MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: This is what got my iStock forum privileges and sitemail access revoked  (Read 40898 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #300 on: September 26, 2010, 23:54 »
0
Quote
If you got a call, then, as you say, everyone above you must have got a call (though none of the folks I'm chummy with who are above you got calls, or not that they're admitting to, and they don't seem the types to keep that sort of info on lock from me, but who knows). And with the number of angry Black Diamonds and Diamonds on down that have posted (many who never post in the forums, let alone voice discontent there), "the calls" - it would seem - did little to no good.

With the way hawk_eye lied about me threatening to stop buying at iStock since she joined, I'm disinclined to believe this claim of "a call".
« Last Edit: September 26, 2010, 23:56 by caspixel »


« Reply #301 on: September 26, 2010, 23:55 »
0
yes, a call. the morning of the announcement. and lots of other people got calls, this isn't big news. I was simply refuting yet another piece of misinformation over here. I'm a middle of the road contributor, so if they took the time to call me, that certainly doesn't indicate a lack of concern for the well-being of contributors, financially or otherwise, ven if the mandate is to push through an unwelcome change. spin that whatever way suits you best.

Hmmm __ so you think that Istockphoto identified the most likely 'disgusting little suckers of the corporate c*ck' and then targeted them first? Devious!

« Reply #302 on: September 26, 2010, 23:57 »
0
Correction, "corporate iC*ck". :D

« Reply #303 on: September 26, 2010, 23:58 »
0
Watch it, yer getting close there to infringing on a future Apple trademark ;)

« Reply #304 on: September 27, 2010, 00:18 »
0
I think it is naive to believe that Istock did not open dialog with some of the very top producers before the announcements and I would not be surprise that communication is ongoing because of the conseqences to the bottom line should those contributors decide to leave. Not rocket science by any means.

On the contrary I think it is naive to assume that they did. Perhaps Lise G. was informed but then she's a fairly senior Admin anyway. Clearly the RC scales were carefully constructed to ensure that the top-selling exclusives would not be upset however those individuals are harnessed by their extraordinary incomes anyway. If your portfolio is earning several hundred thousand dollars per year, as many of them are, then you're unlikely to be going anywhere by choice.

you're wrong on this. I'm no Lise Gagne and I got a call warning me of the announcement. I'm not a top producer, just an active and fairly involved contributor.

I guess I'm now even more dissed and pissed off than I was before. I didn't get a call (I was away but I just checked the caller ID log to see if there had been one) - I would have described myself as active and fairly involved. what were they thinking calling some special group of people - not admins - in some "in" group?

I'd rather this was some fantasy as the alternative is that there's a high school clique mentality where there should be some solid business thinking.

« Reply #305 on: September 27, 2010, 00:23 »
0
Word, jsnover.

I find it quite odd that so many who are/were so involved and active did not get calls. Yourself included.

Chalking it down as more fodder pointing to the cliquish nature of the way this company seems to run runs its business.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 00:24 by Risamay »

« Reply #306 on: September 27, 2010, 00:24 »
0
I don't think so JoAnn. again, it was not of any special nature or because of any special relationship. despite the comments made here, I've never even met an iStock admin in real life yet.

the call I received was from Andrew, it was just a check in about the announcement. if it were a clique thing, I wouldn't have gotten a call....clearly I'm not part of the in-crowd, at least not over here and who cares about such baloney anyways? I'm certain no one meant to diss you, you get plenty of positive admin attention in the iStock forums and you are widely respected AFAIK.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 00:26 by hawk_eye »

« Reply #307 on: September 27, 2010, 00:29 »
0
In a sense it doesn't matter one way or the other. As long as they continue to sell licenses - and this week has been very good - I'll do business with them. I don't have to like them or respect them to let them run the store that sells my image licenses.

« Reply #308 on: September 27, 2010, 00:30 »
0
In a sense it doesn't matter one way or the other. As long as they continue to sell licenses - and this week has been very good - I'll do business with them. I don't have to like them or respect them to let them run the store that sells my image licenses.

True.

« Reply #309 on: September 27, 2010, 00:33 »
0
who cares about such baloney anyways?

Clearly you do or you would never have mentioned it.

« Reply #310 on: September 27, 2010, 00:35 »
0
Watch it, yer getting close there to infringing on a future Apple trademark ;)

LOL

« Reply #311 on: September 27, 2010, 00:38 »
0
who cares about such baloney anyways?

Clearly you do or you would never have mentioned it.

I didn't mention it. I responded to JoAnn's concern that perhaps she hadn't made THE list.

« Reply #312 on: September 27, 2010, 00:42 »
0
who cares about such baloney anyways?

Clearly you do or you would never have mentioned it.

I didn't mention it. I responded to JoAnn's concern that perhaps she hadn't made THE list.

???

You are the one who first posted about "the call" in the first place, obviously as a show of importance. I don't think you are fooling anyone here.

« Reply #313 on: September 27, 2010, 01:00 »
0
.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 01:02 by Hawk_Eye »

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #314 on: September 27, 2010, 01:11 »
0
Quote
yes, a call. the morning of the announcement. and lots of other people got calls, this isn't big news. I

Well I know a number of big sellers personally on IS, and I'm in the top 200 myself, and none of us received 'the call' so for some reason you're a priviledged contributor.

« Reply #315 on: September 27, 2010, 01:24 »
0
. nope, why bother
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 01:26 by Hawk_Eye »

« Reply #316 on: September 27, 2010, 03:12 »
0
I must say, I am curious as to what "the call" said. Or even what it could have said. Or why anyone would bother calling any submitter to tell them that the announcement was about to be made (that is NOT a negotiation by the way, a negotiation would be about changing the terms to keep you happy).

It makes no sense telling a few people in person about an announcement that everybody will see a few hours later.

« Reply #317 on: September 27, 2010, 04:11 »
0
SERIOUSLY.  Every time I think we have reached the pinnacle of ridiculousness, the current iStock saga is ramped up a notch. If there honestly were calls going out to certain people while the rest of us get no REAL communication from anyone official in a 5,000 + post official thread that truly is LOW. They could take the time to make personal calls but can't take the time to answer questions in a post?

Also I have to wonder if these calls actually went out how they managed to avoid calling ANYONE that spoke out in the forums.  Lobo said there were about 840 different posters in that epic thread with the vast majority being opposed to whats going on and the lack of communication we are getting, and none of those hundreds of pissed off people mentioned getting a call.  Then again maybe they were asked not too.  At least one well established diamond mentioned openly in that thread that she was asked by iStock admins not to discuss certain things on the forums.

Interesting side note....my sales have fallen over 50% since I first posted in the announcement thread and the vector thread asking for clarification.  Quite the coincidence with sales tanking when I spoke out. I was told that the effects of becoming non exclusive do not take place until the 30 day wait period is up so the two week severe sales slump should not be from my cancellation.

« Reply #318 on: September 27, 2010, 07:26 »
0
I knew somewhere in all the posts I'd read that some had had calls from RogerMexico, and on page 111 of the first thread ( http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=251812&page=111 ) we learn that none other than pom pom waving cheerleader Stacey in reply to pink_cotton_candy who'd  also had a call said:

 " I've just finished reading the additional 40 pages since I stopped reading last night. I too had a voicemail from Andrew last night. That impresses me, though I haven't spoken to anyone yet, the phone call alone told me that contributors continue to matter. as you said Dawn, if exclusives leave, the better for those of us who stay."

However the afterglow of that call didn't last too long iirc.

Microbius

« Reply #319 on: September 27, 2010, 08:38 »
0
dirty

« Reply #320 on: September 27, 2010, 09:08 »
0
How many diamond exclusives do you reckon are on $80k+? There can't be very many.

Offhand, I'd say 300+. Probably closer to 400 than 300.

From where I'm sitting I'd say that is an overestimate :-\

Definitely! Somewhere between 70 - 100 would be my guess, probably on the lower end of that scale. Working from my own data (as an independent) you'd probably need to be averaging something like 2200 sales per month.
A little under 500.

« Reply #321 on: September 27, 2010, 09:22 »
0
A little under 500.

Ridiculous, there are only 800 or so diamonds to begin with.

« Reply #322 on: September 27, 2010, 09:33 »
0
A little under 500.

Ridiculous, there are only 800 or so diamonds to begin with.

No more ridiculous then some of the other numbers being kick around here.

« Reply #323 on: September 27, 2010, 09:42 »
0
How many diamond exclusives do you reckon are on $80k+? There can't be very many.

Offhand, I'd say 300+. Probably closer to 400 than 300.

From where I'm sitting I'd say that is an overestimate :-\

Definitely! Somewhere between 70 - 100 would be my guess, probably on the lower end of that scale. Working from my own data (as an independent) you'd probably need to be averaging something like 2200 sales per month.
A little under 500.

Well again from where I'm sitting, at approx 99 in the istockcharts list which is not too inaccurate at this level, I have doubts of hitting the 150,000 approx 80k usd, target to retain my 40%, I know from the forums that there's at least one - 30 places above me  - that say they won't, and there's approx 15 non exclusive above me at least, so you can see my doubt about this '500'......would that it was.

« Reply #324 on: September 27, 2010, 09:54 »
0
I didn't say 500. I said a bit under 500, think somewhere around 420-475.

Microstock InsiderPhotoDune

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
2415 Views
Last post April 18, 2007, 16:56
by GeoPappas
75 Replies
10094 Views
Last post May 25, 2009, 12:57
by willie
4 Replies
1429 Views
Last post July 06, 2009, 15:27
by bittersweet
20 Replies
5045 Views
Last post April 07, 2014, 02:20
by hakusan
40 Replies
1998 Views
Last post April 02, 2013, 07:54
by Luppload

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors