pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2  (Read 132650 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #575 on: January 25, 2013, 14:19 »
+2
Two of my istock posts asking for an opt out before Feb 2 are "missing".  I think they're getting a little sensitive about the Feb 2nd thing.
Probably because they think that the deletion of files may become unsustainable for their business...  ;D


« Reply #576 on: January 25, 2013, 14:25 »
+39
This was also to strengthen Blends position and relations with the largest distributor of imagery in the world, and that it did. In the end of the day you have to ask yourself " am I happy with what my agency is doing for me and if not is there someone else that could do better ".

I am surprised that such an intelligent person as you Jonathan could write such a nonsense post.

In my day job I work as key account manager and area sales manager for a company manufacturing tangible goods. In my job I encounter several types of business partners and I always adapt my style of conducting business to their type. There are for example "pals" with whom I can chat on the phone about everything and who can forgive almost any mess that we cause. There are also the "perfectionists", who require a very formal style. When we overdeliver goods, the perfectionist would send me a note "You overdelivered this item. We decided to keep the overdelivered quantity. Please invoice us". Then of course there are the "ruthless ones" who take advantage of your every weakness and the smallest mistake. Thankfully none of my current customers falls into this category but Getty Images is exactly this type of "business partner".

How to deal with such people? In my first job many years ago, we had a toxic boss who was a real pain for the employees. I was quite new there and one morning he started to make stupid remarks at me. I am a quiet person but by 11 my anger accumulated, I lost my temper and shouted at him in front of the whole sales team to p*ss off and leave me in peace. My shout was extremely loud and even our colleagues in the warehouse could hear it. They were sure I was a goner. I also thought that he would kick me out but I simply could not stand it anymore. Apparently I was too valuable to him and he just called me to his private room, told me I shouldn't have embarrassed him in front of the team, that he had just been "TESTING" me and bla bla. I said that I could not tolerate this kind of treatment. He did not fire me. For 2 weeks he didn't say a single word to me. After 2 weeks he invited me to a restaurant for a Sunday dinner. Afterwards I became his most respected advisor.
On the other hand, a female co-worker who cried after he mobbed her, was fired.

Why am I telling this? In this whole Getty-Google mess there is only one person who "strengthened their position" with that distributor of imagery, as you say. But that person is Sean, not Blend. Sean did the same thing that I did many years ago. By publishing the list he adapted to the type of his "business partner" and hit the bully between the eyes - the only way to gain respect from the bully.
And Blend? Well, Blend should change their name to BEND IMAGES, because that must be their new nickname at Getty. Just like my former boss "tested" me, Getty "tested" Blend and Blend failed the test. Probably Getty categorizes their business partners into groups, like I do with mine. Sean would fall there into the category of clever and tough players. And Blend? I guess that could be the category of not-so-clever wussies. They gave up territory and received peanuts in return. I can imagine a dialogue at Getty: Hey, these guys at BEND think they strengthened their position when we made them donate a few dozen images, Yeah, they should be made to donate like 50 thousand images so that they think they are the emperors of the f*****g stock universe.

I repeat Jonathan, the only person who strengthened their position is Sean.
Of course I sympathize with him because he was scammed and his sales may suffer as even more buyers leave iStock. But if you are talking about "positions" he is the winner.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2013, 15:18 by Snufkin »

« Reply #577 on: January 25, 2013, 14:30 »
+4
This was also to strengthen Blends position and relations with the largest distributor of imagery in the world, and that it did. In the end of the day you have to ask yourself " am I happy with what my agency is doing for me and if not is there someone else that could do better ".

I am surprised that such an intelligent person as you Jonathan could write such a nonsense post.

In my day job I work as key account manager and area sales manager for a company manufacturing tangible goods. In my job I encounter several types of business partners and I always adapt my style of conducting business to their type. There are for example "pals" with which I can chat on the phone about everything and that can forgive almost any mess that we cause. There are also the "perfectionists" that require a very formal style. When we overdeliver goods, the perfectionist would send me a note "You overdelivered this item. We decided to keep the overdelivered quantity. Please invoice us". Then of course there are the "ruthless ones" who take advantage of your every weakness and the smallest mistake. Thankfully none of my current customers falls into this category but Getty Images is exactly this type of "business partner".

How to deal with such people? In my first job many years ago, we had a toxic boss who was a real pain for the employees. I was quite new there and one morning he started to make stupid remarks at me. I am a quiet person but by 11 my anger accumulated, I lost my temper and shouted at him in front of the whole sales team to p*ss off and leave me in peace. My shout was extremely loud and even our colleagues in the warehouse could hear it. They were sure I was a goner. I also thought that he would kick me out but I simply could not stand it anymore. Apparently I was too valuable to him and he just called me to his private room, told me I shouldn't have embarrassed him in front of the team, that he was just "TESTING" me and bla bla. I said that I could not tolerate this kind of treatment. He did not fire me. For 2 weeks he didn't say a single word to me. After 2 weeks he invited me to a restaurant for a Sunday dinner. Afterwards I became his most respected advisor.
On the other hand, a female co-worker who cried after he mobbed her, was fired.

Why am I telling this? In this whole Getty-Google mess there is only one person who "strengthened their position" with that distributor of imagery, as you say. But that person is Sean, not Blend. Sean did the same thing that I did many years ago. By publishing the list he adapted to the type of his "business partner" and hit the bully between the eyes - the only way to gain respect from the bully.
And Blend? Well, Blend should change their name to BEND IMAGES, because that must be their new nickname at Getty. Just like my former boss "tested" me, Getty "tested" Blend and Blend failed the test. Probably Getty categorizes their business partners into groups, like I do with mine. Sean would fall there into the category of clever and tough players. And Blend? I guess that could be the category of not-so-clever wussies. They gave up territory and received peanuts in return. I can imagine a dialogue at Getty: Hey, these guys at BEND think they strengthened their position when we made them donate a few dozen images, Yeah, they should be made to donate like 50 thousand images so that they think they are the emperors of the f*****g stock universe.

I repeat Jonathan, the only person who strengthened their position is Sean.
Of course I sympathize with him because he was scammed and his sales my suffer as even more buyers leave iStock. But if you are talking about "positions" he is the winner.

one of the best posts i've ever read in a forum.

« Reply #578 on: January 25, 2013, 14:51 »
+6

one of the best posts i've ever read in a forum.
Totally agree

« Reply #579 on: January 25, 2013, 14:55 »
+5

one of the best posts i've ever read in a forum.
Totally agree

Yes, a great post and I also have to say that I fully agree to this statement.

« Reply #580 on: January 25, 2013, 15:08 »
+5
This was also to strengthen Blends position and relations with the largest distributor of imagery in the world, and that it did. In the end of the day you have to ask yourself " am I happy with what my agency is doing for me and if not is there someone else that could do better ".

I am surprised that such an intelligent person as you Jonathan could write such a nonsense post......



Agree 100%

« Reply #581 on: January 25, 2013, 15:26 »
+7
Awesome post! Thank you.  I say it's now or never for us to take a stand

« Reply #582 on: January 25, 2013, 16:10 »
+5
Feb 2nd projected total is now 43,468+ deactivated or deleted files.

« Reply #583 on: January 25, 2013, 16:11 »
+9
I wouldn't call Mr. Ross's post 'nonsense' but I think it shows a desire to minimize, in one's thinking,  the destructiveness of what IS is doing - and a hope that this will all just blow over and things will get back to normal.  I think that's unrealistic. 

« Last Edit: January 25, 2013, 16:23 by stockastic »

« Reply #584 on: January 25, 2013, 16:13 »
+3
Feb 2nd projected total is now 43,468+ deactivated or deleted files.

The projection includes totals from the MSG and iStock threads as well as a total from one iStock site mail.

lisafx

« Reply #585 on: January 25, 2013, 16:15 »
+4
Feb 2nd projected total is now 43,468+ deactivated or deleted files.

The projection includes totals from the MSG and iStock threads as well as a total from one iStock site mail.

Denis, when all is said and done, I think you should get some sort of award or special badge for keeping the tally updated.  Thank you, thank you for doing that!

Poncke

« Reply #586 on: January 25, 2013, 16:19 »
+4
.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 13:53 by Poncke »

ShadySue

« Reply #587 on: January 25, 2013, 16:32 »
+3
How can you think that giving awat 67 images to a pool of over 12.000 images gives you a strengthened position with the biggest company in stock. Its like a grocer with a stand on a corner on the street supplying a crate of oranges to Kroger and thinking he is now in a partnership with them.
His company was given the choice of participating, and the chance to nominate some old low sellers. He said himself he wouldn't have been pleased if good sellers have been used.
Most people were not given the choice of participating, nor what files were taken, and that's a totally different scenario.

« Reply #588 on: January 25, 2013, 16:37 »
+8
I wouldn't call Mr. Ross's post 'nonsense' but I think it shows a desire to minimize, in one's thinking,  the destructiveness of what IS is doing =, and a hope that this will all just blow over and things will get back to normal.  I think that's unrealistic.


I think Jonathan Ross' approach a "go along to get along" approach, but I gave Snufkin's post a heart because I think his analysis is sound. If you placate a bully or give in to blackmail you've just set the tone for how the next exchange is going to go - and they'll be back for more. Not if, but when.

I will also forever think of Blend Images with its new and improved name :)

If you have bills to pay and you're stuck, then appeasing the bully may be the right move for you for now. But you need to be clear that you're appeasing a bully, not delude yourself into thinking you're strengthening a relationship. Those who need to stay exclusive awhile longer may be under no illusions - I hope they're under no illusions - as to what sort of entity they're beholden to. Having their exit plan in place - or using the next year to make an exit plan - would be a wise move for all of them, IMO, no matter how much money they're making now.

The only emotional component of this decision for me is that for the moment I'm staying at iStock because I hate to leave the site I started with - sort of the reverse of the nonsense spouted by the OP in this thread. And if I do leave completely, I'll take the risk and wait for February 2nd because I've always been a fan of doing what I can - even if others poo-pooh it as insignificant or pointless. Even if Getty doesn't give a rat's ass, I'll know that I did what I could about an unconscionable situation.

« Reply #589 on: January 25, 2013, 16:37 »
+2
How can you think that giving awat 67 images to a pool of over 12.000 images gives you a strengthened position with the biggest company in stock. Its like a grocer with a stand on a corner on the street supplying a crate of oranges to Kroger and thinking he is now in a partnership with them.
His company was given the choice of participating, and the chance to nominate some old low sellers. He said himself he wouldn't have been pleased if good sellers have been used.
Most people were not given the choice of participating, nor what files were taken, and that's a totally different scenario.

Plus, for IS contributors, it was a secret deal. They weren't even told afterwards.

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #590 on: January 25, 2013, 16:37 »
+4
I just said something that Lobo did't like and the result is:
 
The administration team at iStockphoto has revoked your forum privileges.  Comments from iStockphoto Administrators :
Your account is not yet eligible for forum participation, but feel free to browse our forums until your posting privileges are activated.
Good grief. Have a nice break.


Cheers,

Poncke

« Reply #591 on: January 25, 2013, 16:38 »
0
How can you think that giving awat 67 images to a pool of over 12.000 images gives you a strengthened position with the biggest company in stock. Its like a grocer with a stand on a corner on the street supplying a crate of oranges to Kroger and thinking he is now in a partnership with them.
His company was given the choice of participating, and the chance to nominate some old low sellers. He said himself he wouldn't have been pleased if good sellers have been used.
Most people were not given the choice of participating, nor what files were taken, and that's a totally different scenario.
Yes, I know, but I was painting the image of how ridiculous it sounds.  :D

Poncke

« Reply #592 on: January 25, 2013, 16:40 »
0
Feb 2nd projected total is now 43,468+ deactivated or deleted files.

The projection includes totals from the MSG and iStock threads as well as a total from one iStock site mail.

Denis, when all is said and done, I think you should get some sort of award or special badge for keeping the tally updated.  Thank you, thank you for doing that!
Yeah, I keep wondering how he finds all these numbers all over the place ! ;D

ShadySue

« Reply #593 on: January 25, 2013, 16:51 »
0
I just said something that Lobo did't like and the result is:
 
The administration team at iStockphoto has revoked your forum privileges.  Comments from iStockphoto Administrators :
Your account is not yet eligible for forum participation, but feel free to browse our forums until your posting privileges are activated.
Good grief. Have a nice break.


Cheers,


Welcome to the Club.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x414759

« Reply #594 on: January 25, 2013, 16:59 »
0
I just said something that Lobo did't like and the result is:
 
The administration team at iStockphoto has revoked your forum privileges.  Comments from iStockphoto Administrators :
Your account is not yet eligible for forum participation, but feel free to browse our forums until your posting privileges are activated.
Good grief. Have a nice break.


Cheers,


Welcome to the Club.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x414759


I guess we'll know we've reached a tipping point when more of us are in the community of the banned than are allowed to post :)

« Reply #595 on: January 25, 2013, 17:11 »
+3
Awesome post! Thank you.  I say it's now or never for us to take a stand
+1

Great post Snufkin. Exactly right.

« Reply #596 on: January 25, 2013, 17:56 »
+1
I just said something that Lobo did't like and the result is:
 
The administration team at iStockphoto has revoked your forum privileges.  Comments from iStockphoto Administrators :
Your account is not yet eligible for forum participation, but feel free to browse our forums until your posting privileges are activated.
Good grief. Have a nice break.


Cheers,


Welcome to the Club.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x414759


I guess we'll know we've reached a tipping point when more of us are in the community of the banned than are allowed to post :)


By muzzling people they are only encouraging voices to be louder in other/ external forums.  Dont feel good about being associated with this kind of company.  Maybe Feb 02 is making MORE of a statement than one first thought!  :)

« Reply #597 on: January 25, 2013, 17:57 »
-3
Thanks Snufkin,

 I find your post a bit disrespectful. I am here trying to help I do not have to make excuses for my agency or for Blend they are allowed to conduct business the way they and I see fit. I am here trying to help share some information on what I know is taking place with our agency and Getty Images to hopefully add some insight for all photographers.
 If you are mad at Getty then please direct your frustration at them if you don't agree with what I said a simple " I do not agree " works better than calling a post someone spent the time to offer up as "nonsense" or making up silly names about our agency " Bend " when I am trying to share info.
 Posting this information does not benefit me or my agencies in any way it is shared to try to help, I thought we were trying to help each other out here with information on the topic?

Jonathan
« Last Edit: January 25, 2013, 18:05 by Jonathan Ross »

« Reply #598 on: January 25, 2013, 18:09 »
+3
Jonathan Ross
You have distributed images of which you did not have the copyright, to be given away for free.
It doesnt matter if those pictures were in top or in the bottom of a pile.

No excuses count, you did not have the right to do so without asking the copyright holder first.

« Reply #599 on: January 25, 2013, 18:12 »
+9
Thanks Snufkin,

 I find your post a bit disrespectful. I am here trying to help I do not have to make excuses for my agency or for Blend they are allowed to conduct business the way they and I see fit. I am here trying to help share some information on what I know is taking place with our agency and Getty Images to hopefully add some insight for all photographers.
 If you are mad at Getty then please direct your frustration at them if you don't agree with what I said a simple " I do not agree " works better than calling a post someone spent the time to offer up as "nonsense" or making up silly names about our agency " Bend " when I am trying to share info.
 Posting this information does not benefit me or my agencies in any way it is shared to try to help, I thought we were trying to help each other out here with information on the topic?

Jonathan

I think people ARE frustrated because not every contributor gets treated with the same respect as was shown to Blend Images. For most contributors, this Google/Getty deal is bad news. It will destroy the earning potential for those who did NOT have the opportunity, as Blend did, to have a say in which/any images went. They were just disrespectfully TAKEN without permission. Maybe you see this deal as a good thing, but bear in mind, for the majority, it is not. You bet people are disrespectful...they are only returning the favor shown by Getty. And since you think it's a good deal, of course you are in the line of fire.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4841 Views
Last post February 28, 2011, 17:43
by click_click
17 Replies
5199 Views
Last post January 15, 2013, 08:21
by jtyler
35 Replies
6763 Views
Last post November 22, 2013, 14:24
by BaldricksTrousers
11 Replies
3569 Views
Last post October 01, 2014, 13:42
by Freedom
13 Replies
4919 Views
Last post April 16, 2015, 12:00
by tickstock

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results