Author Topic: iStock expanding (Read 20147 times)

ShadySue · « **on:** May 05, 2011, 11:26 »

Found via istockphoto thread.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20059972-264.html#ixzz1LUkpWgur

KKT's Foot-in-month Quote of the Day:
"Expansion has been tough for the company, though, because of a contributor payment system that the company judged financially unsustainable. A switch last year to a performance-based compensation scheme was painful, but in the end, only about 0.1 percent of the more than 100,000 contributors were dramatically affected, Thompson said.
Run that past me again...

"It didn't really affect most people," Thompson said. "Everyone sort of settled down."

And if we didn't, we were LOBOtomised.

Lies, damned lies, statistics and spin.

jen · « **Reply #1 on:** May 05, 2011, 11:33 »

It's so disheartening. I always hope to see commentary from Kelly (as some sort of reassurance that he's paying attention?) but it seems like every time he actually says something it's a massive disappointment and proves that he just doesn't get it. Which means it's hard to hope that things will improve at iStock because its management is on a completely different page than its contributors.

rubyroo · « **Reply #2 on:** May 05, 2011, 11:38 »

Truly gobsmacking.

Chico · « **Reply #3 on:** May 05, 2011, 11:39 »

I'm dramatically affected.

Be part of 0.1 percent of more than 100,000 contributors is like win somekind of hell's lottery.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #4 on:** May 05, 2011, 11:39 »

There are two other little teasers in this article (if one can stomach reading beyond KKT's dismissal of contributor discontent).

"And one more new category coming for iStock: the PNG, (portable network graphics) format. Its big advantage compared with JPEG: it supports an "alpha" channel that lets designers mark parts of the overall image as transparent. That means objects work with colored or complex backgrounds without arduous image editing"

and

"Another IT project at iStock is the move to a new Getty system that's more flexible. Today, each new category requires a new infrastructure, but the new technology will let iStock offer new categories as just a new module."

I have no idea what the 2nd one is referring to

fullvalue · « **Reply #5 on:** May 05, 2011, 11:41 »

Maybe he gets it but just doesn't care.

Istock may find that many people did not "settle down".;they are biding their time and/or changing direction away from stock.

ShadySue · « **Reply #6 on:** May 05, 2011, 11:45 »

Quote from: jsnover on May 05, 2011, 11:39

"Another IT project at iStock is the move to a new Getty system that's more flexible. Today, each new category requires a new infrastructure, but the new technology will let iStock offer new categories as just a new module."
I have no idea what the 2nd one is referring to

Took me a while, but I'm guessing, as he's referring to PNG as a 'category', he means any other offering type they decide to sell, e.g. books, second-hand shoes, holidays ... <idle speculation>maybe they're aiming to take over Amazon or eBay.</speculation>
:-(

rubyroo · « **Reply #7 on:** May 05, 2011, 11:48 »

They're talking about the programming code there aren't they?

I read that as meaning that they currently have a large-scale job each time they add a new category, but they'll adopt Getty's modular approach and adding new categories will be easier and faster.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's how it reads to me.

pancaketom · « **Reply #8 on:** May 05, 2011, 11:49 »

wow, I'm one in a thousand... does that mean he thinks only around 100 submitters were dramatically affected? Either he is way out of touch or full of hot air.

VB inc · « **Reply #9 on:** May 05, 2011, 11:50 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 05, 2011, 11:26

Found via istockphoto thread.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20059972-264.html#ixzz1LUkpWgur

KKT's Foot-in-month Quote of the Day:
"Expansion has been tough for the company, though, because of a contributor payment system that the company judged financially unsustainable. A switch last year to a performance-based compensation scheme was painful, but in the end, only about 0.1 percent of the more than 100,000 contributors were dramatically affected, Thompson said.

"It didn't really affect most people," Thompson said. "Everyone sort of settled down."

And if we didn't, we were LOBOtomised.

Lies, damned lies, statistics and spin.

hahah i was laughing when i read that. But seriously, why would he say anything else since this article is advertisement for the uninformed? It is really laughable to all who knows whats going on.

BImages · « **Reply #10 on:** May 05, 2011, 11:51 »

I wonder what he meant by "dramatically affected", suicide maybe...

jsmithzz · « **Reply #11 on:** May 05, 2011, 11:52 »

So disheartening to see the COO spin these untruths to the media, especially when these moves have hurt livelihoods. He truly doesn't care at all. Note again that he's never been promoted to CEO. Not too difficult to see why.

Chico · « **Reply #12 on:** May 05, 2011, 11:56 »

Quote from: jsmithzz on May 05, 2011, 11:52

So disheartening to see the COO spin these untruths to the media, especially when these moves have hurt livelihoods. He truly doesn't care at all. Note again that he's never been promoted to CEO. Not too difficult to see why.

And it's not first time. This guy is a SERIAL LIAR.

cthoman · « **Reply #13 on:** May 05, 2011, 11:57 »

Quote from: jsnover on May 05, 2011, 11:39

"And one more new category coming for iStock: the PNG, (portable network graphics) format. Its big advantage compared with JPEG: it supports an "alpha" channel that lets designers mark parts of the overall image as transparent. That means objects work with colored or complex backgrounds without arduous image editing"

They'll probably use this to cheat vector artists out of higher price point vector sales. I'm suspicious.

What is dramatically affected? Aren't 85% of contributors non-exclusive? I would imagine nearly 100% of them took a paycut. Where does he pull these numbers out of?

halfshag · « **Reply #14 on:** May 05, 2011, 12:41 »

I was firmly within the alleged "0.1 percent", so that's me and 999 others. Even if it were true it's still appalling.

lisafx · « **Reply #15 on:** May 05, 2011, 12:46 »

The phrase "Liar Liar pants on fire" springs to mind.

sweetgirll · « **Reply #16 on:** May 05, 2011, 12:50 »

How many contributors does Istock have nowadays?

halfshag · « **Reply #17 on:** May 05, 2011, 12:52 »

"Everyone sort of settled down.", really? I guess getting tired of ranting to a brick wall on the forums constitutes agreement. I won't forget what they did.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #18 on:** May 05, 2011, 12:54 »

Quote from: jsnover on May 05, 2011, 11:39

"the PNG, (portable network graphics) format. Its big advantage compared with JPEG: it supports an "alpha" channel that lets designers mark parts of the overall image as transparent."

thanks, but no need for an alpha channel: seeing from sales stats, all of my pictures there are already transparent and invisibile to buyers lately

thesentinel · « **Reply #20 on:** May 05, 2011, 12:58 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on May 05, 2011, 12:54

Quote from: jsnover on May 05, 2011, 11:39
"the PNG, (portable network graphics) format. Its big advantage compared with JPEG: it supports an "alpha" channel that lets designers mark parts of the overall image as transparent."

thanks, but no need for an alpha channel: seeing from sales stats, all of my pictures there are already transparent and invisibile to buyers lately

ROFL
( in a sad way )

Noctiluxx · « **Reply #21 on:** May 05, 2011, 13:53 »

Quote

And if we didn't, we were LOBOtomised.

lol, glad to see my ban at least bared some fruit.
next time i'm making the tshirt as well..

halfshag · « **Reply #22 on:** May 05, 2011, 14:51 »

Ooops the claim is 100 people got screwed not 1000 as I said.

jamirae · « **Reply #23 on:** May 05, 2011, 14:56 »

He obviously just has a different definition of "dramatically" than we do. Kind of like the millionaire who considers himself broke if he only has $999,999 in his account.

brm1949 · « **Reply #24 on:** May 05, 2011, 15:35 »

istock site is down here. Could this have anything to do with it? There is one angry topic in the discussion forum. Bet it won't be there when the sites back up.

Perry · « **Reply #25 on:** May 05, 2011, 15:44 »

I find the article extremely insulting.

brm1949 · « **Reply #26 on:** May 05, 2011, 15:45 »

+1000

Risamay · « **Reply #27 on:** May 05, 2011, 15:53 »

Thanks for posting on this article and highlighting that gaffable Kelly quote.

I saw the article is open for comments. I just left a comment:

Quote

by risamay May 5, 2011 2:01 PM PDT
Expansion has been tough for the company, though, because of a contributor payment system that the company judged financially unsustainable. A switch last year to a performance-based compensation scheme was painful, but in the end, only about 0.1 percent of the more than 100,000 contributors were dramatically affected, Thompson said.

"It didn't really affect most people," Thompson said. "Everyone sort of settled down."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if Kelly's numbers are accurate, but what I do know is that I trust him or iStock to be honest and do right by its contributors very little. After our experiences of the last year, it's crystal clear that the company does not have our best interests at heart.

Further, while we may have "sort of" settled down, that's sort of a line of BS because many of the contributors and threads in the iStock forums where "everyone" voiced their displeasure have been either banned (contributors) or deleted (threads). With that kind of censorship, yeah. It would appear that "everyone" has "sort of" settled down.

Is it any wonder why everyone would still be so unhappy?

While "everyone" isn't a posting member, many of us continue to discuss our displeasure and frustrations with the company on the Microstockgroup Forums where, thankfully, Kelly & Co. can't censor us.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/

ShadySue · « **Reply #28 on:** May 05, 2011, 16:03 »

Quote from: brm1949 on May 05, 2011, 15:35

istock site is down here. Could this have anything to do with it? There is one angry topic in the discussion forum. Bet it won't be there when the sites back up.

It's up here now, the thread is still there and it's growing. For the moment, at least.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #29 on:** May 05, 2011, 16:25 »

I used to think he was a really bad communicator and even felt slightly sorry for him at times, now I just regard him as an outright liar. His remarks make me angry.

cathyslife · « **Reply #30 on:** May 05, 2011, 16:47 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on May 05, 2011, 12:54

Quote from: jsnover on May 05, 2011, 11:39
"the PNG, (portable network graphics) format. Its big advantage compared with JPEG: it supports an "alpha" channel that lets designers mark parts of the overall image as transparent."

thanks, but no need for an alpha channel: seeing from sales stats, all of my pictures there are already transparent and invisibile to buyers lately

That was an LOL for sure!

And now the new Photo+ collection for non-exclusives. Yeah, right, like that's going to change my mind about what a dishonest and greedy company they are.

Risamay · « **Reply #31 on:** May 05, 2011, 16:54 »

Quote

If %.1 of contributors were dramatically affected, why do it? What gains does that provide to iStock to go from unsustainable to expanding?

Because in truth,

more than %.1 of people have been dramatically affected,
many more people have been seriously affected,
many more people have been moderately affected,
and oh by the way, all non-exclusives have been affected.

Perhaps %.1 is the percentage of contributors who benefit from this scheme.

Normally this would be the type of thing to create a survey and see if we could get firm numbers from more than 100 contributors who have been significantly hurt from this change, but it's so obvious, it would be a waste of time.

Source:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=328488&page=3

Well said, adamkaz.

Chico · « **Reply #32 on:** May 05, 2011, 18:23 »

Kelly's answer:

You know what, Kelly does read, and worked his ass off to get the interview so millions of people could read it and remember to come to iStock to buy stuff. As did the rest of the team. And the 15-some interviews we did in the last two weeks in Italy & London.

But I do apologize as I may have botched what I was trying to say. The PR team warned me after the interview I had been very unclear in that section and was jumping around. I think I answered his questions out of order. The fraction of a percent was definitely about the total change in royalties paid out, not the number of people it affected. So I don't think I said that, but it was a 3 hour interview. And I'm jet lagged. And I've screwed up worse before--it's not out of the realm of possibilities.

We announced some important things on CNET today. Please concentrate on which of all your files will work as PNGs. That's exciting news, and we'll be the first agency to have them. And hopefully enjoy the bump in sales these articles (usually) give us.

caspixel · « **Reply #33 on:** May 05, 2011, 18:28 »

You ungrateful contributors! He worked his ass off and he's jet-lagged! Poor KKT

Risamay · « **Reply #34 on:** May 05, 2011, 18:38 »

Quote from: Chico on May 05, 2011, 18:23

Kelly's answer:

You know what, Kelly does read, and worked his ass off to get the interview so millions of people could read it and remember to come to iStock to buy stuff. As did the rest of the team. And the 15-some interviews we did in the last two weeks in Italy & London.

But I do apologize as I may have botched what I was trying to say. The PR team warned me after the interview I had been very unclear in that section and was jumping around. I think I answered his questions out of order. The fraction of a percent was definitely about the total change in royalties paid out, not the number of people it affected. So I don't think I said that, but it was a 3 hour interview. And I'm jet lagged. And I've screwed up worse before--it's not out of the realm of possibilities.

We announced some important things on CNET today. Please concentrate on which of all your files will work as PNGs. That's exciting news, and we'll be the first agency to have them. And hopefully enjoy the bump in sales these articles (usually) give us.

Oh, boo hoo.

If the PR team "warned" him of that, why didn't he clarify immediately? And why agree to an interview when you're jetlagged and confused and already know that you have a serious case of foot-in-mouth when you're well-rested and (presumably) not confused?

ShadySue · « **Reply #35 on:** May 05, 2011, 18:39 »

Hmm, I wonder how much 3 hours of KKT's time is worth, for such dubious publicity. How much traditional advertising could that have bought - and I know it worked.

Chico · « **Reply #36 on:** May 05, 2011, 18:41 »

Quote from: caspixel on May 05, 2011, 18:28

You ungrateful contributors! He worked his ass off and he's jet-lagged! Poor KKT

I think i need some clarification. He's doing us some kind of special favor??!!?

Risamay · « **Reply #37 on:** May 05, 2011, 18:42 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 05, 2011, 18:39

Hmm, I wonder how much 3 hours of KKT's time is worth, for such dubious publicity. How much traditional advertising could that have bought - and I know it worked.

Yes. And how nice, a requisite trip to Italy for a jet-lagged, confused interview. I'm sure that in-person was the only way. Telephone, email, video conferencing via Skype, etc. were (of course) outside of the realm of possibilities. But of course.

gostwyck · « **Reply #38 on:** May 05, 2011, 18:46 »

Quote from: Chico on May 05, 2011, 18:23

Kelly's answer:

You know what, Kelly does read, and worked his ass off to get the interview so millions of people could read it and remember to come to iStock to buy stuff. As did the rest of the team. And the 15-some interviews we did in the last two weeks in Italy & London.

But I do apologize as I may have botched what I was trying to say. The PR team warned me after the interview I had been very unclear in that section and was jumping around. I think I answered his questions out of order. The fraction of a percent was definitely about the total change in royalties paid out, not the number of people it affected. So I don't think I said that, but it was a 3 hour interview. And I'm jet lagged. And I've screwed up worse before--it's not out of the realm of possibilities.

We announced some important things on CNET today. Please concentrate on which of all your files will work as PNGs. That's exciting news, and we'll be the first agency to have them. And hopefully enjoy the bump in sales these articles (usually) give us.

Is he drunk? He sounds like he's been emptying the mini-bar in that fancy London hotel we're all paying for.

stockastic · « **Reply #39 on:** May 05, 2011, 18:56 »

The only reason I can think of for an exec to be publicly pumping out this BS is - as others have suggested - that the company is being set up for possible sale.

Mantis · « **Reply #40 on:** May 05, 2011, 19:33 »

Quote from: halfshag on May 05, 2011, 12:52

"Everyone sort of settled down.", really? I guess getting tired of ranting to a brick wall on the forums constitutes agreement. I won't forget what they did.

I got a site mail from LOBO warning me about my postings in their forums when they made the big announcement. All I was doing was speaking my mind and not using any cuss words (like others did) but I figured it was because I was non-exclusive and a nobody in the eyes of ISTOCK. Shortly after, I joined up here. My sales dropped from around $540 a month to the $250ish range. So I am not in that fantasy land number of 99 point something percent unaffected.

Risamay · « **Reply #41 on:** May 05, 2011, 19:33 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 05, 2011, 18:46

Is he drunk? He sounds like he's been emptying the mini-bar in that fancy London hotel we're all paying for.

And notice he doesn't even touch the comment about "Everyone sort of settled down."

Did you actually say that crap or not, Kelly? Not that I would believe you if you said you didn't. Because it sounds a lot like something you'd try and claim well-rested and in the comfort of your own home. Really don't think you can blame blunders like that one on jet lag or "I was confused."

ShadySue · « **Reply #42 on:** May 05, 2011, 19:50 »

Quote from: Risamay on May 05, 2011, 19:33

Quote from: gostwyck on May 05, 2011, 18:46

Is he drunk? He sounds like he's been emptying the mini-bar in that fancy London hotel we're all paying for.

And notice he doesn't even touch the comment about "Everyone sort of settled down."

Did you actually say that crap or not, Kelly? Not that I would believe you if you said you didn't. Because it sounds a lot like something you'd try and claim well-rested and in the comfort of your own home. Really don't think you can blame blunders like that one on jet lag or "I was confused."

One would have to ask why he and the others would "work their asses off" to get an interview when you were under-par, confused, and liable to talk rubbish.
BTW, Kelly, it's 'arse'. An 'ass' is a donkey.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #43 on:** May 05, 2011, 20:03 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 05, 2011, 19:50

...BTW, Kelly, it's 'arse'. An 'ass' is a donkey.

I know KKT is Canadian, but in the US 'ass' does double duty as both - so convenient

ShadySue · « **Reply #44 on:** May 05, 2011, 20:07 »

Quote from: jsnover on May 05, 2011, 20:03

Quote from: ShadySue on May 05, 2011, 19:50
...BTW, Kelly, it's 'arse'. An 'ass' is a donkey.
I know KKT is Canadian, but in the US 'ass' does double duty as both - so convenient

:-)
bTW, that was ~~a great~~ an excellent reply you made to him on that thread. Well done!

ShadySue · « **Reply #45 on:** May 05, 2011, 20:15 »

Quote from: Mantis on May 05, 2011, 19:33

Quote from: halfshag on May 05, 2011, 12:52
"Everyone sort of settled down.", really? I guess getting tired of ranting to a brick wall on the forums constitutes agreement. I won't forget what they did.
I got a site mail from LOBO warning me about my postings in their forums when they made the big announcement. All I was doing was speaking my mind and not using any cuss words (like others did) but I figured it was because I was non-exclusive and a nobody in the eyes of ISTOCK.

Oh, I can assure you that it's not only independents. I'm banned and exclusive. And I certainly didn't swear. In fact, I only told the truth.

caspixel · « **Reply #46 on:** May 05, 2011, 20:26 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 05, 2011, 20:15

Quote from: Mantis on May 05, 2011, 19:33
Quote from: halfshag on May 05, 2011, 12:52
"Everyone sort of settled down.", really? I guess getting tired of ranting to a brick wall on the forums constitutes agreement. I won't forget what they did.
I got a site mail from LOBO warning me about my postings in their forums when they made the big announcement. All I was doing was speaking my mind and not using any cuss words (like others did) but I figured it was because I was non-exclusive and a nobody in the eyes of ISTOCK.
Oh, I can assure you that it's not only independents. I'm banned and exclusive. And I certainly didn't swear. In fact, I only told the truth.

LOL. I'm banned and I was a buyer! So don't feel bad.

Sadstock · « **Reply #47 on:** May 05, 2011, 21:17 »

Quote from: Chico on May 05, 2011, 18:23

Kelly's answer:

You know what, Kelly does read, and worked his ass off to get the interview so millions of people could read it and remember to come to iStock to buy stuff. As did the rest of the team. And the 15-some interviews we did in the last two weeks in Italy & London.

But I do apologize as I may have botched what I was trying to say. The PR team warned me after the interview I had been very unclear in that section and was jumping around. I think I answered his questions out of order. The fraction of a percent was definitely about the total change in royalties paid out, not the number of people it affected. So I don't think I said that, but it was a 3 hour interview. And I'm jet lagged. And I've screwed up worse before--it's not out of the realm of possibilities.

We announced some important things on CNET today. Please concentrate on which of all your files will work as PNGs. That's exciting news, and we'll be the first agency to have them. And hopefully enjoy the bump in sales these articles (usually) give us.

-------------------------------------------------

Really? This is the best he's got? Reading this sure sounds to me like he's saying he really does not have what it takes to be a CEO/COO. Its a really hard and demanding job, which is why few people are cut out for it. Successful ones get this stuff right regardless of how long the interview is, even when jet lagged, even if it means reaching out to the writer a couple of hours/days later to ensure they have the information you want them to have. Successful ones sure don't whine to/about their key suppliers for being pissed when the he admits that maybe he screwed up again (not as bad as before, really) but he can't be sure (though his people thought he muffed it).

Wow

Perry · « **Reply #48 on:** May 05, 2011, 22:50 »

Quote from: Chico on May 05, 2011, 18:23

The fraction of a percent was definitely about the total change in royalties paid out, not the number of people it affected.

"Oooops!". Then why the h*ll doesn't he call the reporter and tell him to set the facts straight? He just tries to squirm out of anything.

And what does that even mean? That iStock royalty payouts were reduced by .1% and that affected dramatically... what? who?

rubyroo · « **Reply #49 on:** May 06, 2011, 09:18 »

Quote from: Chico on May 05, 2011, 18:23

Kelly's answer:

Please concentrate on which of all your files will work as PNGs. That's exciting news, and we'll be the first agency to have them. And hopefully enjoy the bump in sales these articles (usually) give us.[/i]

Ah. OK. If they're keen to be the 'first agency to have them', I won't let them have them. I'll wait until Jon Oringer wants them thanks.

gostwyck · « **Reply #50 on:** May 06, 2011, 09:26 »

Quote from: rubyroo on May 06, 2011, 09:18

Quote from: Chico on May 05, 2011, 18:23
Kelly's answer:

Please concentrate on which of all your files will work as PNGs. That's exciting news, and we'll be the first agency to have them. And hopefully enjoy the bump in sales these articles (usually) give us.[/i]

Ah. OK. If they're keen to be the 'first agency to have them', I won't let them have them. I'll wait until Jon Oringer wants them thanks.

Good idea. In Jon we trust (in Kelly we distrust).

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #51 on:** May 06, 2011, 09:26 »

Quote from: rubyroo on May 06, 2011, 09:18

Quote from: Chico on May 05, 2011, 18:23
Kelly's answer:

Please concentrate on which of all your files will work as PNGs. That's exciting news, and we'll be the first agency to have them. And hopefully enjoy the bump in sales these articles (usually) give us.[/i]

Ah. OK. If they're keen to be the 'first agency to have them', I won't let them have them. I'll wait until Jon Oringer wants them thanks.

I don't know where this sudden thing for .png files came from. If they were desired, they would already be on other sites.

gostwyck · « **Reply #52 on:** May 06, 2011, 09:29 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 06, 2011, 09:26

I don't know where this sudden thing for .png files came from. If they were desired, they would already be on other sites.

Presumably Istock thinks they can then justify yet another massive price hike for customers probably whilst paying contributors even less. The pattern is set, that's all they care about nowadays.

ShadySue · « **Reply #53 on:** May 06, 2011, 11:56 »

Quote from: Perry on May 05, 2011, 22:50

Quote from: Chico on May 05, 2011, 18:23
The fraction of a percent was definitely about the total change in royalties paid out, not the number of people it affected.
"Oooops!". Then why the h*ll doesn't he call the reporter and tell him to set the facts straight? He just tries to squirm out of anything.

Don't worry, the cnet comments below the article have undone any good he worked his donkey off to do.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #54 on:** May 06, 2011, 12:05 »

Maybe the 0.1% just refers to contributors who actually spontaneously exploded while sitting their computers. ( see the movie Spinal Tap for more info on this phenomenon). It would fit into the category of "dramatic"

Risamay · « **Reply #55 on:** May 06, 2011, 12:10 »

Yeah, I don't get how the PNG thing is in any way exciting. TIFFs or RAW files, maybe. But really. Who gives a fig about PNG files?

epantha · « **Reply #56 on:** May 06, 2011, 12:14 »

PNG files are good for PowerPoint presentations

ppdd · « **Reply #57 on:** May 06, 2011, 12:19 »

PNG is a clearly superior format for many things, esp. web, video and PPT applications (due to alpha availabliliy) - it can save a lot of time.

cthoman · « **Reply #58 on:** May 06, 2011, 12:47 »

How much should you give designers? Aren't they just making their own PNGs, clipping paths, crops, designs, etc.? It's stock. It is supposed to be adjusted for your needs.

gostwyck · « **Reply #59 on:** May 06, 2011, 12:54 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 06, 2011, 11:56

Don't worry, the cnet comments on his article have undone any good he worked his donkey off to do.

They seem to be preoccupied with donkeys at Istock. First we had JJRD who kept putting his donkey on the line (just for us!) and now we have Kelly doing things with his donkey in a London hotel room.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #60 on:** May 06, 2011, 12:56 »

Quote from: cthoman on May 06, 2011, 12:47

How much should you give designers? Aren't they just making their own PNGs, clipping paths, crops, designs, etc.? It's stock. It is supposed to be adjusted for your needs.

If I thought there was a market for it, I'd give designers almost anything they were willing to pay the right price for (no RAW files). I've read some designers on how they'd rather do their own clipping paths so they know they're right and others who say they'd love to save time.

I've heard iStock's spiel on no finished designs but SS sells a ton of those sorts of files, so someone wants them.

If the market for PNGs with alpha channels is just corporate PowerPoints, I'd like to get some idea of what percentage of our sales go into that market before deciding if it's worth it. I was not aware that made up a large portion of our sales, but as we don't really have any data on sales - iStock does if they've categorized those who buy credits from them, which I hope for their sake they have - I could be wrong.

As management at IS has yet to do anything in the way of an announcement on this to contributors, we're left with KKT whining that we aren't focusing on the positives in his interview.

cthoman · « **Reply #61 on:** May 06, 2011, 13:23 »

Quote from: jsnover on May 06, 2011, 12:56

If I thought there was a market for it, I'd give designers almost anything they were willing to pay the right price for (no RAW files). I've read some designers on how they'd rather do their own clipping paths so they know they're right and others who say they'd love to save time.

I've heard iStock's spiel on no finished designs but Shutterstock sells a ton of those sorts of files, so someone wants them.

If the market for PNGs with alpha channels is just corporate PowerPoints, I'd like to get some idea of what percentage of our sales go into that market before deciding if it's worth it. I was not aware that made up a large portion of our sales, but as we don't really have any data on sales - iStock does if they've categorized those who buy credits from them, which I hope for their sake they have - I could be wrong.

As management at IS has yet to do anything in the way of an announcement on this to contributors, we're left with KKT whining that we aren't focusing on the positives in his interview.

I wasn't necessarily criticizing giving buyers what they want. Just posing the question. Like you said, is it worth it? The clipping paths is a good example. Why put them in if you aren't going to get paid extra for them? There just seems to be this level of expected freebies as competition goes up. I guess I should wait for the details. It doesn't sound like it is going to affect vectors anyway, although I'm still not entirely convinced of that.

a1bercik · « **Reply #62 on:** May 07, 2011, 06:07 »

I guess the IS's idea is/was to create some kind of 'visual supermarket'. The thing is - you don't go to the butcher to find sofas...
This intensive and loud PR is nothing more than just loud noise publicity, in my opinion. On the way we could forget about principles (%s, so many fails, escaping clients, trust, etc.) which is good for them at some point.
Build trust again? No chance, won't recommend them, I sent my wife's projects to SS.

lthn · « **Reply #63 on:** May 07, 2011, 06:24 »

It took them a decade to discover PNG : ))) ridiculous... will it cost more btw?

Mantis · « **Reply #64 on:** May 07, 2011, 07:36 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 06, 2011, 09:26

Quote from: rubyroo on May 06, 2011, 09:18
Quote from: Chico on May 05, 2011, 18:23
Kelly's answer:

Please concentrate on which of all your files will work as PNGs. That's exciting news, and we'll be the first agency to have them. And hopefully enjoy the bump in sales these articles (usually) give us.[/i]

Ah. OK. If they're keen to be the 'first agency to have them', I won't let them have them. I'll wait until Jon Oringer wants them thanks.

Good idea. In Jon we trust (in Kelly we distrust).

^ I was going to post something about trust but this pretty much sums it up for me.

ShadySue · « **Reply #65 on:** May 07, 2011, 10:08 »

Quote from: jsnover on May 05, 2011, 20:03

Quote from: ShadySue on May 05, 2011, 19:50
...BTW, Kelly, it's 'arse'. An 'ass' is a donkey.
I know KKT is Canadian, but in the US 'ass' does double duty as both - so convenient

Is 'top shelf photo' an Americanism too?
As in "To that end, iStock began offering top-shelf photos when it launched its Vetta collection in 2009"
I'd infer that that meant 'soft porn', like "top shelf magazines".

disorderly · « **Reply #66 on:** May 07, 2011, 10:18 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 07, 2011, 10:08

Is 'top shelf photo' an Americanism too?
As in "To that end, iStock began offering top-shelf photos when it launched its Vetta collection in 2009"
I'd infer that that meant 'soft porn' like, "top shelf magazines".

Top shelf refers to bars, where the top shelf carries the premium brands of whiskies and other spirits. They're distinguished from well brands, which may be okay for mixed drinks but not the stuff a sophisticate would order. So they mean it to represent the good stuff, the stuff worth paying more for.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #67 on:** May 07, 2011, 10:19 »

I think 'top shelf' is from supermarkets where more expensive, better items are placed at eye level or on the top shelf.

klsbear · « **Reply #68 on:** May 07, 2011, 10:34 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 07, 2011, 10:19

I think 'top shelf' is from supermarkets where more expensive, better items are placed at eye level or on the top shelf.

Eye level yes, but not the top shelf for supermarkets - that's above most people's easy reach so it's not prime real estate. Let's hope their not using a supermarket model because if that's the case they will start charging "slotting fees" for premium location and space in the best match just like the supermarkets charge for shelf location.

lisafx · « **Reply #69 on:** May 07, 2011, 13:27 »

Disorderly is right about the meaning of "top shelf". Misspent youth working in bars (pubs for you Brits) taught me that

It is honestly a revelation to me that ass only refers to a donkey in Britain. Although I have heard arse used, I had no idea ass was not interchangeable.

On the PNG issue, what exactly is expected of us? Are they expecting us to convert our images to PNG format in Photoshop and then upload a separate PNG file for each image? Why can't they come up with an automated process to do that, like Dreamstime does with TIFFs?

I might consider uploading PNGs if there was a monetary incentive. Something like .25 per image uploaded, like Fotolia, Veer, Depositphotos, etc. offered when they wanted images.

I devoted probably over 100 hours to disambiguating thousands of files back in the day. It was pure torture. And that was when Istock really seemed like a partner, and sales were good enough to (barely) justify the time investment. Today is a completely different story. Istock's behavior and sales have deteriorated to the point where I can't see myself spending any time making and uploading PNG versions of my images.

It seems like Istock thinks they are going to be "cutting edge" being the first site to offer PNGs. Kind of like they were the first site to convert to CV. And that worked out so well.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #70 on:** May 07, 2011, 13:40 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 07, 2011, 13:27

On the PNG issue, what exactly is expected of us? Are they expecting us to convert our images to PNG format in Photoshop and then upload a separate PNG file for each image? Why can't they come up with an automated process to do that, like Dreamstime does with TIFFs?

I might consider uploading PNGs if there was a monetary incentive.

They want transparent PNGs with alpha channel, so no automatic conversion possible. But it's a lot of work and I agree there should be an incentive.

ShadySue · « **Reply #71 on:** May 07, 2011, 14:04 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 07, 2011, 13:27

It is honestly a revelation to me that ass only refers to a donkey in Britain. Although I have heard arse used, I had no idea ass was not interchangeable.

To be honest, I do know 'ass' as an Americanism.
I didn't know 'top shelf' in this context, so that's my 'something learned' for today. :-)

rubyroo · « **Reply #72 on:** May 07, 2011, 14:06 »

I thought 'top shelf' meant porn too

lisafx · « **Reply #73 on:** May 07, 2011, 14:29 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on May 07, 2011, 13:40

They want transparent PNGs with alpha channel, so no automatic conversion possible. But it's a lot of work and I agree there should be an incentive.

Thanks for explaining.

That's just not going to happen - at least in my case. I can't imagine there's enough demand to justify the extra work.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #74 on:** May 07, 2011, 15:15 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 07, 2011, 14:29

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on May 07, 2011, 13:40

They want transparent PNGs with alpha channel, so no automatic conversion possible. But it's a lot of work and I agree there should be an incentive.

Thanks for explaining.

That's just not going to happen - at least in my case. I can't imagine there's enough demand to justify the extra work.

Me, neither. Should it become a common format on other major sites as well, maybe - but still a lot of work for possibly little return.

Suljo · « **Reply #75 on:** May 07, 2011, 17:36 »

Why they just set up action like in photoshop for images which have clipping paths, then knock them out in new layer and then SaveAs PNG If it is the case from postings before lobotomy answers from kely Konjson who seams dont know nothing about anything?
Just how to fart and run around the tree...

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #76 on:** May 08, 2011, 00:47 »

For images that have clipping paths indeed. But I have no idea how many do - surely none of mine.

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **Reply #77 on:** May 09, 2011, 11:59 »

snipped from

Quote from: Chico on May 05, 2011, 18:23

Kelly's answer:

Please concentrate on which of all your files will work as PNGs. That's exciting news, and we'll be the first agency to have them.

I think Kelly needs to make a retraction about being the first agency to have PNGs...

Quoted from Bigstock FAQ's (which has been the case for YEARS, as I remember it):

Can I submit vector illustrations?
Yes. You can submit illustrations in AI, PDF, EPS, PNG and PSD format. Please preserve the editing capabilities in these files, since customers expect the ability to modify the files. (my bolding)

http://www.bigstockphoto.com/faq.html#CISVI

So, if that has somehow been missed in research - what about the problems inherent to pngs - like colour shifting...was that considered?

I'm not sure how this is such a great thing. Seems to me it is good mainly for flat coloured vectors, 3D renders with alpha backgrounds, or green screened photographed objects. I thought those were things that were often IS rejects.

Wow, that is just about as baffling to me as the interview statements and defense of same.

I wonder who's brain child this was

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #78 on:** May 14, 2011, 07:18 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 05, 2011, 11:26

Found via istockphoto thread.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20059972-264.html#ixzz1LUkpWgur

KKT's Foot-in-month Quote of the Day:
"Expansion has been tough for the company, though, because of a contributor payment system that the company judged financially unsustainable. A switch last year to a performance-based compensation scheme was painful, but in the end, only about 0.1 percent of the more than 100,000 contributors were dramatically affected, Thompson said.
Run that past me again...

"It didn't really affect most people," Thompson said. "Everyone sort of settled down."

And if we didn't, we were LOBOtomised.

Lies, damned lies, statistics and spin.

The quote "but in the end, only about 0.1 percent of the more than 100,000 contributors were dramatically affected" has since been edited out but you can still see the original version here. http://breakingnews24hrs.net/techonology/expansion-istockphoto-makes-the-top-video-game-range/

Also for those who missed my blog update I'm posting my latest blog post again here, which I started writing after reading this thread. I honestly try and avoid writing about iStock, but they just keep giving me irresistible material. http://www.microstockposts.com/royalties/

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock expanding (Read 20147 times)

rubyroo

rubyroo

lisafx

microstockphoto.co.uk

rubyroo

jbarber873

lisafx

microstockphoto.co.uk

rubyroo

lisafx

microstockphoto.co.uk

microstockphoto.co.uk

Pixel-Pizzazz

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors