Quote from: ShadySue on February 11, 2018, 07:07

Quote from: Pauws99 on February 11, 2018, 03:09

I like "Growing the Ecosystem" are they going to plant trees from the profit?

I think it was that particular  piece of egrecious, fatuous corporate gobbledegook which make me post the OP!

Luckily I'm out of the world of management/corporate speak now! SS are full of it now probably because their sales are flattening out and shareholders need to be kept confused.

Who? This was about Getty wasn't it? Getty who owns IS and has more debt than income, who ripped the heart out of IS for shareholder and H&F investment profits, then dumped us all on the ground. Cut commission, changed RC, pulled editorial, and bled the company dry. Now they have the dry carcas with some new ESP system that pays as low as 2 cents. Did you really mean SS?

Now they have the dry carcas with some new ESP system that pays as low as 2 cents. Did you really mean SS?

iStock was paying 2c commissions long before ESP was introduced, which is just an upload platform. This fact was well hidden in the convoluted ways of presenting sales information, but it was possible to find with enough determination. If nothing else, Getty is a lot more transparent now about contributors' sales.

The two cent bottom cap was a game changer, it means they can radically discount yearly subscription packages and still make money. 

I am not so sure, that remains to be seen. You would expect aspirin should cost one cent per kilo by now but it doesn't.

Unless I'm missing something, it looks like any images on Getty will have more reach across the internet through google.  I'm struggling to come up with anything negative about this.  Is it just that anything and everything posted on this forum about Getty/iStock gets a couple pages of negative comments assuming they're screwing contributors over.

Unless I'm missing something, it looks like any images on Getty will have more reach across the internet through google.  I'm struggling to come up with anything negative about this.  Is it just that anything and everything posted on this forum about Getty/iStock gets a couple pages of negative comments assuming they're screwing contributors over.

Because this has been our accumulated practical experience. I remember starting out in stock and everyone of the old timers warned us about Getty. I thought they must be bitter about something or are exaggerating.

Here I am now, 14 years later, wondering after every "exciting" announcement how bad it will be this time...

The only one responsible for a companies reputation is the company itself.

You don�t hear things like these about Shutterstock or Alamy and even Fotolia has made a real turnaround and has worked hard to have a reliable, artist friendly reputation.

The internet doesn�t forget, any drama you create, any artist that gets deleted - it will remain online forever.

And maybe they like the "hard nosed/cold" reputation, who knows?

I wish my friends who are working there well, but I have given up trying to understand why Getty runs it�s companies reputation the way they do.