of staff before. I wonder how they are going to service all those new customers and deal with the extra demand, etc?
Plenty of healthy companies lay off workers whose jobs cease to exist for operational reasons. In a takeover, such layoffs usually happen because of duplication. And it's always a good opportunity to get rid of pesky people at the swallowed company, too. So, on reflection, I don't think too much should be read into the layoffs.
And then the unlamented KKT blabbed on a Facebook forum early last December that it had been a record week for payouts to contributors at iStock, which is the spin way of saying the company had record revenues that week.
A sensible operational reason for lay-offs would be combining the functions of the staff of the companies being merged, however, they tell us in this latest blurb that functions are not being combined (though they implied in the previous post that they were). The other reasons for layoffs would be shrinking income and less for staff to do.
Istock is NEVER going to say "our business is less than great" or "we are not growing" or "we're losing customers to rivals (though they accidentally implied it in HQ's previous post - remember the other companies taking advantage of opportunities that iStock is missing?), so assuming that if they say there is "growth" they mean "earnings growth" is naive. They could mean growth in collection size (and nobody doubts that there is).
As for KT's record payouts in December - wasn't that the month when payouts were shoehorned into one week - I think some people may have had a three-week wait instead of the normal two - cheques and paypal were done at the same time. And do they count PP into "record"?
IF the company was having record revenues, then the contributors must be too, then why weren't there howls of delight when this was compounded by the drop in RC levels shortly afterwards. Where were all the posts saying "I never thought I could get up to 40% but with the rising sales and falling RC levels now I'm going to do it, woo-yay". Instead of that, people were saying this would (or would not) let them maintain levels they were losing.
You can't just accept the great things a company says about itself while ignoring all the other evidence that says the opposite.
(Imagegami just said that better than I did)
I completely agree that the omens aren't good and that the company's big lie about grandfathering canisters means that nothing it says can be believed.
You guys seem to assume that anyone who points out anything that might be seen to favour iStock is a naif or a company shill. I simply answered Gostwyk's post about how he'd never heard of healthy companies laying people off; well, perhaps he hasn't, but they do.
As for growth, the spin doctors might well have been talking about profit rather than revenue. But nobody could seriously expect them to mean collection size in that context. KKT's claim about contributors' payouts, posted informally on a small FB group, didn't reek of propaganda, which is why I give it a little credence.
This particular horse has been flogged to death but the falling earnings self-reported by many contributors can be ascribed to any number of things, not just falling iStock company revenue. Others could include oversupply and dilution, slowing overall growth (not necessarily a decline) causing less marketable portfolios to lose ground, and of course the statistical dubiousness of the self-selected sample.
Sjlocke has to be close to being the very mirror of iStock and he tells us that his revenue increased somewhat year-on-year although downloads fell and his revenue increase didn't keep up with portfolio growth. My own position is similar.
-
"How is the company doing?
iStock is a very healthy business that continues to grow. Maintaining growth is our #1 objective."
They could hardly have been less specific about 'growth'. Growth in what? Images? Registered customers? Sales? Revenue? Staff (I guess not)?
They are growing their customer exodus, being the number 1 customer looser is their #1 objective.
-
No, I'm not thinking you are a company shill or anything like that. Actually, I thought you had just gone independent but presumably that was someone else.
What I do think is that in many cases people's interpretations of events are coloured by their hopes of where things may be going.
I agree about Sean Locke but look at just how much effort he has had to put in and yet still see his sales fall. Clearly, for top rank independents there has been a shift to higher-value sales boosting their return per dl. But Sean can't maintain his % increase in his portfolio the way he has in the last 12 months and if his sales are already falling that trend must be a serious concern. I suspect there would need to be a continuing shift to higher priced sales to keep him on track and it is hard to imagine that iStock can persuade more and more people to pay Vetta prices.
I presume that most exclusives can't even get a significant part of their work into Vetta.
-
No, I'm not thinking you are a company shill or anything like that. Actually, I thought you had just gone independent but presumably that was someone else.
What I do think is that in many cases people's interpretations of events are coloured by their hopes of where things may be going.
I agree about Sean Locke but look at just how much effort he has had to put in and yet still see his sales fall. Clearly, for top rank independents there has been a shift to higher-value sales boosting their return per dl. But Sean can't maintain his % increase in his portfolio the way he has in the last 12 months and if his sales are already falling that trend must be a serious concern. I suspect there would need to be a continuing shift to higher priced sales to keep him on track and it is hard to imagine that iStock can persuade more and more people to pay Vetta prices.
I presume that most exclusives can't even get a significant part of their work into Vetta.
No the majority wont pay Vetta prices, thats for sure. Anyway, any special collection will only last for a short while, other agencies and photographers will copy, this and that and do it even better and thats the end of a special-collection. Its been tried and tested by every major agency and back in the film days as well.
Stones used to have a special collection, only some 50K of images that were the "best in the world" so to speak, it lasted for two years, then it had been bettered by others so it was dropped.
IS, probably look upon Vettas as a short term money-cow, thats all.
-
Maybe they did actually have a really good week 13 months ago __ wowee.
No, last month. My bad phrasing, sorry.
I took it that you meant Dec 2011. Seeing as you did, that a week in early Dec 2011 was their best, someone deserves to be sacked for changing the best match so horrendously towards the end of the month. (even though a traditionally quiet week).
-
At least the dialogue is on-going.
What dialog? All I see is an infallible papal bill proclaiming why they can't explain the doctrine to the peasants, immediately followed by an announcement from the attention queen of the inquisition that he will excommunicate anybody of the clergy that doesn't stand up and cheer. And by Jove, they all cheered, bowing, their tiny tinplate crowns deep in the dust . I prefer Monty Python but that forums seems like a decent imitation. :P
-
I sentence you to be hanged by the neck, until you cheer up!
Oh all right... just go down to the shops and get me 20 Rothmans then....
(with apologies to anyone who doesn't know Python sketches).
-
Don`t look at what they say, look how they act. Much more telling.
Exactly.
-
KT used exactly the same expression two years ago and they haven't done any "indie valuing" since then. I expressed dismay when that attitude was first adopted but, as I recall, my comment was just met with a certain smugness from some exclusives. Of course, the "high value" put on exclusives since then has included reneging on the "grandfathered canisters" and cutting their commission rates, so the statement needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. All Getty "highly values" is the chance to grab more money, it's not an art/artist appreciation society.
True. When you put it like that, perhaps I should be grateful for the lack of bs aimed at indies. We know our place! ;)
-
Did I miss the part where they said they valued indies?
Yes, but so did they.
:D
-
Ugh. I just took a look at the "discussion" at the istock forums. Seems like the more things change the more they stay the same. All it takes is an encouraging forum post from HQ and all worries are put to rest.
Well good for those who feel at ease now. I guess I should be grateful. Keeping exclusives exclusive does benefit me, and if this weak announcement makes some exclusives feel like sticking with istock then I'll throw in my own "woo-yay."
-
curious they don´t even mention the less 15% in downloads (and yes they may have made more $$) but don´t know if thats a good thing even if they are going "macro", for sure it doesn´t make contributors anxious to upload or create new stuff
-
I realized this morning what the "We highly value exclusive artists and their content ..." reminded me of: “Your call is very important to us . . .”
-
:D
You're right! It has exactly the same feel to it.
-
But then, how to explain the loss of a video inspector when they desperately need more inspectors, not fewer, and all video inspections are being done in Calgary only?
Error when compiling the hit list? An excuse to get rid of an incompetent inspector? Perhaps a secret plan to move video inspections to Seattle? There seem to be some possible explanations.
I'm sure you don't really believe the first is a likely possibility. As for being an incompetent inspector, one of the video admins had this to say about him:
Our team is small and Gil will be sorely missed. His years here at iStock reflected a thoughtful, dedicated and hard working co-worker.
So I don't see that a possibility either. A secret plan to move video inspections to Seattle might happen, but this would be such a small start compared to what would be needed, I don't see the point.
I think the most likely possibility is that Getty / H&F demanded cuts be made across the board, even in areas that were desperate for more personnel. It's hard for me to see that as anything but a negative.
-
I realized this morning what the "We highly value exclusive artists and their content ..." reminded me of: “Your call is very important to us . . .”
a bought that BS line ONCE from KKT and then the RC system came in and I saw how much the really valued me when, as an artist with both photos and vectors, I was screwed and my Diamond-level percentage that I had worked so hard for dropped to the RC system of 25%. I dropped the crown then like a hot potato and haven't looked back.
How anyone can continue to follow their dangling carrots is beyond me. the carrot is on a string, just beyond your reach - you will NEVER reach it because that's how it is rigged.
-
I think the most likely possibility is that Getty / H&F demanded cuts be made across the board, even in areas that were desperate for more personnel.
Possibly. Who knows? Seems a bit bizarre however one slices it.
-
I think the most likely possibility is that Getty / H&F demanded cuts be made across the board, even in areas that were desperate for more personnel.
Possibly. Who knows? Seems a bit bizarre however one slices it.
Didn't the top exclusive videographer just go non exclusive too?
-
I think the most likely possibility is that Getty / H&F demanded cuts be made across the board, even in areas that were desperate for more personnel.
Possibly. Who knows? Seems a bit bizarre however one slices it.
It wouldn't be the first time that costs are slashed to boost profits a few months prior to a sale.
-
It wouldn't be the first time that costs are slashed to boost profits a few months prior to a sale.
True 'nuff. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a sale this year.
-
True 'nuff. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a sale this year.
I agree. Something has to give. This all has to be leading somewhere, and a sale seems very plausible.
It's a little strange the way they're pulling some of the inner working of istock into Getty, but that could be just a way of cutting costs while at the same time making the operation seem a bit more compact and streamlined. All things that would help make the company look good for market.
-
Is the site working? I'm getting slow, dead slow, white pages and error messages. That's more on the My Uploads and Forums section though, haven't tried searching.
-
Is the site working? I'm getting slow, dead slow, white pages and error messages. That's more on the My Uploads and Forums section though, haven't tried searching.
Barely.
-
Is the site working? I'm getting slow, dead slow, white pages and error messages. That's more on the My Uploads and Forums section though, haven't tried searching.
Happening to me, too. It must be 1979 again. Or maybe the gremlin thingummie broke out of its steel cage.
-
I got to the home page once, but everything else is giving me 500 (server error) messages from the browser - i.e. I'm not getting an error page from IS
-
"How is the company doing?
iStock is a very healthy business that continues to grow. Maintaining growth is our #1 objective."
They are talking to us as if we have no access to web statistics and cannot see FOR OURSELVES how istock is doing. This is so disingenuous and casts a negative light on the entirety of the message.
Why do they do things like that? Do they think we are sheep???
-
right now the site okay until you go to log in. The cover panel for the log in is white. something is screwy. Can't pick up stats from iStockcharts app. on my phone either, so it's not my browser.
-
The F5 site is living up to it's name, because you have to keep hitting F5 so it will work.
-
The F5 site is living up to it's name, because you have to keep hitting F5 so it will work.
Seems like an F5 tornado hit IS, too.
-
What I do think is that in many cases people's interpretations of events are coloured by their hopes of where things may be going.
That is true.
-
...Why do they do things like that? Do they think we are sheep???
I prefer to be referred to by istock as "sheeple", or at the very least, "sheep-person". Geez, give me some dignity here and at least let me be known as partially human.
;)
But seriously, to answer your question, yes they think we'll just accept whatever they say. It's not unlike the royalty cut where they expected us to believe that keeping 80% of each sale wasn't "sustainable." Even us sheep can figure out that most every other microstock agency manages to be profitable and sustainable on much smaller percentages, and that keeping 80% of each sale of a product that you don't have to manufacture is not only highly sustainable but it should be highly lucrative.
But we're just sheep... what do we know. :)
-
right now the site okay until you go to log in. The cover panel for the log in is white. something is screwy. Can't pick up stats from iStockcharts app. on my phone either, so it's not my browser.
[conspiracy theory]
this is a great way to build up fake stats. slow down the site so users keep hitting f5 to reload the page and then each reload is a hit... though not a new visitor, most people don't really understand the difference between a 'page hit' and a 'unique visitor' hit anyway. :)
[/conspiracy theory]
-
[conspiracy theory]
this is a great way to build up fake stats. slow down the site so users keep hitting f5 to reload the page and then each reload is a hit... though not a new visitor, most people don't really understand the difference between a 'page hit' and a 'unique visitor' hit anyway. :)
[/conspiracy theory]
Not bad. But I always start with "Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity." Hard I know when you're dealing with someone who's both malicious and stupid, but in this case I thinks stupidity reigns.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Muppets
-
This poor pitiful political speech from iSmacksHQ I havent heard a long time. In tier like North Korean idiot-cracy.