MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New post from iStockHQ  (Read 20290 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

KB

« Reply #25 on: January 24, 2012, 19:26 »
0
But you do hear that healthy and growing companies reorganize, don't you? That means to let go of old staff and put in their own people.
But then, how to explain the loss of a video inspector when they desperately need more inspectors, not fewer, and all video inspections are being done in Calgary only?


« Reply #26 on: January 24, 2012, 19:27 »
0
But you do hear that healthy and growing companies reorganize, don't you? That means to let go of old staff and put in their own people.

Oh I see! We'll just have to wait a few more months to find out if your theory is right I guess. Do you think they might have to 'reorganize' again soon, to even fewer staff, because they are growing so fast?

« Reply #27 on: January 24, 2012, 19:31 »
0
I've never heard of a 'healthy and growing' company laying off lots of staff before. I wonder how they are going to service all those new customers and deal with the extra demand, etc?

Plenty of healthy companies lay off workers whose jobs cease to exist for operational reasons. In a takeover, such layoffs usually happen because of duplication. And it's always a good opportunity to get rid of pesky people at the swallowed company, too. So, on reflection, I don't think too much should be read into the layoffs.

And then the unlamented KKT blabbed on a Facebook forum early last December that it had been a record week for payouts to contributors at iStock, which is the spin way of saying the company had record revenues that week.

KB

« Reply #28 on: January 24, 2012, 19:40 »
0
I've never heard of a 'healthy and growing' company laying off lots of staff before. I wonder how they are going to service all those new customers and deal with the extra demand, etc?

Plenty of healthy companies lay off workers whose jobs cease to exist for operational reasons. In a takeover, such layoffs usually happen because of duplication. And it's always a good opportunity to get rid of pesky people at the swallowed company, too. So, on reflection, I don't think too much should be read into the layoffs.
But then, how to explain the loss of a video inspector when they desperately need more inspectors, not fewer, and all video inspections are being done in Calgary only?

Echo, echo, echo ....

« Reply #29 on: January 24, 2012, 19:40 »
0
But you do hear that healthy and growing companies reorganize, don't you? That means to let go of old staff and put in their own people.

Oh I see! We'll just have to wait a few more months to find out if your theory is right I guess. Do you think they might have to 'reorganize' again soon, to even fewer staff, because they are growing so fast?

Fair enough!

« Reply #30 on: January 24, 2012, 19:55 »
0
Plenty of healthy companies lay off workers whose jobs cease to exist for operational reasons. In a takeover, such layoffs usually happen because of duplication. And it's always a good opportunity to get rid of pesky people at the swallowed company, too. So, on reflection, I don't think too much should be read into the layoffs.

And then the unlamented KKT blabbed on a Facebook forum early last December that it had been a record week for payouts to contributors at iStock, which is the spin way of saying the company had record revenues that week.

Personally I think you're clinging to straws desperately trying to avoid the truth that is staring you in the face. It's a bit sad when people set so much store in the 'blabbed' tweetface message from a long since sacked COO. Maybe they did actually have a really good week 13 months ago __ wowee.

It wasn't so long ago that virtually every week was a record breaker at Istock. I suspect they're still having record weeks now __ just in the wrong direction.

reckless

« Reply #31 on: January 24, 2012, 22:37 »
0
I hear about many exclusives opening accounts at Shutterstock and other agencies just to be ready in case they drop their exclusivity, I cannot imagine iStockHQ answering the questions any other way. If a large part of their content providers are preparing to jump ship, they will give whatever reply is necessary to keep them on board.

« Reply #32 on: January 25, 2012, 00:01 »
0
Two parts stood out for me.

Firstly the 'currently' no plans (as Lisa noted), and also:

"We highly value exclusive artists and their content and will continue to increase support for these contributors..."

Did I miss the part where they said they valued indies?

KT used exactly the same expression two years ago and they haven't done any "indie valuing" since then. I expressed dismay when that attitude was first adopted but, as I recall, my comment was just met with a certain smugness from some exclusives. Of course, the "high value" put on exclusives since then has included reneging on the "grandfathered canisters" and cutting their commission rates, so the statement needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. All Getty "highly values" is the chance to grab more money, it's not an art/artist appreciation society.

« Reply #33 on: January 25, 2012, 00:18 »
0
Don`t look at what they say, look how they act. Much more telling.

« Reply #34 on: January 25, 2012, 00:38 »
0
I've never heard of a 'healthy and growing' company laying off lots of staff before. I wonder how they are going to service all those new customers and deal with the extra demand, etc?

Plenty of healthy companies lay off workers whose jobs cease to exist for operational reasons. In a takeover, such layoffs usually happen because of duplication. And it's always a good opportunity to get rid of pesky people at the swallowed company, too. So, on reflection, I don't think too much should be read into the layoffs.

And then the unlamented KKT blabbed on a Facebook forum early last December that it had been a record week for payouts to contributors at iStock, which is the spin way of saying the company had record revenues that week.

A sensible operational reason for lay-offs would be combining the functions of the staff of the companies being merged, however, they tell us in this latest blurb that functions are not being combined (though they implied in the previous post that they were). The other reasons for layoffs would be shrinking income and less for staff to do.

Istock is NEVER going to say "our business is less than great" or "we are not growing" or "we're losing customers to rivals (though they accidentally implied it in HQ's previous post - remember the other companies taking advantage of opportunities that iStock is missing?), so assuming that if they say there is "growth" they mean "earnings growth" is naive. They could mean growth in collection size (and nobody doubts that there is).
 
As for KT's record payouts in December - wasn't that the month when payouts were shoehorned into one week - I think some people may have had a three-week wait instead of the normal two - cheques and paypal were done at the same time. And do they count PP into "record"?

IF the company was having record revenues, then the contributors must be too, then why weren't there howls of delight when this was compounded by the drop in RC levels shortly afterwards. Where were all the posts saying "I never thought I could get up to 40% but with the rising sales and falling RC levels now I'm going to do it, woo-yay". Instead of that, people were saying this would (or would not) let them maintain levels they were losing.

You can't just accept the great things a company says about itself while ignoring all the other evidence that says the opposite.
(Imagegami just said that better than I did)

lagereek

« Reply #35 on: January 25, 2012, 01:30 »
0
They are saying a lot but telling us nothing! wealthy and growing? ::)  yeah sure they are?  might be able to fool the little Bronze exclusive but they sure as hell dont fool us, we are too long in the tooth for this glib.

« Reply #36 on: January 25, 2012, 02:03 »
0

Personally I think you're clinging to straws desperately trying to avoid the truth that is staring you in the face. It's a bit sad when people set so much store in the 'blabbed' tweetface message from a long since sacked COO. Maybe they did actually have a really good week 13 months ago __ wowee.

No, last month. My bad phrasing, sorry. As for clutching at straws, you could be right -- cognitive dissonance can be a powerful problem. My head isn't completely in the sand, though, or else I wouldn't be prepping my port for the lifeboats.

Quote
It wasn't so long ago that virtually every week was a record breaker at Istock. I suspect they're still having record weeks now __ just in the wrong direction.

Illogical, Captain. Since they started from a zero base, a record low week would be impossible.

« Reply #37 on: January 25, 2012, 02:09 »
0
But then, how to explain the loss of a video inspector when they desperately need more inspectors, not fewer, and all video inspections are being done in Calgary only?

Error when compiling the hit list? An excuse to get rid of an incompetent inspector? Perhaps a secret plan to move video inspections to Seattle? There seem to be some possible explanations.

« Reply #38 on: January 25, 2012, 02:28 »
0
I've never heard of a 'healthy and growing' company laying off lots of staff before. I wonder how they are going to service all those new customers and deal with the extra demand, etc?

Plenty of healthy companies lay off workers whose jobs cease to exist for operational reasons. In a takeover, such layoffs usually happen because of duplication. And it's always a good opportunity to get rid of pesky people at the swallowed company, too. So, on reflection, I don't think too much should be read into the layoffs.

And then the unlamented KKT blabbed on a Facebook forum early last December that it had been a record week for payouts to contributors at iStock, which is the spin way of saying the company had record revenues that week.

A sensible operational reason for lay-offs would be combining the functions of the staff of the companies being merged, however, they tell us in this latest blurb that functions are not being combined (though they implied in the previous post that they were). The other reasons for layoffs would be shrinking income and less for staff to do.

Istock is NEVER going to say "our business is less than great" or "we are not growing" or "we're losing customers to rivals (though they accidentally implied it in HQ's previous post - remember the other companies taking advantage of opportunities that iStock is missing?), so assuming that if they say there is "growth" they mean "earnings growth" is naive. They could mean growth in collection size (and nobody doubts that there is).
 
As for KT's record payouts in December - wasn't that the month when payouts were shoehorned into one week - I think some people may have had a three-week wait instead of the normal two - cheques and paypal were done at the same time. And do they count PP into "record"?

IF the company was having record revenues, then the contributors must be too, then why weren't there howls of delight when this was compounded by the drop in RC levels shortly afterwards. Where were all the posts saying "I never thought I could get up to 40% but with the rising sales and falling RC levels now I'm going to do it, woo-yay". Instead of that, people were saying this would (or would not) let them maintain levels they were losing.

You can't just accept the great things a company says about itself while ignoring all the other evidence that says the opposite.
(Imagegami just said that better than I did)

I completely agree that the omens aren't good and that the company's big lie about grandfathering canisters means that nothing it says can be believed.

You guys seem to assume that anyone who points out anything that might be seen to favour iStock is a naif or a company shill. I simply answered Gostwyk's post about how he'd never heard of healthy companies laying people off; well, perhaps he hasn't, but they do.

As for growth, the spin doctors might well have been talking about profit rather than revenue. But nobody could seriously expect them to mean collection size in that context. KKT's claim about contributors' payouts, posted informally on a small FB group, didn't reek of propaganda, which is why I give it a little credence.

This particular horse has been flogged to death but the falling earnings self-reported by many contributors can be ascribed to any number of things, not just falling iStock company revenue. Others could include oversupply and dilution, slowing overall growth (not necessarily a decline) causing less marketable portfolios to lose ground, and of course the statistical dubiousness of the self-selected sample.

Sjlocke has to be close to being the very mirror of iStock and he tells us that his revenue increased somewhat year-on-year although downloads fell and his revenue increase didn't keep up with portfolio growth. My own position is similar.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2012, 02:32 by RapidEye »

« Reply #39 on: January 25, 2012, 03:04 »
0
"How is the company doing?

iStock is a very healthy business that continues to grow. Maintaining growth is our #1 objective."


They could hardly have been less specific about 'growth'. Growth in what? Images? Registered customers? Sales? Revenue? Staff (I guess not)?

They are growing their customer exodus, being the number 1 customer looser is their #1 objective.

« Reply #40 on: January 25, 2012, 03:16 »
0
No, I'm not thinking you are a company shill or anything like that. Actually, I thought you had just gone independent but presumably that was someone else.

What I do think is that in many cases people's interpretations of events are coloured by their hopes of where things may be going.

I agree about Sean Locke but look at just how much effort he has had to put in and yet still see his sales fall. Clearly, for top rank independents there has been a shift to higher-value sales boosting their return per dl. But Sean can't maintain his % increase in his portfolio the way he has in the last 12 months and if his sales are already falling that trend must be a serious concern. I suspect there would need to be a continuing shift to higher priced sales to keep him on track and it is hard to imagine that iStock can persuade more and more people to pay Vetta prices.

I presume that most exclusives can't even get a significant part of their work into Vetta.

lagereek

« Reply #41 on: January 25, 2012, 05:04 »
0
No, I'm not thinking you are a company shill or anything like that. Actually, I thought you had just gone independent but presumably that was someone else.

What I do think is that in many cases people's interpretations of events are coloured by their hopes of where things may be going.

I agree about Sean Locke but look at just how much effort he has had to put in and yet still see his sales fall. Clearly, for top rank independents there has been a shift to higher-value sales boosting their return per dl. But Sean can't maintain his % increase in his portfolio the way he has in the last 12 months and if his sales are already falling that trend must be a serious concern. I suspect there would need to be a continuing shift to higher priced sales to keep him on track and it is hard to imagine that iStock can persuade more and more people to pay Vetta prices.

I presume that most exclusives can't even get a significant part of their work into Vetta.

No the majority wont pay Vetta prices, thats for sure. Anyway, any special collection will only last for a short while, other agencies and photographers will copy, this and that and do it even better and thats the end of a special-collection. Its been tried and tested by every major agency and back in the film days as well.
Stones used to have a special collection, only some 50K of images that were the "best in the world"  so to speak,  it lasted for two years, then it had been bettered by others so it was dropped.
IS, probably look upon Vettas as a short term money-cow, thats all.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #42 on: January 25, 2012, 05:37 »
0
Maybe they did actually have a really good week 13 months ago __ wowee.

No, last month. My bad phrasing, sorry.

I took it that you meant Dec 2011. Seeing as you did, that a week in early Dec 2011 was their best, someone deserves to be sacked for changing the best match so horrendously towards the end of the month. (even though a traditionally quiet week).

« Reply #43 on: January 25, 2012, 07:48 »
0
At least the dialogue is on-going.
What dialog? All I see is an infallible papal bill proclaiming why they can't explain the doctrine to the peasants, immediately followed by an announcement from the attention queen of the inquisition that he will excommunicate anybody of the clergy that doesn't stand up and cheer. And by Jove, they all cheered, bowing, their tiny tinplate crowns deep in the dust . I prefer Monty Python but that forums seems like a decent imitation.  :P

rubyroo

« Reply #44 on: January 25, 2012, 07:55 »
0
I sentence you to be hanged by the neck, until you cheer up!

Oh all right... just go down to the shops and get me 20 Rothmans then....

(with apologies to anyone who doesn't know Python sketches).
« Last Edit: January 25, 2012, 08:35 by rubyroo »

« Reply #45 on: January 25, 2012, 08:06 »
0
Don`t look at what they say, look how they act. Much more telling.

Exactly.

rubyroo

« Reply #46 on: January 25, 2012, 08:37 »
0
KT used exactly the same expression two years ago and they haven't done any "indie valuing" since then. I expressed dismay when that attitude was first adopted but, as I recall, my comment was just met with a certain smugness from some exclusives. Of course, the "high value" put on exclusives since then has included reneging on the "grandfathered canisters" and cutting their commission rates, so the statement needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. All Getty "highly values" is the chance to grab more money, it's not an art/artist appreciation society.

True.  When you put it like that, perhaps I should be grateful for the lack of bs aimed at indies.  We know our place!  ;)

rubyroo

« Reply #47 on: January 25, 2012, 08:39 »
0
Did I miss the part where they said they valued indies?

Yes, but so did they.

 :D

helix7

« Reply #48 on: January 25, 2012, 10:03 »
0

Ugh. I just took a look at the "discussion" at the istock forums. Seems like the more things change the more they stay the same. All it takes is an encouraging forum post from HQ and all worries are put to rest.

Well good for those who feel at ease now. I guess I should be grateful. Keeping exclusives exclusive does benefit me, and if this weak announcement makes some exclusives feel like sticking with istock then I'll throw in my own "woo-yay."

« Reply #49 on: January 25, 2012, 10:09 »
0
curious they dont even mention the less 15% in downloads (and yes they may have made more $$) but dont know if thats a good thing even if they are going "macro", for sure it doesnt make contributors anxious to upload or create new stuff


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3466 Views
Last post March 14, 2007, 11:51
by digiology
13 Replies
5635 Views
Last post June 29, 2007, 12:09
by lpkb
10 Replies
6029 Views
Last post May 21, 2009, 19:28
by bittersweet
2 Replies
7060 Views
Last post December 11, 2009, 03:54
by Clivia
6 Replies
8497 Views
Last post May 04, 2011, 09:00
by CD123

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors