Well I did day "what I perceived" as pretend confusion and to be clear I was referring to the company line not the person who delivered it. Maybe that's too harsh but it's absolutely the impression I got. In my opinion, this thread speaks for itself: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252412&page=1

I personally felt the "answers" that were given insulted the intelligence of contributors. I fully believe that no one was authorized to say anything else but what was said, and at the end of the day that's a reflection of company policy not the employees.

I also understand that bill collectors and mortgage holders don't care about your moral high ground.  Personally that wouldn't stop me from getting out of there as soon as possible if I felt very strongly that what was going on was wrong.  Everyone has different circumstances in life and I very much empathize with anyone who's personal situation forces them to work for an employer who's policies they no longer agree with. It should be noted however, that we don't actually know that any current employees do object to what's going on at iStock. It's all speculation at this point.

Just wanted to add (because tone gets lost in writing) that I wasn't arguing with Retrorocket, or even disagreeing really. Just explaining how it looks from where I sit, and trying hard to keep a balanced perspective. Not easy these days!

Edited while you were posting   In my case I could see right away I wasn't going to make that target, but if it looked like I would have and if there had been a more fair set of vector targets and a little better handling of communication I'm sure I would have waited until at least January to decide. Sorry for being WAY off topic now! lol

Edited while you were posting  In my case I could see right away I wasn't going to make that target, but if it looked like I would have and if there had been a more fair set of vector targets and a little better handling of communication I'm sure I would have waited until at least January to decide. Sorry for being WAY off topic now! lol

I absolutely respect your decision. If it was a given that I would not make it to 75k then I would have already done the same.

Exactly. This way if there is any backlash, they can say that they're only raising prices on a select few pricing levels of vectors. The majority of the prices are remaining the same. Which is, of course, true. It's just ignoring the fact that the vast majority of vector images on istock happen to fall into the 2 pricing levels that are changing.

What can appear to be a change to a small segment of the marketplace is really a 20% price hike for the majority of vector illustrations on istock.

And the 15 credits vectors back to 14. Still no messages about it from Istock.

Shame, disrespect and mess. All amazing work from Bruce destroyed in three months.

Well, I'm glad that is over with and everything was resolved. 

Leads me to wondering how much else they change on the site on a regular basis without anyone noticing... Maybe this was a test of the communities observation skills? 

I guess it was a test, but they tested the impact of a price increase on buyer behavior.

who's running that ship anyway?

and what I wonder is, where do they think they are taking it?

The thread is now locked with a terse note that they test site features - like changing button colors and vector prices on one size - and this was such a situation.

Un-effing-believable!!

Posted by Joyze: "We test a variety of features on the site for usability and performance. Remember when we tested the color change of the download button?

Some of these changes (like this particular one) may be temporary and others may become permanent. This kind of testing will help us ensure we balance the needs of the contributors, the customers and the business."

Since when are unannounced price fluctuations considered testing a "site feature"? To compare that to changing the color of a button is downright ridiculous. So it's completely okay to them that buyers for that week paid more than would normally, hoping they wouldn't notice? Was that the test? And don't we have a contract that we sign as contributors and rely on the posted prices to know at what price point our work is being sold?  They really love to play with that "may change at any time" CYA clause these days it seems.

And why for the love all that is holy did it take 10 days to get that answer, despite pleas by the vector community.  Really? Does this mean Jenn (Bortonia) tried to look in to it over a week ago and they kept her and ostensibly all other admins with access to the help forum in the dark?  Or were we just not worthy of an answer.  Because it feels more like the latter.  

I think I'll go delete my last five illustrations.  I have enough confidence in my work and in the many other avenues for licensing it that I don't need to stick around and be treated with such blatant disrespect.

I liked them better when they were silent!

"Remember when we tested the color change of the download button?"

I vote brown, as for crap : )

I'm not sure what's more disturbing. The fact that iStock "tests" price changes in this way, or the fact that a price change test is likely a sign of changes to come, if not now then sometime in the near future. Maybe this was just a test, but the idea to test a price increase had to come out of a more broad discussion of where to make price changes and by how much.

Buyers beware, a permanent price hike is likely on the horizon.