Author Topic: New look for iStock (Read 11019 times)

click_click · « **Reply #25 on:** December 15, 2012, 11:19 »

What could I possibly add to Lisa's post?

I agree 100%.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #26 on:** December 15, 2012, 11:20 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 15, 2012, 11:12

Quote from: Freedom on December 14, 2012, 19:19
We all agree iStock deserves to be criticized, however, it is not nice to wish for its demise. Indies should be sensitive to the fact that many people are still receiving meaningful income from it, including indies. Just because iStock did injustice to you, it's not fair to sink the ship with many innocent victims with it. Sometimes I find it ironic for those who complain about poor sales while trying to bring down iStock at the same time.

As one of the indies that would prefer for Istock to get its act together and recover from this tailspin, I am well aware how important they have been to the balance of the microstock industry. I continue to believe that Istock making exclusives happy while providing a stable platform for all of us to sell our images would be ideal.

However I must object to the notion that my and other indie contributors efforts to redirect our buyers to other, more equitable sites are responsible for "bringing down Istock". Istockphoto's demise is entirely self-inflicted. I am sure that if you review their business decisions of the past two years you will agree.

Doesn't "self-inflected" go against the idea that Getty is making all the decisions.
It does get confusing when we discuss Getty and iStock in one post. Are they one or are they separate entities. Who makes the decisions?

lisafx · « **Reply #27 on:** December 15, 2012, 11:43 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 15, 2012, 11:20

Doesn't "self-inflected" go against the idea that Getty is making all the decisions.

First off, this misses the main point of my post, which was that it is not contributor actions that are killing Istock.

Secondly, seems pretty obvious they are now one entity. Most of Istock's original people have been replaced by Getty people. Since they are all part of one company and have been for almost 7 years, I don't see how anyone could view Getty's destruction of Istock as anything but self-destruction.

Getty/Istock = tom(ay)to/to(mah)to

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #28 on:** December 15, 2012, 11:47 »

So, I'm a Getty Photographer?

gostwyck · « **Reply #29 on:** December 15, 2012, 12:29 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 14, 2012, 18:14

Quote from: TheBlackRhino on December 14, 2012, 16:45
Looking at all the giddy responses makes me think iStock is a cult.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 13, 2012, 18:50
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1

So, what? We're never allowed to respond positively to an initiative?

Actually the responses are positively mild compared to those in better times. Not so long ago, when the Kool-Aid drinking was at it's peak, any sort of announcement on the forums immediately brought forth every Admin and Inspector across the world to gush in feverish praise and admiration __ and all within 45 minutes too. It was obvious that they had been summoned and it was their duty to pay appropriate homage to the machine.

cobalt · « **Reply #30 on:** December 15, 2012, 15:32 »

Actually, no, they are not summoned. But as an admin you really live on the site and obviously you want to cheer the other members of the team with whatever it is they work on.

Freedom · « **Reply #31 on:** December 15, 2012, 15:33 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 15, 2012, 11:12

Quote from: Freedom on December 14, 2012, 19:19
We all agree iStock deserves to be criticized, however, it is not nice to wish for its demise. Indies should be sensitive to the fact that many people are still receiving meaningful income from it, including indies. Just because iStock did injustice to you, it's not fair to sink the ship with many innocent victims with it. Sometimes I find it ironic for those who complain about poor sales while trying to bring down iStock at the same time.

As one of the indies that would prefer for Istock to get its act together and recover from this tailspin, I am well aware how important they have been to the balance of the microstock industry. I continue to believe that Istock making exclusives happy while providing a stable platform for all of us to sell our images would be ideal.

However I must object to the notion that my and other indie contributors efforts to redirect our buyers to other, more equitable sites are responsible for "bringing down Istock". Istockphoto's demise is entirely self-inflicted. I am sure that if you review their business decisions of the past two years you will agree.

According to your logic, Lisafx, may we come to the conclusion that if you ever complain that sales are not satisfactory at iStock, they must be self-inflicted?

Let's go back to the original topic, the issue is when iStock has a new web page, whether or not anyone can say anything positive about it. That was Sean's point, right? Also does it mean that if iStock has caused you grievance because of their management's greed, you can justify yourself to wish everyone else working for and selling through iStock sink with the boat because your own financial interests are not met, in other words, perhaps because of your own greed?

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #32 on:** December 15, 2012, 16:11 »

Getty acuired IS some years back and by today Getty have achieved exactly, 100% what they set out to do. Must say they played this one beautyfully, a master stroke indeed.
I dont really want to spell it out here but I am sure some of the older members know exactly what I am talking about.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #33 on:** December 15, 2012, 16:42 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 15, 2012, 16:11

Getty acuired IS some years back and by today Getty have achieved exactly, 100% what they set out to do. Must say they played this one beautyfully, a master stroke indeed.
I dont really want to spell it out here but I am sure some of the older members know exactly what I am talking about.

Chris,
I am very old and have a hell of a time understanding anything you talk about. I doubt that you intend to be understood.

cathyslife · « **Reply #34 on:** December 15, 2012, 18:25 »

Quote from: click_click on December 15, 2012, 11:19

What could I possibly add to Lisa's post?

I agree 100%.

me too.

cathyslife · « **Reply #35 on:** December 15, 2012, 18:27 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 15, 2012, 08:14

Quote from: fotografer on December 15, 2012, 04:37
It would be pretty stupid of any indie to wish for Istock's demise as we would get so much more competition at the other sites if the exclusives started to give up their crowns. I really feel for all the exclusives who's livelihoods comes from their stock earnings.

I really feel for ALL the contributors, exclusives or not, whose livelihoods were taking away by istocks greed. And I still wish for their demise. Not because I am interested in punishing the remaining contributors, but because I want to see the company, who still isn't satisfied with what they are getting and are looking for ways to get MORE, go down. And that applies to any company who treats people this way, not just istock. Yeah, there is going to be collateral damage, but that's pretty much how life is. The greater good...

There has been more than enough warning, so if exclusives want to continue to drink the koolaid and not get their ducks in a row, that is their choice, they can't really blame the people who are willing to take a stand and do what they feel is right. Again, blaming the wrong people. It's the contributors bad-mouthing istock's fault, not istock's fault. Yikes.

lisafx · « **Reply #36 on:** December 15, 2012, 18:40 »

Quote from: Freedom on December 15, 2012, 15:33

According to your logic, Lisafx, may we come to the conclusion that if you ever complain that sales are not satisfactory at iStock, they must be self-inflicted?

I don't think you're following my logic. $:-\$

I see few to no parallels between the way most contributors have conducted our businesses the last few years and the way Getty/Istock have conducted theirs.

Personally, if I make as many boneheaded and greedy mistakes as they did, then yes, I would expect my sales to suffer, and I would also expect that drop would be equally evident across all sites, rather than isolated to one or two who have clearly lost the plot.

gostwyck · « **Reply #37 on:** December 15, 2012, 19:53 »

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #38 on:** December 15, 2012, 19:57 »

Dr. Sheldon Cooper has spoken.

Freedom · « **Reply #39 on:** December 15, 2012, 20:13 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 15, 2012, 18:40

Quote from: Freedom on December 15, 2012, 15:33

According to your logic, Lisafx, may we come to the conclusion that if you ever complain that sales are not satisfactory at iStock, they must be self-inflicted?

I don't think you're following my logic. $:-\$

I see few to no parallels between the way most contributors have conducted our businesses the last few years and the way Getty/Istock have conducted theirs.

Personally, if I make as many boneheaded and greedy mistakes as they did, then yes, I would expect my sales to suffer, and I would also expect that drop would be equally evident across all sites, rather than isolated to one or two who have clearly lost the plot.

No Lisa, if I follow your logic, I will make myself very unhappy.

Seriously, being one of the most successful stock photographers as you are, I expect you show more class, generosity, open-mindedness and positivity. When you use words like death warrant and such, it somehow reminds me of jihad. What is wrong if someone praises the new design of a webpage? I don't like every elements about the new design, but I have no issue if others like it. I distinguish the efforts of iStock employees and contributors from those who only want to profit as much as possible from other people's labor. I also feel uncomfortable when more seasoned and successful contributors show excessive jealousy, prejudice and self-righteousness to their peers.

cathyslife · « **Reply #40 on:** December 15, 2012, 20:57 »

sounds like you are taking the design of that page pretty personally. maybe you are the one that designed it?

lisa is one of the many hard working contributors that come here and also one of the most level headed and intelligent contributors. there are many others too, but i dont understand why you continue to try to shove your thoughts on istock down everyone elses throat. everyone is entitled to their own opinions. if you think istock is great and want to hang around, great. best of luck. lots of others have moved on, and im guessing a lot more must be getting ready to move on, judging by the attention all of a sudden from this rebecca and folks like yourself.

gostwyck · « **Reply #41 on:** December 15, 2012, 21:13 »

Freedom · « **Reply #42 on:** December 15, 2012, 21:13 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 15, 2012, 20:57

sounds like you are taking the design of that page pretty personally. maybe you are the one that designed it?

lisa is one of the many hard working contributors that come here and also one of the most level headed and intelligent contributors. there are many others too, but i dont understand why you continue to try to shove your thoughts on istock down everyone elses throat. everyone is entitled to their own opinions. if you think istock is great and want to hang around, great. best of luck. lots of others have moved on, and im guessing a lot more must be getting ready to move on, judging by the attention all of a sudden from this rebecca and folks like yourself.

Ccclapper, I can assure you with 100% certainty that I was not the designer nor any of my image was featured in the webpage. I like what you said, "everyone is entitled to their own opinions", so true, let's stick to it and allow both the positives and negatives. It comes back to Sean's point. I understand you have moved on and removed almost all of your images from iStock, good for you! What I don't understand is this, why are you so active and passionate in every thread if it is related to iStock?

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #43 on:** December 15, 2012, 21:21 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 15, 2012, 21:13

Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 15, 2012, 19:57
Dr. Sheldon Cooper has spoken.

Smiling Jack, at 87 years young, seems perfectly able to keep up with MSG just fine without asking stupid questions, with obvious answers, every f*cking day. Just getting tired of your 'act'. You don't fool me and you ain't going to win any nominations for it, that's for sure.

Do you think I really give a rat's ass what you are tired of?
And, just which question required a response from you? get a life, Doc.

gostwyck · « **Reply #44 on:** December 15, 2012, 21:32 »

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #45 on:** December 15, 2012, 21:42 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 15, 2012, 21:32

Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 15, 2012, 21:21
Quote from: gostwyck on December 15, 2012, 21:13
Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 15, 2012, 19:57
Dr. Sheldon Cooper has spoken.

Smiling Jack, at 87 years young, seems perfectly able to keep up with MSG just fine without asking stupid questions, with obvious answers, every f*cking day. Just getting tired of your 'act'. You don't fool me and you ain't going to win any nominations for it, that's for sure.

Do you think I really give a rat's ass what you are tired of?
And, just which question required a response from you? get a life, Doc.

Great! Now you're talking and actually expressing yourself instead of just acting the hapless fool and wasting everyone's time. Well done __ keep it up! If you ever happen to have a considered opinion on something related to microstock photography then I'd be delighted to read it. That would be a 'first' for you.

You mean like you? You know that isn't possible. We all wait breathlessly for your next pearl of wisdom.
ED: and PS: Thank you so much for your permission to post.

lisafx · « **Reply #46 on:** December 15, 2012, 23:10 »

Quote from: Freedom on December 15, 2012, 20:13

Seriously, being one of the most successful stock photographers as you are, I expect you show more class, generosity, open-mindedness and positivity. When you use words like death warrant and such, it somehow reminds me of jihad. What is wrong if someone praises the new design of a webpage? I don't like every elements about the new design, but I have no issue if others like it. I distinguish the efforts of iStock employees and contributors from those who only want to profit as much as possible from other people's labor. I also feel uncomfortable when more seasoned and successful contributors show excessive jealousy, prejudice and self-righteousness to their peers.

Sorry, but W-T-F?? I wasn't one of the ones criticizing the design, nor did I at any time criticize anyone who showed enthusiasm for the design. I certainly haven't been one of the people calling for Istock's demise. I dread it, but I see it happening. It's different than rooting for it to fail. Kindly point me to where I've been jealous or self-righteous anywhere in this thread.

Furthermore, I have made every effort to avoid insulting or ridiculing people for being Istock exclusive. Ever. My criticisms of Istock have ONLY been directed at GETTY/Istock management and the way they have treated contributors, particularly exclusives. Ask your exclusive friends if you don't believe me.

You really need to be more careful to know what you are talking about before taking off on an insulting, derisive personal attack like this. Seriously.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #47 on:** December 16, 2012, 02:02 »

Quote from: Freedom on December 15, 2012, 20:13

...Seriously, being one of the most successful stock photographers as you are, I expect you show more class, generosity, open-mindedness and positivity. When you use words like death warrant and such, it somehow reminds me of jihad.

You have really got the wrong end of the stick on this one. I'm not sure that anyone owes positivity about anything to anyone. It's very nice when people are positive because they have something about which to be positive. Some of the situations where people show positivity in terrible circumstances end up seeming irrational.

Lisa referred to iStock signing its own death warrant - she didn't call for it to be done (which is the implication in the jihad reference you make) - you're totally inventing motives that I've never, once, seen Lisa show. You'll see that she says several times in this discussion that she would prefer to see iStock pull out of this tailspin and fix the many broken and problematic things. Escalating the rhetoric as you did is just out of place in every way.

Given the circumstances, I think Lisa's comments were very mild and measured - and I have no idea in what way she didn't exhibit "class" in your view.

And as far as open-mindedness, it's always good to keep an open mind about things that you're unfamiliar with or which are in some early stage of development. At this point, we've had a good while to see how Getty is running iStock and it isn't much different from the way it's run everything else it has acquired. Being open minded in the face of a wretched track record like Getty's smacks of stupidity or willful ignorance. Lisa doesn't appear to me to be either of those things.

I get it that exclusives aren't happy when independents have a go at iStock, but you'd have a hard time arguing that we have no reasons for doing so. I am still so angry at the lies and betrayal of trust. I have moved on and things are doing much better, but I can't see anything positive for iStock at the moment, and that's a very sad thing. Not sad for the greedy wretches who brought this about, but for all the people who made iStock what it is, including the many loyal buyers who made the marketplace such a success, and all those current exclusives who took all the promises at face value.

I honestly think you need to apologize to Lisa, or at the least just back off and stop talking on this subject here if you can't take any negative comments about your agency (I'm assuming you are an iStock exclusive, although I have no idea who you are).

Freedom · « **Reply #48 on:** December 16, 2012, 03:01 »

I am sorry, jsnover, but I owe no apology to Lisa, because I was not speaking for my self interest. The whole point of this thread is to comment on a new web design. Some like and some don't. That is totally fine, I just voice my opinion which echos with Sean's.

It is unfortunate that I have witnessed this anti anything iStock choir for sometimes now. I feel it is totally unfair that the target of this negativity is not only directed at the iStock owners and management, but at our own peers, the contributors and web designers, a.ka. the commoners of iStock. I didn't direct all my comments at Lisa, but I do feel she could have done better. I don't think it's necessary to give out any examples, since we have all read the forum over a period of time and know what position we each take.

I stand by what I said.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #49 on:** December 16, 2012, 03:06 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 15, 2012, 21:32

Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 15, 2012, 21:21
Quote from: gostwyck on December 15, 2012, 21:13
Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 15, 2012, 19:57
Dr. Sheldon Cooper has spoken.

Smiling Jack, at 87 years young, seems perfectly able to keep up with MSG just fine without asking stupid questions, with obvious answers, every f*cking day. Just getting tired of your 'act'. You don't fool me and you ain't going to win any nominations for it, that's for sure.

Do you think I really give a rat's ass what you are tired of?
And, just which question required a response from you? get a life, Doc.

Great! Now you're talking and actually expressing yourself instead of just acting the hapless fool and wasting everyone's time. Well done __ keep it up! If you ever happen to have a considered opinion on something related to microstock photography then I'd be delighted to read it. That would be a 'first' for you.

Hey! warren is lying anyway, hes not old at all! the guy isnt even over 40! havent you noticed? all our posts are getting minuses and its all from these newbie people who wasnt even here from the beginning, they sort of jumped on the train from 2010 and onwards.
I call them the "bollocks-brigade" since they are bigger then their brains.

all the best.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New look for iStock (Read 11019 times)

click_click

WarrenPrice

lisafx

WarrenPrice

gostwyck

cobalt

Freedom

ClaridgeJ

WarrenPrice

cathyslife

cathyslife

lisafx

gostwyck

WarrenPrice

Freedom

cathyslife

gostwyck

Freedom

WarrenPrice

gostwyck

WarrenPrice

lisafx

Jo Ann Snover

Freedom

ClaridgeJ

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors