You're the new Managing Director at iStock...

[gclk]

...what would your priorities be?

You're moving to Calgary.  Taking account of iStock's current position in the marketplace, and its context within the Getty group of companies, what changes would you put into action immediately, and what would your longer term aims and priorities be?  And why?

[lisafx]

...what would your priorities be?

Regaining the trust of contributors and trying to recover as many of the lost buyers as I could.  Also making sure that the site functions 24/7, so as to retain the ones I have. 

[Slovenian]

I'd split RC levels in half in become a loved dictator

[microstockphoto.co.uk]

I'm afraid they went too far to regain contributors' and buyers' trust

I'd sell domain for $10 on ebay and start anew with a different name and site - not before publicly apologising for what happened in the last year or so

e.g., crestock's new management tried to apoligise, but since nothing actually changed the site is almost as bad as it used to be - so they need to do something drastic

[gclk]

I'd split RC levels in half in become a loved dictator

Haha, good plan

One of my immediate goals would be to get rid of the appearance of nepotism, which - whether the 'old boys club' accusations are true or not - has damaged the credibility of the site.

I'd look to address issues around the fact that admins and inspectors control what content makes it into the site, but also often have significant portfolios themselves.  The result can be that it often looks as though these people are able to submit an image, and make the decision that it should go directly into the Vetta/Agency collection.  This happens very quickly, while a 'normal' contributor would perhaps wait a fortnight before seeing an equivalent image going into the main collection.

It wouldn't make any sense to ban employees/inspectors from being contributors, just treat them like any other 'normal' contributors by making the files in the inspection queue anonymous to make everybody's work stand on its own merit.  Buyers don't care if content was produced by a senior member of the content team or whatever.  They just want the best content.

To start regaining credibility from buyers and artists, I would make it clear that a fresh start is happening at the company, based on a more open and respectful approach.  Without directly saying that major mistakes have been made in the recent past, I'd make it clear that there will be positive changes in the future, based on real consultation and collaboration with buyers and artists.

I see this as a real opportunity to reverse the negativity that has massively damaged the iStock brand since last September.  The changes were supposedly meant to address sustainability problems but they may well have done the exact opposite. 

I'd see it as a chance to clean up problems within the company which have been badly needing a fresh look for far too long.

If Rebecca shows a genuine interest in involving everyone in changing iStock's future for the better, this could and should be a positive turning point for iStock.

[Freedom]

I agree that the priority should be to faciliate sales and repair its damaged relationship with the majority of contributors, be fair to all.

[luissantos84]

don�t have much to say but I can tell you that I take care of the people, family, friends and "other" who seem friendly and respect me

does she know any of you guys? it will be easy to screw us again without any conscience problem, what a better person to follow Getty desires? maybe she isn�t going to do any bad but that was the first thing that run into my head

[stockastic]

You're the new guy at IS, and your job is to do exactly what the Getty people want: come up with even more ways to jerk the system around and pump up short-term profits.

[Freedom]

Does anyone know Rebecca Rockafellar's background other than what Kelly said? If you google her name, nothing shows up.

[Zephyr]

Does anyone know Rebecca Rockafellar's background other than what Kelly said? If you google her name, nothing shows up.

She's on this page:

http://company.gettyimages.com/section_display.cfm?section_id=245&isource=corporate_website_officers#RR

[VB inc]

STAGE 1... id put up a marketing blitz admitting the previous management was a greedy pig who steered us off course and im the right person to steer us back. Instant 25% off credit packages from previous buyers that is coming out of istocks pocket and not the contributors. Contributors get an extra 10% on their royalties for the next 90 days.

STAGE 2... secretly hire hackers and hack SS and the other top 3 sites and cause mayhem 

[lagereek]

...what would your priorities be?

Regaining the trust of contributors and trying to recover as many of the lost buyers as I could.  Also making sure that the site functions 24/7, so as to retain the ones I have.  

I sanction that! me too and if exclusivity was a policy, the perks would NOT be a favourable best match,  but more percentage.

[Jo Ann Snover]

I think it depends on whether her mission is to grow IS or manage it as a cash cow - i.e. not invest in it but try to squeeze whatever remaining cash she can.

As H&F are still at the helm and in spite of their $500M payout to themselves last fall they probably want to sell as soon as they can, I'm assuming no investment is coming beyond what's needed to keep the site running.

If cash cow's the goal, I'd remove any opt-in or opt out for contributors and would move content to other Getty properties to see what additional cash could be wrung from it. I'd make soothing speeches in the IS forums about how this was in contributors' best interests. I'd leave the exclusive program in place, but I'd announce more changes that would cut the number of people who make more than 20% as much as possible.

If investment were the goal, they need to get some real software expertise (perhaps via consulting vs. hiring people) and fix the site. They need some aggressive marketing to buyers with some programs to try and get them buying (perhaps something like a Starbucks card where they get something free for every so many they buy; and IS pays for that freebie, not contributors). If buyers come back and the site works, contributors will be more likely to hang around. I think they need to dump the RC system or revise it massively. At a minimum they need to remove the split between content types that crushed multi-media artists and give credit for sales wherever they occur (Thinkstock etc). All money brought in to Getty should receive RC credit if that's the way they want to measure contributor success. All special discounts to buyers below 95 cents a credit should come out of IS's hide, not contributors'. There's probably a ton more, but I don't expect them to go this route...

[lagereek]

I think it depends on whether her mission is to grow IS or manage it as a cash cow - i.e. not invest in it but try to squeeze whatever remaining cash she can.

As H&F are still at the helm and in spite of their $500M payout to themselves last fall they probably want to sell as soon as they can, I'm assuming no investment is coming beyond what's needed to keep the site running.

If cash cow's the goal, I'd remove any opt-in or opt out for contributors and would move content to other Getty properties to see what additional cash could be wrung from it. I'd make soothing speeches in the IS forums about how this was in contributors' best interests. I'd leave the exclusive program in place, but I'd announce more changes that would cut the number of people who make more than 20% as much as possible.

If investment were the goal, they need to get some real software expertise (perhaps via consulting vs. hiring people) and fix the site. They need some aggressive marketing to buyers with some programs to try and get them buying (perhaps something like a Starbucks card where they get something free for every so many they buy; and IS pays for that freebie, not contributors). If buyers come back and the site works, contributors will be more likely to hang around. I think they need to dump the RC system or revise it massively. At a minimum they need to remove the split between content types that crushed multi-media artists and give credit for sales wherever they occur (Thinkstock etc). All money brought in to Getty should receive RC credit if that's the way they want to measure contributor success. All special discounts to buyers below 95 cents a credit should come out of IS's hide, not contributors'. There's probably a ton more, but I don't expect them to go this route...

Nice post!  but would Getty allow her to run IS, as anything but a cash-cow?  doubt it. Poor Rebecca will be just a fly in the ointment, expected to be even more of a yes-woman then KK, was a yes-man.
I would like to see Becky as a Margaret Thatcher, Iron lady. Yes thats it. They wouldnt mess with that.

[Freedom]

For her own sake, she has to demonstrate her ability to make money for Getty quickly and successfully. Short-term monetary success for Getty is more relevant to her own career than contributors' interest.

Since she was not a part of the old iStock, it is hard to tell if it is a bless or curse.

[TheSmilingAssassin]

.

[rubyroo]

Ban the term wooyay.

[traveler1116]

I put a lot of thought into this.

The first thing I would do would be to increase commissions back to 20%.  Then I would turn it into a communist regime and pool everyone's portfolios into one giant port and divvy the royalties evenly among all the contributors... just to stick it up all exclusives who have been gloating during a time when all the poor independents had their souls crushed.

Who's been gloating?

[lagereek]

Crushed?  I wouldnt go as far as to say that. Im still earning much more out of IS, then their average little exclusive geezer. I dont think for one minute that any die-hard, diamond exclusive is kidding himself, thinking he is imune against coming crazy policies, its the rookies, the grunts who place themselves above, they havent experienced hell,  yet.

[Slovenian]

I put a lot of thought into this.

The first thing I would do would be to increase commissions back to 20%.  Then I would turn it into a communist regime and pool everyone's portfolios into one giant port and divvy the royalties evenly among all the contributors... just to stick it up all exclusives who have been gloating during a time when all the poor independents had their souls crushed.

Communism would be great, but OTOH, current exclusives would start submitting to other sites, which means much more competition for us and lower payments at sites that earn us (way) more (SS in my case)

[VB inc]

seriously... can u independent scrubs stop on hating against exclusives? yes i consider u a scrub if you feel hostility to others just for the fact that they are exclusive.

[Difydave]

I think it depends on whether her mission is to grow IS or manage it as a cash cow - i.e. not invest in it but try to squeeze whatever remaining cash she can.

As H&F are still at the helm and in spite of their $500M payout to themselves last fall they probably want to sell as soon as they can, I'm assuming no investment is coming beyond what's needed to keep the site running.

If cash cow's the goal, I'd remove any opt-in or opt out for contributors and would move content to other Getty properties to see what additional cash could be wrung from it. I'd make soothing speeches in the IS forums about how this was in contributors' best interests. I'd leave the exclusive program in place, but I'd announce more changes that would cut the number of people who make more than 20% as much as possible.

If investment were the goal, they need to get some real software expertise (perhaps via consulting vs. hiring people) and fix the site. They need some aggressive marketing to buyers with some programs to try and get them buying (perhaps something like a Starbucks card where they get something free for every so many they buy; and IS pays for that freebie, not contributors). If buyers come back and the site works, contributors will be more likely to hang around. I think they need to dump the RC system or revise it massively. At a minimum they need to remove the split between content types that crushed multi-media artists and give credit for sales wherever they occur (Thinkstock etc). All money brought in to Getty should receive RC credit if that's the way they want to measure contributor success. All special discounts to buyers below 95 cents a credit should come out of IS's hide, not contributors'. There's probably a ton more, but I don't expect them to go this route...

Good post. I'm cynical enough to think that cash cow is the goal. I've been wondering if and when the cut in the people who make over 20% will come for nearly 12 months now. Listening to some of the wooyays, and some of the "Money doesn't matter to me / I'm not in it for the money" posts I wonder if they couldn't get away with just cutting the exclusive royalty rate, and still have a lot of people say how wonderful it is. Whatever actually happens I'll be very surprised if there is anything that benefits contributors  coming in the near future.

[TheSmilingAssassin]

.

[gostwyck]

I think it depends on whether her mission is to grow IS or manage it as a cash cow - i.e. not invest in it but try to squeeze whatever remaining cash she can.

Exactly __ and that's what is most worrying. My guess is the Rebecca will come breezing in without truly understanding the causes of IS's demise (which of course was operating it for short-term profit). If she simply tries to do more of the same then it is inevitable that she'll just make the problem even worse.

I think the situation at Istock is salvageable but I think to move forward they'd actually have to start with several painful steps backwards. They've got to go back to where they came from, i.e. providing excellent imagery at affordable prices. The practice of filling the top slots of the best match with Vetta/Agency for example was sheer lunacy and bound to alienate a sizable chunk of their clientele. They were able to get away with their arrogance and the frequent site downtime only for as long as the customers were grateful for the service existing.  

Istock need to regain the confidence of their contributors too. The quickest way to do that (possibly the only way) would be to abandon the absurd RC system and return to the original commission structure. The RC system is far too complex and everytime they publish or 'revise' the targets it re-opens old wounds. The notion that the original system was 'unsustainable' was always absurd. Being too f**king greedy is unsustainable. Successful long-term business requires a win-win situation for all parties.

They could help themselves enormously by introducing a proper subscription service and taking on SS at their own game. TS is rubbish and undoubtedly has been a gift rather than a hindrance to SS's ambitions. I wouldn't mind betting that a sizeable chunk of those big-spending customers the Getty salesmen tried to convert to subscriptions ended up buying from SS instead.

[grp_photo]

I would make the upload process very easy and I would increase the amount of files to upload.
I would decrease the royalties of non-exclusives to 10-15% depending on performance also I would mirror all non-exclusive stuff at Thinkstock and Photos.com.
I would reduce the percentage for all Vetta- and TAC-files to Getty's standard of 20%.
I would close the forums and would make a blog instead.
Also I would be very happy with my profitsharing at the end of the year :-).

[MatHayward]

I put a lot of thought into this.

The first thing I would do would be to increase commissions back to 20%.  Then I would turn it into a communist regime and pool everyone's portfolios into one giant port and divvy the royalties evenly among all the contributors... just to stick it up all exclusives who have been gloating during a time when all the poor independents had their souls crushed.

I finally figured out who you are and why you are anonymous:  Barack Obama!  

I think IS is one of..nope, scratch that..it is THE most frustrating site out there.  I am working hard to build up my portfolio on other sites right now.  I am so disgusted with not only the commission rate offered at IS but the uploading process that it boggles my mind that anyone would even consider putting forth any effort there.  

I can't help but think that the uploads have slowed considerably at IS in recent months.  I would really look hard at those numbers to determine if I were going to be falling behind the market pretty quickly as far as new, relevant content is concerned.  It would result in a short term loss more than likely but I would seriously consider increasing the commission and easing the upload process to motivate new image contribution.  Otherwise, in the long term I think they will do some irreparable damage.  

Who knows though..if I really had the job, I'd probably cut the commissions to 5% just to see if people still uploaded

Mat

[lagereek]

I think it depends on whether her mission is to grow IS or manage it as a cash cow - i.e. not invest in it but try to squeeze whatever remaining cash she can.

Exactly __ and that's what is most worrying. My guess is the Rebecca will come breezing in without truly understanding the causes of IS's demise (which of course was operating it for short-term profit). If she simply tries to do more of the same then it is inevitable that she'll just make the problem even worse.

I think the situation at Istock is salvageable but I think to move forward they'd actually have to start with several painful steps backwards. They've got to go back to where they came from, i.e. providing excellent imagery at affordable prices. The practice of filling the top slots of the best match with Vetta/Agency for example was sheer lunacy and bound to alienate a sizable chunk of their clientele. They were able to get away with their arrogance and the frequent site downtime only for as long as the customers were grateful for the service existing.  

Istock need to regain the confidence of their contributors too. The quickest way to do that (possibly the only way) would be to abandon the absurd RC system and return to the original commission structure. The RC system is far too complex and everytime they publish or 'revise' the targets it re-opens old wounds. The notion that the original system was 'unsustainable' was always absurd. Being too f**king greedy is unsustainable. Successful long-term business requires a win-win situation for all parties.

They could help themselves enormously by introducing a proper subscription service and taking on SS at their own game. TS is rubbish and undoubtedly has been a gift rather than a hindrance to SS's ambitions. I wouldn't mind betting that a sizeable chunk of those big-spending customers the Getty salesmen tried to convert to subscriptions ended up buying from SS instead.

Why on earth would you like them to come guning for SS?

[gostwyck]

Why on earth would you like them to come guning for SS?

Read THE THREAD TITLE.

[stockastic]

Obviously you all missed my keenly insightlful post earlier :-)

Those of you who've been in the technology business know how this plays out.  

This is stage 3 of the takeover, where the original management is replaced by "rainmakers" who promise to achieve the unrealistic financial goals that originally sold the buyout.  These guys know that's unlikely to happen, so they demand option grants as incentive to take what is likely to be a temporary job.   In the next stage (the revolving door) a succssion of "rainmakers" pops the rip cords and the golden parachutes open.  

[sharpshot]

I'm sure they lose money by cutting commissions because it leaves us with less money.  People don't work harder or more creatively when their wages are cut.  Any more cuts and it really wont be worth me staying there.  I really couldn't care less about the people that would be willing to work for 5% commission, they aren't going to be producing quality content.  They should be concentrating on cutting costs elsewhere.  They could remove all images over a year with no sales, they are paying to host them all now.  They could get rid of contributors that have a very low acceptance rate.  They cost a lot of money wasting reviewers time.  I'm sure there's lots of things they could do other than hurting their suppliers again.

[cthoman]

I'd probably go for competition crushing. Move the non-exclusives back to a flat 20% and move exclusives to a flat 50%. You'd pay more, but you would probably close down more than half the agencies to the right.

[cobalt]

Great post jsnover!

Let�s see what Rebecca comes up with and what her plans are. She is holding two full time jobs. It is possible she is only there temporarily to get a feel for the place before she finds a new full time manager. Wouldn�t be anything wrong with that either.

But whatever she does, she must increase profit and I think now this means aggressive sales. So at the moment I am optimistic and will try to free up as much time for shooting as I can.

And whatever I upload now will at least go to my portfolio. Whatever the new system is, at least these files will be in.

[grp_photo]

Ban the term wooyay.

LOL :-)

[Jo Ann Snover]

I'd probably go for competition crushing. Move the non-exclusives back to a flat 20% and move exclusives to a flat 50%. You'd pay more, but you would probably close down more than half the agencies to the right.

That might work to keep existing exclusives from bolting, but I can't see anyone (with a large established portfolio) would trust Getty enough to go exclusive at this point. Once they crushed the competition, who thinks they'd keep the 50% for exclusives for more than 10 seconds? Best predictor of future performance is past performance and all that.

To Getty, contributors are just an expense and as such they want to minimize it.

[cthoman]

That might work to keep existing exclusives from bolting, but I can't see anyone (with a large established portfolio) would trust Getty enough to go exclusive at this point. Once they crushed the competition, who thinks they'd keep the 50% for exclusives for more than 10 seconds? Best predictor of future performance is past performance and all that.

To Getty, contributors are just an expense and as such they want to minimize it.

Yeah, definitely true. I guess it would have worked better last fall before they did the RC stuff. I guess they'd have to rebuild trust first. I don't think I'd want to go full exclusive, but I'd probably ditch SS, FT, DT and a few others for 50% at IS. It probably would be worth a call or a poll to some of their top non-exclusives to see what it would take to get them to leave IS's major competition.

[Freedom]

Keep in mind that we contributors will have no say as to how Rebecca performs, just as we can kick and scream about how Kelly does, in the end, it is Klein who makes the call.

Great post jsnover!

Let�s see what Rebecca comes up with and what her plans are. She is holding two full time jobs. It is possible she is only there temporarily to get a feel for the place before she finds a new full time manager. Wouldn�t be anything wrong with that either.

But whatever she does, she must increase profit and I think now this means aggressive sales. So at the moment I am optimistic and will try to free up as much time for shooting as I can.

And whatever I upload now will at least go to my portfolio. Whatever the new system is, at least these files will be in.

[Suljo]

Because of unsustainability I will sell IS to Jon Oringer 

[Sadstock]

That might work to keep existing exclusives from bolting, but I can't see anyone (with a large established portfolio) would trust Getty enough to go exclusive at this point. Once they crushed the competition, who thinks they'd keep the 50% for exclusives for more than 10 seconds? Best predictor of future performance is past performance and all that.

To Getty, contributors are just an expense and as such they want to minimize it.

Yeah, definitely true. I guess it would have worked better last fall before they did the RC stuff. I guess they'd have to rebuild trust first. I don't think I'd want to go full exclusive, but I'd probably ditch SS, FT, DT and a few others for 50% at IS. It probably would be worth a call or a poll to some of their top non-exclusives to see what it would take to get them to leave IS's major competition.

The first thing I would need to return to exclusivity would be trust.  Barring a spin off to Bruce, I don't see a way they can regain it.

[Slovenian]

I'd start paying non-exclusives 30% flat, exclusives 50% flat and 40% for V/A DLs. Trust would be regained, contributors would upload more and with some heavy advertising I'd attract new buyers.

[rene]

I am working hard to build up my portfolio on other sites right now.

Sorry for hijacking this thread but this is so incredible. Mat, are you saying you are no more exclusive FT contributor?

[lisafx]

I am working hard to build up my portfolio on other sites right now.

Sorry for hijacking this thread but this is so incredible. Mat, are you saying you are no more exclusive FT contributor?

Oh, that one slipped right by me.  Is this true Mat?   

[luissantos84]

I am working hard to build up my portfolio on other sites right now.

Sorry for hijacking this thread but this is so incredible. Mat, are you saying you are no more exclusive FT contributor?

Oh, that one slipped right by me.  Is this true Mat?   

if I remember well Mat posts it is about Editorial stuff which FT allow

[MatHayward]

I am working hard to build up my portfolio on other sites right now.

Sorry for hijacking this thread but this is so incredible. Mat, are you saying you are no more exclusive FT contributor?

Oh, that one slipped right by me.  Is this true Mat?   

It is true but we probably shouldn't discuss it here.  I mentioned it a bit in this thread...

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ss-editorial-pricing/

Sorry for the hijack!

Mat

[qwerty]

just remember all those people coming up with funny and evil suggestions that Istock will read them and implement them.

My business plan if I was the new managing director at Istock we'd all get ponies

[rubyroo]

Receiving a pony would be a childhood dream come true! 

Thanks for cheering me up today 

[gclk]

Regardless of the fact that iStock have taken more commission over the past year than any previous year, even the most blind-faith iStock wooyayer would have to admit that in terms of the company's reputation, the past 12 months have been a disaster.

With high profile industry bods seizing on Kelly's words with gleefull 'haha, microstock is unsustainable' claims, the management strategy seemed to quickly move towards a keep-a-low-profile-and-hope-it-goes-away strategy, until months later the ill-advised, partly denied/partly corrected interview, where Kelly achieved very little more than further alienating any iStock suppliers who weren't already 100% hacked off.  Oh, and he let it slip that payouts to artists - which he'd promised would be rising - had fallen.

Rebecca has an opportunity to freshen up what's been negligantly allowed to become an extremely stale and negative situation.  She could and should act fast with a fresh attitude, and make a positive difference.  There are many thousands of active contributors who could still be turned back from their anger towards some level of enthusiasm for iStock.

She may not have a background in photography, but she has got a background in start-ups so she must understand the power of goodwill and word of mouth.  The power that's worked against iStock for 12 months.

A Pony for every contributor and the chance for people to invest in iStock at a subsidised price would be a good start 

[ShadySue]

My business plan if I was the new managing director at Istock we'd all get ponies

How many? I mean, �25, bleagh; 100 ponies good, 1000 ponies better.

[qwerty]

My business plan if I was the new managing director at Istock we'd all get ponies

How many? I mean, �25, bleagh; 100 ponies good, 1000 ponies better.

Two options, cause I'm a good boss and Istock will now be run through the results MSG polls 

1) The amount of ponies you would get would be subject to a redeemed pony system (known as RP) which would reward the hard working ones among you. I will announce the RP target exactly 4 months after I promise and it will it will be unachievable to get more than the bottom level of pony allocations. If for some reason someone does I will change the levels. The ponies for the bottom two levels will actually be virtual ponies as its hard to actually send them via paypal. The virtual pony program will be written personally by Lobo and needless to say it won't work. We will spend no money or time on it as that would be unsustainable.
2) For every 100 sales you get 1 pony, Partner program will now be changed to PP (Pony Program) which will now pay 100c per download to allow the purchase of hay for your pony collection.

After all it's not money that will make you happy but ponies.

[ShadySue]

You were really talking about ponies, and not �25s!!! LOL!
Nice scheme. Make mine pink!

[luissantos84]

My business plan if I was the new managing director at Istock we'd all get ponies

How many? I mean, �25, bleagh; 100 ponies good, 1000 ponies better.

Two options, cause I'm a good boss and Istock will now be run through the results MSG polls  

1) The amount of ponies you would get would be subject to a redeemed pony system (known as RP) which would reward the hard working ones among you. I will announce the RP target exactly 4 months after I promise and it will it will be unachievable to get more than the bottom level of pony allocations. If for some reason someone does I will change the levels. The ponies for the bottom two levels will actually be virtual ponies as its hard to actually send them via paypal. The virtual pony program will be written personally by Lobo and needless to say it won't work. We will spend no money or time on it as that would be unsustainable.
2) For every 100 sales you get 1 pony, Partner program will now be changed to PP (Pony Program) which will now pay 100c per download to allow the purchase of hay for your pony collection.

After all it's not money that will make you happy but ponies.

ROTF! write a book about IS, stock, whatever I will buy it, freakin hilarious!

[dcdp]

It is interesting. I started a thread on iStock a month or so ago titled "If I were the CEO of iStock, the first 5 changes I would make are:" ...

The thread got shut down immediately unfortunately. I wonder if I should try again, in light of these most recent changes.

[Jo Ann Snover]

The only question is whether your new thread would get locked faster or more slowly than your last.

If and when they wish to solicit contributor input (and I'm not holding my breath), I think they'll explicitly say so. Until then, the days of paying attention to contributor concerns expressed in the forums are over.

[qwerty]

You were really talking about ponies, and not �25s!!! LOL!
Nice scheme. Make mine pink!

Is pony slang for 25 pounds ? When I was travelling in England some guy I was talking to the pub
was going on about getting a "monkey" in your pocket and going down to the dodgy homeloan office and buying a house. A pony where I'm from is slang for a 200ml glass of beer.

Yes I was talking about real ponies

[lagereek]

You were really talking about ponies, and not �25s!!! LOL!
Nice scheme. Make mine pink!

Is pony slang for 25 pounds ? When I was travelling in England some guy I was talking to the pub
was going on about getting a "monkey" in your pocket and going down to the dodgy homeloan office and buying a house. A pony where I'm from is slang for a 200ml glass of beer.

Yes I was talking about real ponies

British slang!  poney, monkey, grand, quid, score, ton.  trouble and strife= wife.  spend a penny= having a piss.

[gclk]

I'd ask all iStockphoto staff for their opinions on why there's such a negative attitude towards iStockphoto on the site's forum, on public forums like this, and in the wider industry.  And I'd ask them what they believe could/should be done to improve things.

Then I'd ask the same questions of groups of customers and contributors.

Using the information gained I'd move quickly, and set about restoring confidence in the site and the brand.

I might even come up with a Google-like "Don't be evil" mantra, and then make sure the company sticks to it.

[VB inc]

I'd ask all iStockphoto staff for their opinions on why there's such a negative attitude towards iStockphoto on the site's forum, on public forums like this, and in the wider industry.  And I'd ask them what they believe could/should be done to improve things.

Then I'd ask the same questions of groups of customers and contributors.

Using the information gained I'd move quickly, and set about restoring confidence in the site and the brand.

I might even come up with a Google-like "Don't be evil" mantra, and then make sure the company sticks to it.

nice ideas. unfortunately none of this will matter if the main objective for the managing director is to hit a certain amount of revenue this year.

[gclk]

I'd ask all iStockphoto staff for their opinions on why there's such a negative attitude towards iStockphoto on the site's forum, on public forums like this, and in the wider industry.  And I'd ask them what they believe could/should be done to improve things.

Then I'd ask the same questions of groups of customers and contributors.

Using the information gained I'd move quickly, and set about restoring confidence in the site and the brand.

I might even come up with a Google-like "Don't be evil" mantra, and then make sure the company sticks to it.

nice ideas. unfortunately none of this will matter if the main objective for the managing director is to hit a certain amount of revenue this year.

Really?  If there is a negative attitude towards the company across buyers, contributors and the wider industry, wouldn't you expect that to be quite important to revenues?

[gostwyck]

Really?  If there is a negative attitude towards the company across buyers, contributors and the wider industry, wouldn't you expect that to be quite important to revenues?

It should but they chose to sacrifice that in favour of short-term profits and it looks as if they may now be paying the price.

The reason that Apple have $75B (yes, really) cash in the bank is because people will buy whatever they make at whatever price;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14340470

The way a business is perceived can be astonishingly valuable.

[john_woodcock]

people will buy whatever they make at whatever price;

This is of course nonsense. People buy Apple because the product is reliable, well designed and , in the case of creatives, is the industry standard equipment.

[RacePhoto]

It is interesting. I started a thread on iStock a month or so ago titled "If I were the CEO of iStock, the first 5 changes I would make are:" ...

The thread got shut down immediately unfortunately. I wonder if I should try again, in light of these most recent changes.

Translation:  "if we want your opinion, we'll ask for it, and then ignore it!" 

Sounds like a fair enough subject unless the fist replies were all negative and critical instead of brainstorming or positive. Didn't read it, I waste enough time reading and writing here. LOL

[dcdp]

It is interesting. I started a thread on iStock a month or so ago titled "If I were the CEO of iStock, the first 5 changes I would make are:" ...

The thread got shut down immediately unfortunately. I wonder if I should try again, in light of these most recent changes.

Translation:  "if we want your opinion, we'll ask for it, and then ignore it!" 

Sounds like a fair enough subject unless the fist replies were all negative and critical instead of brainstorming or positive. Didn't read it, I waste enough time reading and writing here. LOL

It actually got shut down before anyone could reply!

Interesting now they have just announced they're sending out a survey to ask people's opinions and to get feedback and suggestions. They actually already have a forum for that which routinely gets ignored.

[Shank_ali]

Don't let Shank_ali back on the forum until he has learnt his lesson...