POLL: Will iStock throw a bone to contributors?

tee

« on: November 30, 2011, 23:32 »

#link

If they don't, what will you do as a contributor? If they do, will the gesture do anything to boost your trust?


	Ignore \| Logged

Sadstock

« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2011, 23:57 »

#link

nothing, no

And they know that all to well.


	Ignore \| Logged

Noedelhap

« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2011, 00:14 »

#link

Quote from: tee on November 30, 2011, 23:32

If they don't, what will you do as a contributor? If they do, will the gesture do anything to boost your trust?

I can't do anything really.

And no, my trust in them is long gone.


	Ignore \| Logged

tee

« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2011, 00:27 »

#link

From the iS forum (my emphasis):

Quote

Posted By dcdp:

JJRD - do the recent issues point towards significant changes being made in the backend of the site? Or are they just ongoing recent issues? There does seem to be a recent proliferation of problems for which the fixes are being put off for some reason. I'd hope that, in the long term, these would be beneficial to all, even if, in the short term, they are painful.

Additionally, the buyers have been offered a 15% discount on credits purchased because of this outage as a short term apology for their difficulties. I suspect this will be worn by the contributors who have not only suffered from an ongoing inability to manage their own portfolio, upload images, and maintain their portfolio, but now have been unable to sell anything because, in the case of exclusive contributors, their sole distributor is off line. What will iStock do to recompense contributors?

Quote

Posted by JJRD:

Let's focus on clients at this stage, come on - the site just came back.

Part of this massive technological overhaul is intended to facilitate everybody's experience with iStock - and it will.

So yeah, that's a big N.O. as far as I can tell.


	Ignore \| Logged

pancaketom

« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2011, 00:32 »

#link

they will probably double vetta RC or something to help out the chosen few.

When the house was on fire, IS threw a lifebuoy now that there is a flood, they will hit us with a fire-extinguisher.

anybody want to take odds on when the next site outage will be?


	Ignore \| Logged

Susan S.

« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2011, 00:35 »

#link

Not much of a chance.


	Ignore \| Logged

trek

« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2011, 00:36 »

#link

They might throw a bone at us.... but not to us.


	Ignore \| Logged

tee

« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2011, 01:51 »

#link

Quote from: trek on December 01, 2011, 00:36

They might throw a bone at us.... but not to us.

Heh, you might be right.


	Ignore \| Logged

Lagereek

« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2011, 02:08 »

#link

No bones left to throw, all they can hope for is survival.


	Ignore \| Logged

jsnover

Premium Member

« Reply #9 on: December 01, 2011, 02:25 »

#link

To the best of my knowledge they have never done anything to compensate contributors for lost income, so I can't see why they'd start now. They're hell bent on cutting costs and don't care if contributors leave (the site or exclusivity); if you looked at this event from their viewpoint, what would they think they would gain by spending more money to say sorry to contributors?


	Ignore \| Logged

briciola

« Reply #10 on: December 01, 2011, 04:19 »

#link

Quote from: tee on December 01, 2011, 00:27

From the iS forum (my emphasis):

Quote

So yeah, that's a big N.O. as far as I can tell.

Apparently just hearing words from JJRD is enough to instill confidence in some...what am I missing? The guy speaks in code and like KK before him puts a positive spin on their failings. Isn't this the same guy who "puts his ass on the line for contributors", as sales disappear, management actively push people to the PP, the site gets continually worse...why do these fools put such faith in this spin doctor???


	Ignore \| Logged

tee

« Reply #11 on: December 01, 2011, 04:35 »

#link

Quote from: briciola on December 01, 2011, 04:19

Yeah I'm always surprised at this point to hear anything overly positive from anyone who's been on the site for more than a year. But the good to bad comments are still like 1/10.


	Ignore \| Logged

sharpshot

« Reply #12 on: December 01, 2011, 04:55 »

#link

I don't know why so many of us non-exclusives waste time thinking about istock. Things aren't going to get any better for us there until there's a big change in direction. That might never happen. There's lots of other sites, why do we spend so much time discussing istock? I've gone past caring, if they don't improve soon, I might as well leave. Just think of all the extra time we would have if we didn't need to discuss all these continual problems with istock.


	Ignore \| Logged

tee

« Reply #13 on: December 01, 2011, 05:00 »

#link

Quote from: sharpshot on December 01, 2011, 04:55

You're right, as an indy it would be much easier to quantify the importance of iS, since you can compare it with other sites. Us exclusives are in the unfortunate position of not knowing if the grass is greener or not, but it's sure as hell looking that way these days. Undecided


	Ignore \| Logged

jamirae

Premium Member

« Reply #14 on: December 01, 2011, 08:49 »

#link

Quote from: tee on December 01, 2011, 00:27

From the iS forum (my emphasis):

Quote

So yeah, that's a big N.O. as far as I can tell.


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

Premium Member

« Reply #15 on: December 01, 2011, 08:56 »

#link

Quote from: jamirae on December 01, 2011, 08:49

Quote

Posted by JJRD:
Let's focus on clients at this stage, come on - the site just came back.
Part of this massive technological overhaul is intended to facilitate everybody's experience with iStock - and it will.

So yeah, that's a big N.O. as far as I can tell.

Let me translate that response from JJRD. What he is really saying is;
"you ungrateful clod! Just being associated with itsock is your recompense! Now go back to making more images that we can sell and make loads of money off while we throw you chump change.
Oh and dont make me send Lobo after you by posting some snarky followup, either."
[/quote]

Yup, you hit the nail on the head.

The only thing they might do is lower the RC targets oh-so-slightly, or make allowances for those within a few hundred of the target. (Which they said they would do last year, but didn't.)


	Ignore \| Logged

OhGoAway!

« Reply #16 on: December 01, 2011, 08:57 »

#link

Someone on facebook just posted:
Dear iStock: "Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks." -- Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway, CEO

I'm not sure whether it's directed at iStock tech folks (just scrap the site and start over), or toward the contributors Cheesy


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

Premium Member

« Reply #17 on: December 01, 2011, 09:28 »

#link

Quote from: OhGoAway! on December 01, 2011, 08:57

Ha, well, possibly right on both counts.
I hope the money scrimping isn't preventing them from actively working on a new tech base in the background and when it's ready they can extensively and comprehensively test it (something they seem not to have built into their workflow in the past) using a wide range of testers from outwith the team and management and migrate the site over.
KEEPING the old gubbins 'just in case'.

If they can't do this on a probable average of c75% of their takings, the business really is unsustainable and should be abandoned.


	Ignore \| Logged

gostwyck

« Reply #18 on: December 01, 2011, 09:54 »

#link

Quote from: jamirae on December 01, 2011, 08:49

Thanks for that __ very helpful. I had absolutely no idea what Member JJRD was talking about until you clarified his thoughts.


	Ignore \| Logged

rubyroo

« Reply #19 on: December 01, 2011, 09:56 »

#link

I think that no, they won't throw a bone.

What I will do if they don't? What I've been doing for ages anyway... continue to treat iStock as a low priority agency for my uploads. As long as an agency treats contributors as second-class citizens, I'll treat them as a second-class agency.

Love the reinterpretation by jamirae. That's just how it came across to me also, but I couldn't have rephrased it so perfectly.


« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 10:14 by rubyroo »	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #20 on: December 01, 2011, 11:21 »

#link

Quote from: ShadySue on December 01, 2011, 08:56

The only thing they might do is lower the RC targets oh-so-slightly, or make allowances for those within a few hundred of the target. (Which they said they would do last year, but didn't.)

I know of at least one person for whom they did make an allowance (she missed her target by 12 RCs, IIRC).


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

Premium Member

« Reply #21 on: December 01, 2011, 11:43 »

#link

Quote from: KB on December 01, 2011, 11:21

Quote from: ShadySue on December 01, 2011, 08:56

The only thing they might do is lower the RC targets oh-so-slightly, or make allowances for those within a few hundred of the target. (Which they said they would do last year, but didn't.)

I know of at least one person for whom they did make an allowance (she missed her target by 12 RCs, IIRC).

Oops, my mistake.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #22 on: December 01, 2011, 12:36 »

#link

Quote from: ShadySue on December 01, 2011, 11:43

Quote from: KB on December 01, 2011, 11:21

Quote from: ShadySue on December 01, 2011, 08:56

The only thing they might do is lower the RC targets oh-so-slightly, or make allowances for those within a few hundred of the target. (Which they said they would do last year, but didn't.)

I know of at least one person for whom they did make an allowance (she missed her target by 12 RCs, IIRC).

Oops, my mistake.

Well, of course, I know of another contributor who was just 200 RCs away for whom they wouldn't do it. Cheesy


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

Premium Member

« Reply #23 on: December 01, 2011, 13:39 »

#link

Quote from: KB on December 01, 2011, 12:36

Quote from: ShadySue on December 01, 2011, 11:43

Quote from: KB on December 01, 2011, 11:21

Quote from: ShadySue on December 01, 2011, 08:56

The only thing they might do is lower the RC targets oh-so-slightly, or make allowances for those within a few hundred of the target. (Which they said they would do last year, but didn't.)

I know of at least one person for whom they did make an allowance (she missed her target by 12 RCs, IIRC).

Oops, my mistake.

Well, of course, I know of another contributor who was just 200 RCs away for whom they wouldn't do it. Cheesy

That's the one I was thinking about. Wink