MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: This is what got my iStock forum privileges and sitemail access revoked  (Read 102429 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: September 20, 2010, 00:59 »
0
Its even more fun when you add dreamstime instead of Fotolia:

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com+dreamstime.com/


Is it the crisis taking it's toll on photobuyers?  Looks like a general trend? Shurely fits with my downloads - LOL - declining each year.....

Did the buers stop buying or god elsewhere?

The falling number at the Istocksecure might be contributers stopping to upload?

Never mind - leave the Isuck place alone and consentrate on what matters more in life...


TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #51 on: September 20, 2010, 01:14 »
0
Sorry, who were you addressing in that last bit there?  I canceled exclusivity last week and have been removing my portfolio since then.

Well then it makes even less sense that you're surprised that they revoked your forum privileges.

« Reply #52 on: September 20, 2010, 01:46 »
0
Its even more fun when you add dreamstime instead of Fotolia:

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com+dreamstime.com/


It looks as if iStock's market leadership is ... unsustainable.

The chart suggests very strongly that January's massive restructuring was a serious mistake and the company is starting to go into a tailspin as a result of serious errors by the decision-makers.

If that is so, then it adds to the likelihood that the latest changes are a panicked reaction to falling returns. The "no negotiation" approach is also in line with the attitude of a management with its back to the wall.

If it was you and you had completely ballsed up the last change and the owners were breathing down your neck demanding that you get the money-printing machine back on track, what would you do? You CAN'T reverse the last change because it shifted too much money around. Imagine trying to explain to the exclusives that you are reducing the price of their files back to the level it was last year (and doing it AFTER you have driven away the buyers with the high prices). What would the fallout be from that?

The buyers are leaving so you can't hike their prices any higher to pull in the cash. How else can you restructure things to minimise the outcry while restoring the profits? I know: tap into the earnings of the very top contributors, because that is where most of the money is anyway, and top it up with a big slice of what the long tail of independents receives. Now, how can that be done?

« Reply #53 on: September 20, 2010, 02:08 »
0
Its even more fun when you add dreamstime instead of Fotolia:

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com+dreamstime.com/


Is it the crisis taking it's toll on photobuyers?  Looks like a general trend? Shurely fits with my downloads - LOL - declining each year.....

Did the buers stop buying or god elsewhere?

The falling number at the Istocksecure might be contributers stopping to upload?

Never mind - leave the Isuck place alone and consentrate on what matters more in life...


I agree the downturn has affected buyers because advertising budgets are down and Istock will be hit more than other sites because their overhead is higher and they have been raising prices more than other sites.  Jon at SS in particular is good at keeping operating expenses to a minimum and prices down.

I found the info for the secure area telling because most sites use the secure area for purchases, i.e. secure credit card transactions.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2010, 02:21 by gbalex »

« Reply #54 on: September 20, 2010, 07:14 »
0
You don't seem to get it. Read these comments thoroughly:

hawk_eye: I was scratching my head at your constant presence in there too. I have to say, I see the importance of contributors voicing their concerns. I've been intolerant of that in the past, but I see many positives about it. despite that, there is a small contingent of really loud and offensively negative people in there that I'm personally tired of listening to.

hawk_eye: you're playing the martyr thing a little thickly. you've made your decision. I think it was the wrong one, and I'm sorry to see you go. but there aren't any violins playing either. I think you knee jerked and stuck around hoping more would follow suit.

loop: I just say that because you seem the kind of people that needs to express your opinions, in a reiterative way. Against what I have nothing, of course.


I concur with their opinions.
...ah, a new corporate shill

Microbius

« Reply #55 on: September 20, 2010, 07:33 »
0
You don't seem to get it. Read these comments thoroughly:

hawk_eye: I was scratching my head at your constant presence in there too. I have to say, I see the importance of contributors voicing their concerns. I've been intolerant of that in the past, but I see many positives about it. despite that, there is a small contingent of really loud and offensively negative people in there that I'm personally tired of listening to.

hawk_eye: you're playing the martyr thing a little thickly. you've made your decision. I think it was the wrong one, and I'm sorry to see you go. but there aren't any violins playing either. I think you knee jerked and stuck around hoping more would follow suit.

loop: I just say that because you seem the kind of people that needs to express your opinions, in a reiterative way. Against what I have nothing, of course.


I concur with their opinions.
...ah, a new corporate shill
Yeah there's a lot of that going around.
That's one thing Getty/ IStock has got right, let the contributors scream till they can scream no more and then, and only then bring out your guys when no one can be bothered to argue any more.
Lock the threads and ban the dissenters once they've banged their heads against the wall so much they no longer have the energy to protest.

« Reply #56 on: September 20, 2010, 07:48 »
0
You don't seem to get it. Read these comments thoroughly:

hawk_eye: I was scratching my head at your constant presence in there too. I have to say, I see the importance of contributors voicing their concerns. I've been intolerant of that in the past, but I see many positives about it. despite that, there is a small contingent of really loud and offensively negative people in there that I'm personally tired of listening to.

hawk_eye: you're playing the martyr thing a little thickly. you've made your decision. I think it was the wrong one, and I'm sorry to see you go. but there aren't any violins playing either. I think you knee jerked and stuck around hoping more would follow suit.

loop: I just say that because you seem the kind of people that needs to express your opinions, in a reiterative way. Against what I have nothing, of course.


I concur with their opinions.
...ah, a new corporate shill
Yeah there's a lot of that going around.
That's one thing Getty/ IStock has got right, let the contributors scream till they can scream no more and then, and only then bring out your guys when no one can be bothered to argue any more.
Lock the threads and ban the dissenters once they've banged their heads against the wall so much they no longer have the energy to protest.
I have no problem with folks ranting (one way or the other), but I auto-dismiss anyone "bandwagoning" as a new member...it's just an existing one with a new identity :P

« Reply #57 on: September 20, 2010, 08:06 »
0
Right now, IStock is a farce. A joke.
It was clearly stated by the leading guys at iStock that the threads would be kept up till everybody had his rant and made his point. Then those threads would disappear. iStock read the rants and objections and decided what they think is best for them. At that point, nothing new can be added, and the content of the threads is detrimental for business as they are picked up by Google.

May I add, in an objective way, that threads like that on DT and FT would be phased out in a moment?

Anybody that likes to rant more can do it here. iStock made a strategic decision (detrimental for the independents) and they are clearly going to stick to it. That's it. Move on, and make your own rational business decisions too, depending on your mileage and your position in the best match.

« Reply #58 on: September 20, 2010, 08:21 »
0
Get your point, FD, but they did actually somewhere in the current thread announce a dialogue "back and forth" which people are still waiting for (not that I believed it would ever happen).

« Reply #59 on: September 20, 2010, 08:51 »
0
Although the bans seemed inevitable, I appreciated the continued postings by many of the active participants of those threads.  Lots of the stats and personal views help me make my plans for the coming months.

I expect some of the bans will last for a while since istock has made up their minds and they really don;t want to be bothered with dissension in the forums.

« Reply #60 on: September 20, 2010, 08:57 »
0
... The secure.istock data might suggest they are losing customers by the hundred (assuming it isn't still just reflecting the annual august slump) in which case top management will be going into panic mode ...

Not sure if it's due to losing customers or because of some other factor (best match changes or maybe random chance) but about 4 days ago my download numbers plunged, like they were switched off.

At more or less the same time, my run of 100% acceptance of isolations and keywords switched to 100% rejection for files of the same subjects with the same keywords and same isolation techniques.  Of course there is always SOMETHING you could pick at in any isolation, and I did find what I think the complaints were about in some of the rejects (but not others).  My point is that the previous accepted files probably had similar things that were tolerated.

Just wondering if the "no more Mr. Nice Guy" approach to forums was also applied to things like best match and inspection.

« Reply #61 on: September 20, 2010, 09:05 »
0
Get your point, FD, but they did actually somewhere in the current thread announce a dialogue "back and forth" which people are still waiting for (not that I believed it would ever happen).
Well there was a dialog, right? They obviously read all the reactions, then decided to stick to their master-plan, or rather the one of their financiers drooling on fat bonuses at the year's end. Game over. What else can you do? You just have to take the new landscape into account and make your own decisions. I don't expect that almighty iStock or the world is interested in what those decisions might be. We're just a grain of sand on a vast beach. May Buddha always be with you.  ;)

« Reply #62 on: September 20, 2010, 09:11 »
0
Just wondering if the "no more Mr. Nice Guy" approach to forums was also applied to things like best match and inspection.
They will, and it's like that on most sites, except the beginner sites that can't be choosers. Most reviewers know the vocal and/or regular contributors well, and if you piss them off in any way, you will feel it in your wallet. That's life, that's human nature.

« Reply #63 on: September 20, 2010, 09:44 »
0
Just wondering if the "no more Mr. Nice Guy" approach to forums was also applied to things like best match and inspection.
They will, and it's like that on most sites, except the beginner sites that can't be choosers. Most reviewers know the vocal and/or regular contributors well, and if you piss them off in any way, you will feel it in your wallet. That's life, that's human nature.

I'm not on anyone's "naughty" list AFAIK.  I haven't been slagging IS on their forums. I was wondering if there has been a get-tough policy adopted across the board, either for just non-exclusives or for both types of contributor.  The rejections could be random bad luck from me getting a tough inspector, the sudden lack of downloads could be random, or due to customers saying bye-bye, or could be due to best match tweaks, e.g. highlighting agency collection at the expense of small, non-excl. contributors.

« Reply #64 on: September 20, 2010, 10:27 »
0
FD_regular:
  Some times you make a lot of good sense. Its time for every body to move on. Let Istock chips fall where they may. I never join Istock because I knew from past experiences, I wanted nothing to do with any company that was owned by Getty.
Smiling Jack

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #65 on: September 20, 2010, 10:32 »
0
Sorry, who were you addressing in that last bit there?  I canceled exclusivity last week and have been removing my portfolio since then.

Well then it makes even less sense that you're surprised that they revoked your forum privileges.

exactly. also liked your crap in the backyard analogy. as for the graph indicating traffic of unique users - some of you are ignoring basic statistical analysis rules. there are so many variables that can affect why unique visitor numbers would be skewed to show a site having a sudden increase or decrease in unique visitors. A: SS model requires that buyers and contributors interact with their site in a very different manner than iStock or DT/FT. B: the main point is the amount of traffic that iStock regularly gets. they significantly beat the other sites in unique traffic monthly, even though SS has more images and more importantly more contributors. SS is probably attracting more contributors, that isn't something to brag about from a contributor's point of view. 300,000 photographers. compared with maybe 75K on iStock. 12 million images on SS. enjoy competing over there.

as for cracking down in the forums, it's about time. I've had about enough of watching the same jerks dump all over the company, other contributors and life in general. go piss in someone's else's pool. it's awful.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2010, 10:38 by hawk_eye »

« Reply #66 on: September 20, 2010, 10:48 »
0
Off Topic, but some observations about Web Traffic. The public traffic announced by sites like compete, cubestat, alexa are measured by PC's that have one of their toolbars installed. I doubt any serious contributor or buyer will have one of those installed. To start with, they take up screen real estate. Wherever I saw those installed, it was in public netcafs or with ignorant users. They obviously don't measure the target market.

The only ones that can pinpoint the origin and quantity of traffic on a website like iStock are the admins. They can have Google Analytics installed or their own analytics tool. Not the traffic by itself is important but the bounce rate. Only iStock can know that. They are never going to share this info since it might benefit competitors.

« Reply #67 on: September 20, 2010, 11:03 »
0
... The secure.istock data might suggest they are losing customers by the hundred (assuming it isn't still just reflecting the annual august slump) in which case top management will be going into panic mode ...

Not sure if it's due to losing customers or because of some other factor (best match changes or maybe random chance) but about 4 days ago my download numbers plunged, like they were switched off.

At more or less the same time, my run of 100% acceptance of isolations and keywords switched to 100% rejection for files of the same subjects with the same keywords and same isolation techniques.  Of course there is always SOMETHING you could pick at in any isolation, and I did find what I think the complaints were about in some of the rejects (but not others).  My point is that the previous accepted files probably had similar things that were tolerated.

Just wondering if the "no more Mr. Nice Guy" approach to forums was also applied to things like best match and inspection.

FWIW, I think it is just the old "ebb and flow"  My downloads last week were fairly average, and, in fact, a tad above average for a week.   

« Reply #68 on: September 20, 2010, 11:04 »
0
Sorry, who were you addressing in that last bit there?  I canceled exclusivity last week and have been removing my portfolio since then.

Well then it makes even less sense that you're surprised that they revoked your forum privileges.

Please seem my previous comments in regards to that subject.

« Reply #69 on: September 20, 2010, 11:07 »
0
as for the graph indicating traffic of unique users ... the main point is the amount of traffic that iStock regularly gets.

A graph you yourself brought up, and tried to manipulate people with by only including Fotolia rather than Dreamstime.  While it shows iStock has more total traffic, it also shows that SS and DT have more combined traffic, disregarding all other microstocks.   

Quote
as for cracking down in the forums, it's about time. I've had about enough of watching the same jerks dump all over the company, other contributors and life in general. go piss in someone's else's pool. it's awful.

Honestly a little piss in the pool by contributors doesn't even slightly measure up to iStock taking a crap in its own pool.

Since you insist on hiding behind your anonymity, which makes everything you post essentially meaningless, I think I might take it upon myself to do some statistical language analysis on your posts both here and in the iStock forums to find out who you really are.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2010, 11:09 by dgilder »

« Reply #70 on: September 20, 2010, 11:11 »
0
Off Topic, but some observations about Web Traffic. The public traffic announced by sites like compete, cubestat, alexa are measured by PC's that have one of their toolbars installed. I doubt any serious contributor or buyer will have one of those installed. To start with, they take up screen real estate. Wherever I saw those installed, it was in public netcafs or with ignorant users. They obviously don't measure the target market.

The only ones that can pinpoint the origin and quantity of traffic on a website like iStock are the admins. They can have Google Analytics installed or their own analytics tool. Not the traffic by itself is important but the bounce rate. Only iStock can know that. They are never going to share this info since it might benefit competitors.

I agree that compete, cubestat, alexa give an incomplete view at best.  And the site owners and admins are the only ones holding the true numbers.  

While I find hawk_eye comments regarding the number of SS submitters thus completion spot on. Judging from his meter and his numerous negative comments to ward anyone who is vocal about IS royalty cuts AND the many other negative changes that have transpired. I think most of his venom toward people who are very upset at receiving significant cuts in royalties are related to his fear of losing sales himself.  He does not view the changes as detrimental to himself so he supports the IS approach of shut them up and let them eat cake!
« Last Edit: September 20, 2010, 11:21 by gbalex »

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #71 on: September 20, 2010, 11:14 »
0
what does it matter who I am? you can see my sales performance on iStock and you are breaching an unspoken rule here. we don't call each other out based on anonymity here no matter how much we hate one another...many of us are anonymous here for our own reasons, usually simply as a tool to keep things from showing up in google searches on our businesses. so I'll thank you to respect it.

« Reply #72 on: September 20, 2010, 11:25 »
0
You sound a bit nervous, you must have something significant to hide.

« Reply #73 on: September 20, 2010, 11:28 »
0
SS is probably attracting more contributors, that isn't something to brag about from a contributor's point of view. 300,000 photographers. compared with maybe 75K on iStock. 12 million images on SS. enjoy competing over there.
SS haven't really got that many contributors, not even a fraction of that figure (as I'm sure you know). They have got 12M images but to be honest an alarming number of them are pretty awful and just prop up the bottom of the search results. Image-for-image the competition is actually vastly higher at Istock. I'd love to have the same sort-order positions on Istock as I have on SS.

As it happens SS is also doing very well indeed sales-wise. Month on month my income is increasing mainly due to an ever-increasing number of PPD sales (which other people have noted too). Seems to me that Shutterstock's response to Getty's Thinkstock attack on their market was to respond in kind __ and SS are winning that little game.

Actually I also welcome the additional competition on all agencies from exclusives giving up their crowns. The quality of their work will add significantly to the collections and in time that will bring additional customers to those agencies who pay a much fairer commission to their contributors.

The only reason Istock is able to bully and exploit their contributors is because they 'own' roughly 50% of the entire microstock market. The more powerful they become the more they will abuse it. It is in the interests of all microstockers to have a wide and competitive market for their work. The symbol indicating exclusivity should not be a crown __ it should be a pair of handcuffs.

« Reply #74 on: September 20, 2010, 11:33 »
0
I've heard this argument before - the other sites, Dreamstime and Fotolia ...
What about Dreamstime and Fotolia?
Today IStock is the only agency that offers me a 15% commission.
No other site has gone this low.
I'll cross one bridge at a time.

Contributors who are upset and post on IStock forums are jerks.
Thing is, historically speaking it's because of 'jerks' like them, people who have the guts to ask questions and demand answers, that we have evolved into free, democratic societies.
I'll take the jerks anytime.
As opposed to incognito posters who can't even muster enough courage to reveal their true identity.  
Not to be trusted.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
4389 Views
Last post April 18, 2007, 16:56
by GeoPappas
20 Replies
13591 Views
Last post April 07, 2014, 02:20
by hakusan
40 Replies
12881 Views
Last post April 02, 2013, 07:54
by Luppload
8 Replies
4993 Views
Last post December 03, 2016, 18:46
by YadaYadaYada
1 Replies
4653 Views
Last post September 26, 2017, 11:03
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors