MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: istock organises conference call with selected few  (Read 68729 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 13, 2011, 08:51 »
0
Its been mentioned in the other istock thread, but i thought this deserved a thread of it's own:
From mr. Thompson:

"OK, heres what were going to do.
Were going to take a few people (maximum 5?) and ask them to sign NDAs. Then we'll have a conference call this week about what's going on. They can be the ears of the entire community and see if we're doing anything out of the ordinary.
I'm going to lock this thread. Someone can start a new one where they nominate people they'd like to speak with us. They will need to be exclusive members. Nominate away.
KKT"
(end of now-locked clawback thread)
Nominations of exclusives can be made here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=1


I'm not sure what to expect from this. Are they going to open the books to these select few and actually prove everything is ok? Are they going to reveal their future plans?
I dont see much use in it if the rest of us don't get any details at all...

And i think this one is a very genuine concern:
Posted By lostinbids:
There is part of me that thinks if 5 prominant members of the community sign a NDA get told what is going on and then can't share it with the rest of us we loose those 5 prominant members voices' in the forums.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2011, 08:59 by Artemis »


lagereek

« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2011, 09:03 »
0
Strange, they dont call at least one experienced, high-ranked independant. Reps from all quarters is the normal precidure in this action.

That aside, I dont doubt for a second that IS can show everything is above board, never doubted their honesty in this mess. Just, it could have been handled much better and in a much more diplomatic way, thats all.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2011, 09:05 »
0
Strange, they dont call at least one experienced, high-ranked independant.
The one we all thought of has not chipped in on this issue, either on iStock or here (unless I blinked and missed him), which is interesting in itself, IMO.

« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2011, 09:11 »
0
Strange, they dont call at least one experienced, high-ranked independant.
The one we all thought of has not chipped in on this issue, either on iStock or here (unless I blinked and missed him), which is interesting in itself, IMO.
Exactely! Been wondering about that too...
 maybe his legal team is on it and he can't comment? or his sweetheart deal is so sweet it soothes everything for him? or or..?
« Last Edit: March 13, 2011, 09:15 by Artemis »

« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2011, 09:38 »
0
what use is that if the people have to sign an NDA? Sounds like a nice way to muzzle even more people who are critical of iStock. This is the crappiest suggestion yet.

And why are people nominating Sean? What a foolish move. Sorry. But it would be the worst thing to have him muzzled. I can't believe people are falling for this. iStock treats the contributors like chumps and they fall right in line like good little Kool-Aid drinkers.

And why only exclusive members???
« Last Edit: March 13, 2011, 09:40 by caspixel »

« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2011, 09:47 »
0
This shouldn't be a conference call with exclusive members. This needs to be a town hall meeting with lots of participants and a question queue. I know this is easy to facilitate because I used to work for a Fortune 500 company and we'd have global conference calls with our CEO quarterly. 

« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2011, 09:51 »
0
I really hope that whoever is nominated refuses to participate. Who says iStock is not being transparent? Many of their latest moves are really transparent, just not in the way *iStock* would like them to be.

I mean, if they are signing an NDA, can they even say, "I'm not satisfied with how things are being handled"? Can they even talk about it at all? Frankly, I'd be really reluctant to sign anything with iStock, seeing how sneaky they have been with their ASA.

Someone on iStock said:

I have to list Sean first. I think we'll get the no nonsense distilled info.

Clearly they don't understand what an NDA is. They won't get no-nonsense distilled info. They won't get ANY info!
« Last Edit: March 13, 2011, 09:54 by caspixel »

« Reply #7 on: March 13, 2011, 09:55 »
0
Thankfully there are some rational heads over there still:

I would urge anyone considering taking on this responsibility to consider it carefully.  Depending on the NDA and how much you learn, it is possible that you might not be able to post much if anything analytical about Istock in the forums again, ever.

Those are my thoughts exactly.

« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2011, 10:00 »
0
Thankfully there are some rational heads over there still:

I would urge anyone considering taking on this responsibility to consider it carefully.  Depending on the NDA and how much you learn, it is possible that you might not be able to post much if anything analytical about Istock in the forums again, ever.

Those are my thoughts exactly.
Again, why the NDA at all?  This should be a public discussion that's open to all.  Period.

« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2011, 10:06 »
0
Thankfully there are some rational heads over there still:

I would urge anyone considering taking on this responsibility to consider it carefully.  Depending on the NDA and how much you learn, it is possible that you might not be able to post much if anything analytical about Istock in the forums again, ever.

Those are my thoughts exactly.
Again, why the NDA at all?  This should be a public discussion that's open to all.  Period.

I totally agree. But it looks like people are falling for it. Boggles my mind.

« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2011, 10:10 »
0
I really hope that whoever is nominated refuses to participate. Who says iStock is not being transparent? Many of their latest moves are really transparent, just not in the way *iStock* would like them to be.

I mean, if they are signing an NDA, can they even say, "I'm not satisfied with how things are being handled"? Can they even talk about it at all? Frankly, I'd be really reluctant to sign anything with iStock, seeing how sneaky they have been with their ASA.

Someone on iStock said:

I have to list Sean first. I think we'll get the no nonsense distilled info.

Clearly they don't understand what an NDA is. They won't get no-nonsense distilled info. They won't get ANY info!

Exactly. You've nailed it.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2011, 10:15 »
0
Thankfully there are some rational heads over there still:

I would urge anyone considering taking on this responsibility to consider it carefully.  Depending on the NDA and how much you learn, it is possible that you might not be able to post much if anything analytical about Istock in the forums again, ever.

Those are my thoughts exactly.
Again, why the NDA at all?  This should be a public discussion that's open to all.  Period.
It seems that the discussion with the five peer-selected contributors is only about the fraud, not about the gazillion other things which are wrong with iStock at the moment. Therefore:
It MAY be that iStock is going to explain to the group what the nature of the fraud was, what they did about the first wave, in December, why they apparently can't get insurance (RM says they can't, at any rate!), why the second wave happened, why it went on for so long, apparently undetected - or did they have to leave it for so long to gather enough evidence for the police or other relevant authorities.
It MAY be that that information is sub judice or similar, so can't at the moment be made public. I think that's what Kelly has been saying.
HOPEFULLY the NDA would only be that the group couldn't discuss the details of the fraud cases until it's all made public in the fullness of time.
There would be no need to muzzle the chosen sample from frank, free and full exchange of opinions on other matters on the forums, here or elsewhere, and I wouldn't expect them to agree to anything else.
Sean and JoAnn from here, I hope you're both up for it.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2011, 10:26 by ShadySue »

« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2011, 10:28 »
0
It MAY be that iStock is going to explain to the group what the nature of the fraud was, what they did about the first wave, in December, why they apparently can't get insurance (RM says they can't, at any rate!), why the second wave happened, why it went on for so long, apparently undetected - or did they have to leave it for so long to gather enough evidence for the police or other relevant authorities.
It MAY be that that information is sub judice or similar, so can't at the moment be made public. I think that's what Kelly has been saying.
HOPEFULLY the NDA would only be that the group couldn't discuss the details of the fraud cases until it's all made public in the fullness of time.
There would be no need to muzzle the chosen sample from frank, free and full exchange of opinions on other matters on the forums, here or elsewhere, and I wouldn't expect them to agree to anything else.
Sean and JoAnn from here, I hope you're both up for it.
[/quote]
While I don't disagree with you, there's a lot more that needs to be discussed than just the fraud that took place. Broken functionality, reduced commissions, recurring bugs, etc. All of these additional issues are barely commented on by Admins and when they are, it's "We're looking into it" or some other b.s. with no timelines or reassurances of when things will be made right.

« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2011, 10:36 »
0
Thankfully there are some rational heads over there still:

I would urge anyone considering taking on this responsibility to consider it carefully.  Depending on the NDA and how much you learn, it is possible that you might not be able to post much if anything analytical about Istock in the forums again, ever.

Those are my thoughts exactly.
Again, why the NDA at all?  This should be a public discussion that's open to all.  Period.
It seems that the discussion with the five peer-selected contributors is only about the fraud, not about the gazillion other things which are wrong with iStock at the moment. Therefore:
It MAY be that iStock is going to explain to the group what the nature of the fraud was, what they did about the first wave, in December, why they apparently can't get insurance (RM says they can't, at any rate!), why the second wave happened, why it went on for so long, apparently undetected - or did they have to leave it for so long to gather enough evidence for the police or other relevant authorities.
It MAY be that that information is sub judice or similar, so can't at the moment be made public. I think that's what Kelly has been saying.
HOPEFULLY the NDA would only be that the group couldn't discuss the details of the fraud cases until it's all made public in the fullness of time.
There would be no need to muzzle the chosen sample from frank, free and full exchange of opinions on other matters on the forums, here or elsewhere, and I wouldn't expect them to agree to anything else.
Sean and JoAnn from here, I hope you're both up for it.


That was my take on it -- an NDA rouses suspicion for sure, but IF there was truly something that the authorities are involved in and IF it is still on-going (and it sounds like it is, if the last "fraudulent downloads" took place as recently as February 28) and they're still trying to catch them, I can see why perhaps there are parts they can't divulge publicly, and why they would need to have new people in the loop agree not to compromise it by divulging certain things.  However it also gives them a weasel-out if it was in fact due to their negligence or carelessness, or a gaping security hole in their F5 revamped site, or something else. 

People signing it don't have to say anything in order to make their opinions known.  I'm sure anyone working there has to sign an NDA agreement, including inspectors, and yet you see them give up their badges and/or leave because in their own words they don't like what is going on or the direction it's going in, and they vote with their feet without breaking agreement.  Likewise, I think if Sean agrees to do this and sees something dodgy, he's not going to sacrifice himself - he might not be able to tell all, but if he leaves or tosses the crown or takes other action like that, he'll have said something by his actions.   Sean doesn't back down from what he thinks is right, as evidenced by three tries to re-open the February stats thread even though TPTB kept locking his thread.  If he sees something on the NDA that doesn't look right, if isn't there for a legitimate reason, I expect that he'll call them on it -- and we'll hear about it. 

I do wish it was open to more than five -- but I think a totally open-for-all call would turn into a major shitstorm, and we'd end up with less answers than we are likely to with a carefully chosen fewer number.  Bottom line -- to me, it's better than KK just locking the thread and ignoring everything until the next issue comes up, which has become the norm lately. 

Just my two cents.   

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #14 on: March 13, 2011, 10:42 »
0
Just trying to give TPTB the benefit of the doubt on this one issue, the NDA could be only about discussing the actual details. They could still feed back to the baying mob whether they think iStock did everything they could given the circumstances or whether they feel more could have been done. It's difficult for people to say for certain, to be sure, as most of us aren't trained in international law.

« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2011, 10:46 »
0
I dont know how this will work other than to quiet 5 people in the forums.plus it will cause more speculation as the rest of us will remain in the dark.

« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2011, 10:51 »
0
Instead of posting wooyay to KK's posting what about "Where the fuck have you been for the last 3 months"

« Reply #17 on: March 13, 2011, 10:58 »
0
Instead of posting wooyay to KK's posting what about "Where the  have you been for the last 3 months"
It surely hasn't been at a communications or people-skills workshop. :(   They seriously need someone else to be their spokesperson. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2011, 11:02 »
0
Instead of posting wooyay to KK's posting what about "Where the  have you been for the last 3 months"
It surely hasn't been at a communications or people-skills workshop. :(   They seriously need someone else to be their spokesperson. 
The hapless Official Spin Doctor is RogerMexico.

« Reply #19 on: March 13, 2011, 11:03 »
0
Instead of posting wooyay to KK's posting what about "Where the  have you been for the last 3 months"
It surely hasn't been at a communications or people-skills workshop. :(   They seriously need someone else to be their spokesperson. 
I couldn't agree more.  

« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2011, 11:03 »
0
I can't imagine signing the NDA. It doesn't really seem like you have much to gain from it. It seems better to just not know.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2011, 11:07 »
0
I can't imagine signing the NDA. It doesn't really seem like you have much to gain from it. It seems better to just not know.
I'm sure that Sean for one would be happier knowing that this was a genuine, unpreventable, major fraud assault (assuming for the moment that it is) and not just his agent's negligence or worse.

« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2011, 11:28 »
0
I'm sure that Sean for one would be happier knowing that this was a genuine, unpreventable, major fraud assault (assuming for the moment that it is) and not just his agent's negligence or worse.
That information would be nice, but it wouldn't really affect you financially. The fraud already happened, and we are paying for it. I guess my point is that I've never signed an NDA where money wasn't going to be exchanged. I suppose if the news was bad like more fraud was unpreventable, then you could try to leave before it happened. But, what would that involve? Pulling your portfolio? Going non-exclusive?

« Reply #23 on: March 13, 2011, 11:59 »
0
I like Paul Cowan's suggestion that the five have a list of questions they can answer in advance of the meeting.

Since this is a spinoff of the fraud thread, it's fair to assume that this conference relates only to that issue.  If it covered any other issues, then the five should refuse to sign the NDA.  Finally, if possible the group should include a lawyer and a programmer.

« Reply #24 on: March 13, 2011, 12:04 »
0
I like Paul Cowan's suggestion that the five have a list of questions they can answer in advance of the meeting.

Since this is a spinoff of the fraud thread, it's fair to assume that this conference relates only to that issue.  If it covered any other issues, then the five should refuse to sign the NDA.  Finally, if possible the group should include a lawyer and a programmer.

And an accountant.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3610 Views
Last post April 07, 2011, 21:28
by madelaide
58 Replies
15590 Views
Last post May 04, 2011, 16:23
by donding
5 Replies
2759 Views
Last post May 06, 2011, 13:09
by caspixel
0 Replies
1543 Views
Last post August 07, 2013, 19:25
by WarrenPrice
1 Replies
3090 Views
Last post April 28, 2017, 11:27
by Niakris

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle