Quote from: caspixel on January 28, 2011, 21:32

Quote from: ShadySue on January 28, 2011, 19:40

Ironically, the first best match photo on that page isn't even 'exclusive' price.

Maybe they weren't looking for a cruise ship though.

I thought cruise ships were now banned from the collection. Or is that SS?

Quite a long time ago, a couple of years anyway I think. So much so that one of my CN members who actually got a PR got it rejected at first because the inspector assumed she couldn't have, without actually checking (rejection overturned).

I think istock calculated in that some of the buyers will leave. But just like they don't care about the smaller (non-vetta) shooters (and maybe even WANT them to leave) they probably dont care about the small buyers either. As long as the big budget vetta-, agency- and big corporate buyers stay they dont seem to give a ****.
[/quote]
And even give the big buyers deep discounts - and suggest they try out Thinkstock.
Is there any joined up thinking over there at all?

^^^ I note that even though the poster clearly wishes to remain anonymous, having deliberately avoided the question once, Lobo continues to press for his (or hers) identification.

^^^ I note that even though the poster clearly wishes to remain anonymous, having deliberately avoided the question once, Lobo continues to press for his (or hers) identification.

yeah, first thing I noticed too.  interesting lobo added that "you can chose to remain anonymous" .. okay, so why ask the person again? 

I just don't even understand why it matters and why Lobo cares so much to harass people about their identity.

I think he likes to rummage around in the account of posters who come to his attention to see if their numbers amount to anything or whether their opinion actually 'counts' in his view. It obviously irked him that he couldn't do that with the poster's contributor account on this occasion.

I just don't even understand why it matters and why Lobo cares so much to harass people about their identity.

It doesn't read like harassment. Unless you choose read it like that. It reads like a perfectly reasonable question. So why assume the worst ? I don't think it's a big deal.

Quote from: bunhill on February 08, 2011, 17:23

Quote from: caspixel on February 08, 2011, 15:13

I just don't even understand why it matters and why Lobo cares so much to harass people about their identity.

It doesn't read like harassment. Unless you choose read it like that. It reads like a perfectly reasonable question. So why assume the worst ? I don't think it's a big deal.

That would be so if this was the first time this happened, but Lobo has a history of outing contributors who are also buyers, harassing them, and then discounting their opinions.

In this case it looks like he just paraphrasing Funwithfood, but read into what you want.

It wasn't that long ago that the administrators on Istock used to try and HELP buyers and contributors, rather than berating them.  

That was Uncle Rob. The Good Cop, Bad Cop duo.

as for Lobo having a 'history' of shutting down client/contributors...give me a break. he's done it like twice and in both counts it was bang on. I believe it's absolutely relevant if a buyer has a contributor account and logs in under the buyer account to suggest that buyers in general are very unhappy. it's a conflict of interest. I'm surprised this concept is so difficult to grasp around here.

FWIW, I have always stayed out of the Lobo bashing.  I wouldn't want his job either, and I can see why he gets mad and surly.  But what I am having trouble understanding is why the effort to side track conversations about legitimate issues into irrelevancies?  
  
The last time this happened, when the buyer did not disclose that they are also a contributor I believe Lobo was making the point that they were pretending to be just a buyer, but may have had a separate agenda as a contributor.  As I recall I even offered that explanation around here when people didn't understand the point he was making.

But in this case, the buyer clearly disclosed they are a contributor, and they laid out their problems as both a contributor and a buyer.  They weren't being disingenuous.  That's why I don't see the relevance of asking for their contributor account.  

Can someone please explain to me how that information would in any way negate anything they said?  And while you're at it, can you explain why that tactic was used in lieu of some sort of helpful response to their concerns?  

Lisa - I think there are lots of reasons why the exchange might have happened the way it did. first of all, by taking anything to the forum first, you're taking it public. that's true for all of us. if you are taking it public, you bet there will be flak from one side or another, almost always. as an unhappy buyer, I'd think the quickest path to getting help would be contacting client relations. if the response is unsatisfactory, then take it to a CR manager.

secondly, I think there is an obvious bias to being a contributor/buyer. on issues that impact buyers/contributors separately...you're going to have an inevitable bias one way or the other.

finally, iStock doesn't have to let anyone cr*p on their business in any form, anytime, publicly. I have little doubt many unhappy buyers are being spoken to privately. but just wearing a buyer hat doesn't entitle you to shoot your mouth off unfettered. iStock already allow a lot more in their forums than any other agency AFAIK, and I suspect they're really tightening up ship in the forums. I'm barely posting in the iStock forums anymore, just reading. to be frank, I got tired of listening to the same people (me included) in the forum. it was like crying wolf, it was boring, and on many levels it got absolutely ridiculous and unprofessional. we don't need to go into their forum to gripe. those of us who have bothered to connect more than superficially can chat as much as we wish via email, phone, or anything else. If iStock was my business, I wouldn't let anyone publicly dump on it either to the extent that it was happening by the same people over and over.

Well, we can all argue endlessly on here about who said what in the forums, and why, and whether or not they should be allowed. 

Doesn't change the problems with the istock site.  Doesn't even change the point of this thread, which is that buyers are leaving istock. 

Quote from: SNP on February 08, 2011, 18:54

If iStock was my business, I wouldn't let anyone publicly dump on it either to the extent that it was happening by the same people over and over.

If it were my business, I'd hope they didn't have so many legitimate grievances.

^ with respect, I think 'legitimate' is being used fairly subjectively. as is 'so many'. and if, for the sake of argument, there are 'so many' grievances from buyers, I think those grievances will be addressed positively. TPTB have the same interest in keeping the business going that we do. even if iStock is for sale; not much of an asset if there's a truckload of unhappy buyers.

and FWIW, if it were your business, as large as iStock...you would have unhappy buyers, employees and suppliers.....as is the nature of any business in any industry. and neither you, nor I, are privy to the actual numbers of 'unhappy' anything. as for buyers leaving the site, the most telling stat would be the number of buyers coming and going yearly in comparison to this year. and you can bet, no matter what anyone here thinks, that the bean counters are watching those numbers.

Quote from: SNP on February 08, 2011, 19:23

... as for buyers leaving the site, the most telling stat would be the number of buyers coming and going yearly in comparison to this year. and you can bet, no matter what anyone here thinks, that the bean counters are watching those numbers.

I'd think the 'most telling stat' would actually be the value of sales. Being as the RC targets were lowered from their original projections just 3 months after they were originally stated suggests to me that things are not going to plan __ and things have got rather worse since too. Judging by the reluctance of the bean counters to post the RC targets for 2011 suggests that they either don't know or that they may be too embarassed to reveal the truth. Those RC targets if applied 'fairly' and accurately provide a very unwelcome window onto Istockphoto's commercial pulse.

the adjusted targets might have only had to do with contributors meeting or not meeting targets, as Andrew stated they would revisit at year end. seems more plausible than your suggestion. but you don't know either, nor do I.