Author Topic: Layoffs at istock (Read 35004 times)

lagereek · « **Reply #500 on:** January 22, 2012, 12:49 »

Quote from: Pixart on January 22, 2012, 12:20

Quote from: Mantis on January 22, 2012, 08:48
Quote from: lagereek on January 22, 2012, 08:32
I actually photographed this ship in the port of Stockholm a few years back, was a job for the port of Stockholm authorities, their cruising magazin.

It'll be very interesting to see how and/or what they actually do with it now. Remove it? Remove it a piece at a time? Clean it, then sink it in deeper water? I saw something on the news that a ship of this type costs $500,000,000. WOWZ!!

It took me a minute to decide if you were referring to the ship or to Istock.

Good one! Pixart!

, what they do with it? God knows, they might tow it out on deeper water and sink it, after saving expensive equipment ofcourse.

cclapper · « **Reply #501 on:** January 22, 2012, 13:29 »

Quote from: Pixart on January 22, 2012, 12:20

Quote from: Mantis on January 22, 2012, 08:48
Quote from: lagereek on January 22, 2012, 08:32
I actually photographed this ship in the port of Stockholm a few years back, was a job for the port of Stockholm authorities, their cruising magazin.

It'll be very interesting to see how and/or what they actually do with it now. Remove it? Remove it a piece at a time? Clean it, then sink it in deeper water? I saw something on the news that a ship of this type costs $500,000,000. WOWZ!!

It took me a minute to decide if you were referring to the ship or to Istock.

Yes, certainly a lot of parallels!

Karimala · « **Reply #502 on:** January 22, 2012, 15:44 »

Quote from: caspixel on January 22, 2012, 10:46

It's the way of American big business, where the uber-wealthy CEOs sit in their ivory towers, insulated from the riff raff, disconnected from the real world. When are people going to realize, they will never get the answers they seek from Getty? Getty will do what Getty wants and only inform you of the decisions after they are already implemented. Or do people just not pay attention to their past performance?

Your comment reminds me of a piece in the Wall Street Journal that appeared yesterday, The New American Divide. While it's about the growing cultural divide between the upper-middle class and the working class, the same can be said for CEOs and the workers in their companies, especially in a situation like the one we face with IS/Getty/H&F. Has anyone from H&F ever taken the time to walk among us?

Disclaimer: I'm making no claim about agreeing or disagreeing with the author's opinions for solutions.

jamirae · « **Reply #503 on:** January 22, 2012, 16:20 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 20, 2012, 19:14

In all fairness, I wouldn't begrudge anyone the opportunity to say goodbye to JJ or anyone else who has gotten the boot from Getty. We've all been treated shabbily by them, and now it appears that long-time Istock administrators are no longer exempt. I never met any of these folks, and as a non-exclusive, seldom had any personal dealings with them. If I had I would probably be joining the chorus of well-wishers though.

Also, these latest developments have got to be a massive blow to Istock exclusives. I doubt any of us who are non-exclusive can understand the degree to which these changes are going to affect many exclusives on a personal and emotional level. I know the comment about Kim Jung Il's funeral was a joke, but this really is a grieving process for a lot of people.

I have to agree with Lisa here. If you don't like the posts to JJRD, then just stay out of that thread. There's always some posturing and nonsense in those types of threads but many sincere posts as well. Besides, he's going to be around as an admin for a few more months and staying on as a contributor. So just let the thread die out on its own.

Hobgoblin · « **Reply #504 on:** January 22, 2012, 16:39 »

I feel like the biggest sucker in the world. After 6 months spent dismantling my portfolios at SS, DT and FT, I have just gone exclusive with IS. So far, I am on track this month to outstrip my total earnings as an independent - despite the fact that SS was a far greater earner for me than IS. I thought I had landed in stock heaven! But my joy hasn't lasted long. I think it may be a fool's paradise.

caspixel · « **Reply #505 on:** January 22, 2012, 16:56 »

Quote from: Karimala on January 22, 2012, 15:44

Quote from: caspixel on January 22, 2012, 10:46
It's the way of American big business, where the uber-wealthy CEOs sit in their ivory towers, insulated from the riff raff, disconnected from the real world. When are people going to realize, they will never get the answers they seek from Getty? Getty will do what Getty wants and only inform you of the decisions after they are already implemented. Or do people just not pay attention to their past performance?

Your comment reminds me of a piece in the Wall Street Journal that appeared yesterday, The New American Divide. While it's about the growing cultural divide between the upper-middle class and the working class, the same can be said for CEOs and the workers in their companies, especially in a situation like the one we face with IS/Getty/H&F. Has anyone from H&F ever taken the time to walk among us?

Disclaimer: I'm making no claim about agreeing or disagreeing with the author's opinions for solutions.

Wow. That author's hypothesis is as much fiction as the neighborhoods he used to back up his wildly inaccurate analysis, though I shouldn't be surprised coming from the WSJ and a conservative think tank. Typical blame progressive policies and not looking AT ALL at how conservative polices and the wealthy are shaping this country. The only thing I agree with is that there is a divide.

Added: He really makes me sick with his suggestions that the wealthy should go out and give the poor a positive moral example, like those cut-throat rapacious bullies should be held up as an example for ANYTHING ETHICAL. How would everyone feel if Jonathon Klein came out of his ivory tower to walk amongst all you lowly contributors, holding himself up as an example of how "moral" you should be? Yuck! I think I need a shower.

This post from the comment section sums up the article perfectly:

Quote

Here's a translation summary of Charles Murray's latest hack piece on behalf of the elite which employs him as Court Philosopher:

1) "Industriousness:...The primary indicator of the erosion of industriousness in the working class..."

Translation: The reason you are unemployed/underemployed is that you are a lazy bum.

2) "To illustrate just how wide the gap has grown between the new upper class and the new lower class, let me start with the broader upper-middle and working classes from which they are drawn, using two fictional neighborhoods that I hereby label Belmont"

Translation: "Let me make things up"

2) "For explaining the formation of the new lower class, the easy explanations from the left don't withstand scrutiny. It's not that white working class males can no longer make a "family wage" that enables them to marry."

Translation: "Let me manufacture and beat upon a strawman"

3) "The average male employed in a working-class occupation earned as much in 2010 as he did in 1960."

Translation: "How To Lie With Statistics", by Darrell Huff

4) "It's not that a bad job market led discouraged men to drop out of the labor force"

Translation: "Why stop at just an imaginary town? Why not also an imaginary history, where the massive manufacturing offshoring and Wall St. three-card monte games of the past 30 years never happened in the first place?"

5) "As I've argued in much of my previous work, I think that the reforms of the 1960s jump-started the deterioration."

Translation: "The eternal, imaginary Cadillac-driving Welfare Queen did it, not the plutocrats who cut checks for my conservative think-tank gigs."

6) "The economic value of brains in the marketplace will continue to increase no matter what, and the most successful of each generation will tend to marry each other no matter what."

Translation: "The rich are genetically superior to you peons."

7) "Increasing scholarships for working-class children won't make a difference."

Translation: "Because your children are likewise genetically inferior, there's no point in wasting any money on them."

"Changes in marginal tax rates on the wealthy won't make a difference."

Translation: "On behalf of the bigwigs who sign my checks -- let's cut to the chase."

jsnover · « **Reply #506 on:** January 22, 2012, 17:07 »

Quote from: Hobgoblin on January 22, 2012, 16:39

I feel like the biggest sucker in the world. After 6 months spent dismantling my portfolios at SS, DT and FT, I have just gone exclusive with IS. So far, I am on track this month to outstrip my total earnings as an independent - despite the fact that SS was a far greater earner for me than IS. I thought I had landed in stock heaven! But my joy hasn't lasted long. I think it may be a fool's paradise.

I don't think I'd have done what you did at this time (I went exclusive in Aug 2008 and left June 2011) but don't waste energy beating yourself up over what's done. You need to look forward now and decide how long to stay with exclusivity. It may take them a while to cut royalty rates and do some of the other things I'm virtually certain will come. Use the time to make a plan for what next. I'm sure there's a bigger sucker out there somewhere

gostwyck · « **Reply #507 on:** January 22, 2012, 17:23 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 22, 2012, 17:07

I don't think I'd have done what you did at this time (I went exclusive in Aug 2008 and left June 2011) but don't waste energy beating yourself up over what's done. You need to look forward now and decide how long to stay with exclusivity. It may take them a while to cut royalty rates and do some of the other things I'm virtually certain will come. Use the time to make a plan for what next. I'm sure there's a bigger sucker out there somewhere

I'm not so sure that Istock will cut royalty rates. I think they've already pushed them down too far and they know it. Governments know that if they increase taxes beyond a certain point then revenue starts to decrease as the incentive to work is reduced and the incentive to avoid the tax, via loopholes, is increased. Istock has already gone beyond that 'sweet spot'. People keep making references to the 20% that Getty pay but Istock operates in a very different market for contributors that Getty does.

If sales continue to fall, which they probably will, then Istock may simply be forced to take action, however unpalatable, to stop exclusives * their crowns. I don't think the picture is rosy for exclusives, not by a long way, but can Istock/Getty afford to sit on their hands and do nothing whilst their business slowly evaporates? It's not as if they are unaware of the strength of feeling regarding the royalty rates.

Equus · « **Reply #508 on:** January 22, 2012, 18:40 »

When exclusives talk about how good or bad their sales are, it would be really interesting if they could please also mention what royalty rate they are on.

KB · « **Reply #509 on:** January 22, 2012, 20:19 »

Quote from: cobalt on January 21, 2012, 21:21

I see a lot of new members popping up here. Looks like msg will be even more powerful as the main business platform of the industry.

Too bad that platform can't include selling images.

CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production · « **Reply #510 on:** January 22, 2012, 22:49 »

Quote from: lagereek on January 22, 2012, 12:49

Quote from: Pixart on January 22, 2012, 12:20
Quote from: Mantis on January 22, 2012, 08:48
Quote from: lagereek on January 22, 2012, 08:32
I actually photographed this ship in the port of Stockholm a few years back, was a job for the port of Stockholm authorities, their cruising magazin.

It'll be very interesting to see how and/or what they actually do with it now. Remove it? Remove it a piece at a time? Clean it, then sink it in deeper water? I saw something on the news that a ship of this type costs $500,000,000. WOWZ!!

It took me a minute to decide if you were referring to the ship or to Istock.

Good one! Pixart! , what they do with it? God knows, they might tow it out on deeper water and sink it, after saving expensive equipment ofcourse.

Based on my experience from working with shipping at JPMorgan I would say that based on steel value alone it will be salvaged. Also considering environmental and reputational issues I would say it definitely will be salvaged. Big question is whether it will be repaired or turned into scrap. My gut feeling is that they will be able to get "it lifted" enough to get it to a dry-dock where it will be repaired, change of name likely, but unlucky....

Pixart · « **Reply #511 on:** January 23, 2012, 00:11 »

January must be the month to clean house. Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis are gone from RIM today (Blackberry).

sharpshot · « **Reply #512 on:** January 23, 2012, 03:07 »

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on January 22, 2012, 22:49

Quote from: lagereek on January 22, 2012, 12:49
Quote from: Pixart on January 22, 2012, 12:20
Quote from: Mantis on January 22, 2012, 08:48
Quote from: lagereek on January 22, 2012, 08:32
I actually photographed this ship in the port of Stockholm a few years back, was a job for the port of Stockholm authorities, their cruising magazin.

It'll be very interesting to see how and/or what they actually do with it now. Remove it? Remove it a piece at a time? Clean it, then sink it in deeper water? I saw something on the news that a ship of this type costs $500,000,000. WOWZ!!

It took me a minute to decide if you were referring to the ship or to Istock.

Good one! Pixart! , what they do with it? God knows, they might tow it out on deeper water and sink it, after saving expensive equipment ofcourse.

Based on my experience from working with shipping at JPMorgan I would say that based on steel value alone it will be salvaged. Also considering environmental and reputational issues I would say it definitely will be salvaged. Big question is whether it will be repaired or turned into scrap. My gut feeling is that they will be able to get "it lifted" enough to get it to a dry-dock where it will be repaired, change of name likely, but unlucky....

I thought they said on the news that they were going to cut it up where it is now. It looks too big to move cost effectively and the damage looks too severe to repair.

gostwyck · « **Reply #513 on:** January 23, 2012, 04:02 »

Quote from: Pixart on January 23, 2012, 00:11

January must be the month to clean house. Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis are gone from RIM today (Blackberry).

Hmmm __ here's the BBC's Tim Weber's view of it;

"Analysis

Tim Weber

Business editor, BBC News website

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The departure of RIM's co-chief executives was long overdue. Not even troubled computer giant Hewlett-Packard - which lost two CEOs in less than a year - was as bad a technology car crash as Research In Motion.

Here was a company that defined what smartphones were all about; that had cornered the oh-so-important corporate market; that had made serious inroads into the youth market with cheap entry-level smartphones. And then threw it all away in an orgy of poor executive decisions, lacklustre innovation, unkept promises in delivering new product and - the greatest sin of all - a total lack of understanding that its part of the tech industry was undergoing a fundamental shift.

First Apple, then Google managed to eat the Blackberry pie, and RIM did nothing to stop them. The company's new boss will have to work very hard to keep RIM in the smartphone game."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16675452

gclk · « **Reply #514 on:** January 23, 2012, 08:04 »

On top of the redundancies it's not encouraging to see that - far as I can tell from www.istockphoto.com/istock_careers - there are no open positions at any level or skillset at the company.

michealo · « **Reply #515 on:** January 23, 2012, 08:12 »

Quote from: gclk on January 23, 2012, 08:04

On top of the redundancies it's not encouraging to see that - far as I can tell from www.istockphoto.com/istock_careers - there are no open positions at any level or skillset at the company.

that makes perfect sense, if you had an open position you would offer it to someone who was there

gclk · « **Reply #516 on:** January 23, 2012, 08:54 »

Quote from: michealo on January 23, 2012, 08:12

Quote from: gclk on January 23, 2012, 08:04
On top of the redundancies it's not encouraging to see that - far as I can tell from www.istockphoto.com/istock_careers - there are no open positions at any level or skillset at the company.

that makes perfect sense, if you had an open position you would offer it to someone who was there

Maybe when that's possible, but a person in charge of the global content team might not want, or be qualified to take a graduate level junior programming position (for example).

ShadySue · « **Reply #517 on:** January 23, 2012, 09:27 »

Quote from: gclk on January 23, 2012, 08:54

Quote from: michealo on January 23, 2012, 08:12
Quote from: gclk on January 23, 2012, 08:04
On top of the redundancies it's not encouraging to see that - far as I can tell from www.istockphoto.com/istock_careers - there are no open positions at any level or skillset at the company.

that makes perfect sense, if you had an open position you would offer it to someone who was there

Maybe when that's possible, but a person in charge of the global content team might not want, or be qualified to take a graduate level junior programming position (for example).

It's maybe not the best climate for people looking for a job to think that an iStock job might be a lasting career.

jamirae · « **Reply #518 on:** January 23, 2012, 09:30 »

Quote from: gclk on January 23, 2012, 08:04

On top of the redundancies it's not encouraging to see that - far as I can tell from www.istockphoto.com/istock_careers - there are no open positions at any level or skillset at the company.

That's because you are looking in the wrong place. This is now Getty, not iStock. Check here and you'll see a boatload of job openings for Seattle along with many others sprinkled around the world.
http://www.gettyimagesjobs.com/

lisafx · « **Reply #519 on:** January 23, 2012, 13:40 »

Quote from: jamirae on January 23, 2012, 09:30

Quote from: gclk on January 23, 2012, 08:04
On top of the redundancies it's not encouraging to see that - far as I can tell from www.istockphoto.com/istock_careers - there are no open positions at any level or skillset at the company.

That's because you are looking in the wrong place. This is now Getty, not iStock. Check here and you'll see a boatload of job openings for Seattle along with many others sprinkled around the world.
http://www.gettyimagesjobs.com/

Good point Jami. But wouldn't you think they'd offer some of those Getty jobs to Istock people rather than just laying them off? Seems odd, but then I don't claim to understand the workings of the corporate mindset...

jamirae · « **Reply #520 on:** January 23, 2012, 13:42 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 23, 2012, 13:40

Quote from: jamirae on January 23, 2012, 09:30
Quote from: gclk on January 23, 2012, 08:04
On top of the redundancies it's not encouraging to see that - far as I can tell from www.istockphoto.com/istock_careers - there are no open positions at any level or skillset at the company.

That's because you are looking in the wrong place. This is now Getty, not iStock. Check here and you'll see a boatload of job openings for Seattle along with many others sprinkled around the world.
http://www.gettyimagesjobs.com/

Good point Jami. But wouldn't you think they'd offer some of those Getty jobs to Istock people rather than just laying them off? Seems odd, but then I don't claim to understand the workings of the corporate mindset...

right.. The ethical and moral thing to do would be to offer them to istock staff first. Although maybe they did and no one wanted to move, we don't really know for sure. However, I'm betting on the corporate mindset that they just cleaned out from the place they are taking over so that they could begin filling it with their own hand-picked staff. Sadly, that's the way it usually works - nothing fair about it.

lisafx · « **Reply #521 on:** January 23, 2012, 13:50 »

Quote from: jamirae on January 23, 2012, 13:42

right.. The ethical and moral thing to do would be to offer them to istock staff first. Although maybe they did and no one wanted to move, we don't really know for sure. However, I'm betting on the corporate mindset that they just cleaned out from the place they are taking over so that they could begin filling it with their own hand-picked staff. Sadly, that's the way it usually works - nothing fair about it.

I'm sure you're right. Disgraceful though.

Karimala · « **Reply #522 on:** January 23, 2012, 14:10 »

It's cheaper to fire employees and hire new people in another location than it is to relocate existing employees.

sjlocke · « **Reply #523 on:** January 23, 2012, 14:11 »

Quote from: Karimala on January 23, 2012, 14:10

It's cheaper to fire employees and hire new people in another location than it is to relocate existing employees.

It also may be that the current employees were considered and not chosen as the best people for what needed to be done.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #524 on:** January 23, 2012, 14:36 »

Quote from: jamirae on January 23, 2012, 09:30

Quote from: gclk on January 23, 2012, 08:04
On top of the redundancies it's not encouraging to see that - far as I can tell from www.istockphoto.com/istock_careers - there are no open positions at any level or skillset at the company.

That's because you are looking in the wrong place. This is now Getty, not iStock. Check here and you'll see a boatload of job openings for Seattle along with many others sprinkled around the world.
http://www.gettyimagesjobs.com/

General response, not directed at you personally:

True and for those less likely to find corporate snakes hiding under ever rock. Most people don't want to re-locate! Spouses have jobs, maybe a better paying one? Children have schools and friends, people have families. It's a freakin different country!

If you were asked to move to Canada would you leave the US? (for those who live in the US and are calling Getty unethical, immoral, disgraceful or unfair, without anything concrete? We don't know who's gone, how many or what happened to them. But the big nasty Getty has been so mean and unfair?) For the rest... Would you leave your country and move to Seattle?

I hear the coffee is good there and the climate is kind of mild? Someone may want to sell their home, leave town, have their partner leave their job, and go to Seattle, for what? Working for Getty in an unsure market, for a company in transition, where people are getting let go? Would you do that?

So consider why many people won't be moving because of personal reasons. It's not always the big bad corporation wolf!