Author Topic: New Survey... (Read 21395 times)

jamirae · « **Reply #50 on:** August 22, 2011, 12:30 »

if you didn't get the survey, check your spam folders. for some reason the way they sent it, the survey was caught in one of my first ring of spam filters (on the server, actually) - and a place that I rarely check for good messages, but I had seen it was going out so looked and found it there. i do get all the other istock emails (as far as I know, anyway) without problem, so this was sent with something in it that causes spam filters to grab it pretty quickly.

sharpshot · « **Reply #51 on:** August 22, 2011, 14:35 »

I just got the survey and completed it. They could get all the info they want from their forums and here. It was quite therapeutic to let them know exactly what I thought. I just hope they do make some changes for the better but I'm not optimistic.

madelaide · « **Reply #52 on:** August 22, 2011, 16:29 »

Quote from: michealo on August 22, 2011, 07:15

What concerns me is that they can't even email all their contributors successfully ...

As you can see, communication is not their strength.

jamesbenet · « **Reply #53 on:** August 22, 2011, 23:25 »

Still no survey here, I very much like the constructive comments you all have posted. Lets hope they have the decency and foresight to gather this data and make a case to better the strained relationship with suppliers and buyers.

I frankly believe that if iStock didn't cut the royalties and instead fueled better returns for exclusivity and poured more money into advertizing with a credit price decrease of sorts... The company would be growing much more than it is today with heavier revenues and not at the cost of morale and alienating their crop growers.

I am willing to give Rebecca and any new management the benefit of the doubt. They could very easily turn the tide and fortify this enterprise, lets just hope they have a clear mind to do it. Wishful thinking? How worse can it get?

gclk · « **Reply #54 on:** August 23, 2011, 04:04 »

Quote from: jamesbenet on August 22, 2011, 23:25

Still no survey here, I very much like the constructive comments you all have posted. Lets hope they have the decency and foresight to gather this data and make a case to better the strained relationship with suppliers and buyers.

I frankly believe that if iStock didn't cut the royalties and instead fueled better returns for exclusivity and poured more money into advertizing with a credit price decrease of sorts... The company would be growing much more than it is today with heavier revenues and not at the cost of morale and alienating their crop growers.

I am willing to give Rebecca and any new management the benefit of the doubt. They could very easily turn the tide and fortify this enterprise, lets just hope they have a clear mind to do it. Wishful thinking? How worse can it get?

I'm with you on all that James, and in the survey I made that point in your middle lines (among quite a few others

.

It's ironic that the steps taken last September, supposedly to increase iStock's profitability and sustainability, could end up being the most important factors in destroying profitability and making the company unsustainable.

If Getty have made the choice that they do want iStock to succeed, hopefully Rebecca will work to turn things around and sweep away the culture and practises of the past which have so quickly destroyed community and collaboration, elevated iStock to be an international laughing stock (remember Chase Jarvis et al, gleefully repeating Kelly's "unsustainable" claims, or Steve Shankland's CNET article about iStock "turning from cultivating its community of contributors to strip-mining it"), and lost the backing of huge numbers of buyers and contributors who used to be enthusiastic and positive about the company.

rubyroo · « **Reply #55 on:** August 23, 2011, 04:43 »

I'm interested to know how people answered the 'too casual' vs 'too professional' question. I struggled with that because on the one hand, the treatment of people in the forums can be too casual (and rude). On the other, the apparent shift from understanding that contributors work best with good incentives and achievable targets, to the model we have now could be seen as 'too professional' in the sense that it's all about numbers and no longer about people.

BTW, that's not my definition of 'professional', but if they're pitting 'casual' against 'professional' at opposite ends of the scale, I can only perceive that to mean 'too tough' - 'too distant' within this context.

gostwyck · « **Reply #56 on:** August 23, 2011, 05:13 »

Quote from: rubyroo on August 23, 2011, 04:43

I'm interested to know how people answered the 'too casual' vs 'too professional' question. I struggled with that because on the one hand, the treatment of people in the forums can be too casual (and rude). On the other, the apparent shift from understanding that contributors work best with good incentives and achievable targets, to the model we have now could be seen as 'too professional' in the sense that it's all about numbers and no longer about people.

BTW, that's not my definition of 'professional', but if they're pitting 'casual' against 'professional' at opposite ends of the scale, I can only perceive that to mean 'too tough' - 'too distant' within this context.

I think they are attempting to gauge whether the majority of contributors prefer a 'club' atmosphere (i.e. hobbyists earning a bit on the side) or 'business' which is necessarily more serious because people's livelihoods are at stake. It's probably been generated by the reaction of many to Kelly's infamous "you don't come here for the money" statement.

gostwyck · « **Reply #57 on:** August 23, 2011, 05:30 »

Quote from: jamesbenet on August 22, 2011, 23:25

I frankly believe that if iStock didn't cut the royalties and instead fueled better returns for exclusivity and poured more money into advertizing with a credit price decrease of sorts... The company would be growing much more than it is today with heavier revenues and not at the cost of morale and alienating their crop growers.

I am willing to give Rebecca and any new management the benefit of the doubt. They could very easily turn the tide and fortify this enterprise, lets just hope they have a clear mind to do it. Wishful thinking? How worse can it get?

I agree with your sentiment but I certainly don't think they could 'very easily turn the tide'. In keeping with your nautical theme IMHO it's a supertanker than has strayed off course and is now headed for distant rocks. Assuming that there is someone on the bridge that actually understands the issues and knows what they are doing (which I doubt) it would take significant time and effort (as well as triple-servings of humble pie from the galley) to turn the ship around. I think they are just as likely to order "more revs" rather than a change in course.

(That's enough maritime references - Ed)

cathyslife · « **Reply #58 on:** August 23, 2011, 06:23 »

Here we go again...koolaid time. Dangle a survey to make it seem like they care instead of actually doing something to prove they care.

I can only think of the saying "hope springs eternal." From dictionary.com: People will keep on hoping, no matter what the odds. For example, I keep buying lottery tickets, hope springs eternal .

rubyroo · « **Reply #59 on:** August 23, 2011, 09:29 »

Quote from: gostwyck on August 23, 2011, 05:13

I think they are attempting to gauge whether the majority of contributors prefer a 'club' atmosphere (i.e. hobbyists earning a bit on the side) or 'business' which is necessarily more serious because people's livelihoods are at stake. It's probably been generated by the reaction of many to Kelly's infamous "you don't come here for the money" statement.

Thanks Gostwyck, that makes sense.

lisafx · « **Reply #60 on:** August 23, 2011, 11:03 »

Quote from: jamesbenet on August 22, 2011, 23:25

Still no survey here, I very much like the constructive comments you all have posted. Lets hope they have the decency and foresight to gather this data and make a case to better the strained relationship with suppliers and buyers.

I frankly believe that if iStock didn't cut the royalties and instead fueled better returns for exclusivity and poured more money into advertizing with a credit price decrease of sorts... The company would be growing much more than it is today with heavier revenues and not at the cost of morale and alienating their crop growers.

I am willing to give Rebecca and any new management the benefit of the doubt. They could very easily turn the tide and fortify this enterprise, lets just hope they have a clear mind to do it. Wishful thinking? How worse can it get?

Completely OT - James, your avatar keeps throwing me off kilter. Although he is truly one of my heroes - nobody sticks up for the little guy and exposes corruption better - such a closeup of the angry, shouting face of Michael Moore is a bit disconcerting.

Although to be fair, it does convey the sense of outrage and injustice a lot of us feel...

jamesbenet · « **Reply #61 on:** August 23, 2011, 16:51 »

LOL Lisa

Yeah well he is a personal hero, I like that image because it conveys pure outrage.

However full contrarian thinking wont get us anywhere. I plan to create a balanced approach to the survey knowing full well that it could just be shafted by a keystroke.

Who knows what the future will bring but I am sure that if they continue to milk us with even less % revenue for the contributor I won't have the hope and decency I have endured for the last year.

There needs to be a change of course and approach to the dealings of late and if they only knew that the revenue will increase and competition decrease if they did the right thing.

Pay fair wages to contributors = More exclusives and less pictures for other sites.

Less pictures on other sites = Less clients to buy them = Less competition

Less Competition = iStock Grows revenues and gets more traffic

iStock Grows Stronger = They might start to pay 20% to exclusives.

So I'm not sure if it will be a good thing or a bad thing. All I know is that as of today they could change a load of things for the better!

lisafx · « **Reply #62 on:** August 23, 2011, 16:59 »

I admire both your sense of outrage AND your sense of optimism James

FWIW, I have noticed a bit of a sales uptick the past few days. Not sure if it is because summer is nearing its end (thank God!), or if it is a best match tweak, or what. But for me at least, Monday actually posted numbers similar to what I was making over a year ago. Hope it continues!

ETA: by "numbers", I mean royalties - thanks to P+. Actual DL numbers are not what they were a year or two ago. Still, nice to see the $ showing some life!

Microbius · « **Reply #63 on:** August 24, 2011, 05:15 »

To all those who have said they are not going to fill in the survey I would beg you to do it. If you don't I bet they will assume that you are happy with IStock rather than so disgusted you can't even bothered to fill in their survey. We will hear the usual "it's just a vocal minority" clap trap. Even if you just fill out every box with a statement that you don't want to help them by filling it in. Just something to let them know that your refusal to fill in the survey isn't a positive statement but a negative one.

cobalt · « **Reply #64 on:** August 24, 2011, 18:35 »

I finally got the survey and gave it quite a bit of time. It is well designed and I hope they are genuinly interested in our opinion. I thought it was interesting that one of the question was if we contribute more or less than a year ago.

I would also like to appeal to all of you to fill it out, even if you just spend 5 minutes on it.

I could have written a lot more, but I think between the many answers Rebecca will see what a mess the last year has been.

The question is: does she have the authority to lead the brand and to change things?

And what is her business vision?

StanRohrer · « **Reply #65 on:** August 24, 2011, 18:59 »

For what it's worth, I took substantial time on this survey. Thanks for all of your comments on this thread as I took some of the comments (that applied to my opinion) and worked them in as well. Here are some of my opinions that I submitted......

-Look at my standard royalty monthly income chart over the last two years. The income reduction in the last 4 months is a strong background of my current negative opinion of iStock. For over two years I have had monthly regular incomes over $xxxx. Of late, monthly incomes do not reach $xxx. These are monthly incomes that I have not seen since 2007. iStock is failing me.

- iStock cannot do a software release/update without creating site operation problems. This happens for every site software release since 2003. iStock needs a beta site running the fixes and when the beta site traffic exceeds the normal site traffic then the update must be useful and usable.

- Bruce Livingstone used to communicate in the forums and this formed a viable community of management and contributors. He may have been a bit harsh and abrupt - but we knew the score from the source. Proposed site changes were often discussed openly and often unique new approaches came from the forum membership. The forums were the strong community that attracted me to iStock in 2003. Kelly Thompson could not type in a forum without putting his foot into his mouth so apparently he stopped working with the forums. Now the forums have become a cesspool of backlashing which cannot be fixed simply by admins locking threads. The fix is a return of _honest_ and straight-to-the-point (no spin doctor) management interactions - but it may be too late. During Kelly’s tenure the “management sourced” comments seem to be about calming the masses instead of actually fixing the problems. If discussed issues are not going to be changed then be honest enough to say that. Get management back into the forums every day if the forums are to be useful. A dialog of proposed fixes, with contributor input, would be useful.

- What you want to know from this survey has already been said in the forums but the management is obviously not paying attention and the admins are just locking the threads and making rude comments about such. The admin rude comments are just adding to the cesspool. The iStock forums are almost useless now. The useful community discussions have moved to off site forums, albeit still with no management interaction and no iStock admins trying to stifle the negativity. If you want useful forums then get the management back into relevant and useful discussions with the constituents.

- Since 2003, as I grew in iStock I viewed it as something close to an annuity retirement income. More downloads produced higher percentages of income (canister levels). More downloads more income (incentive to do more uploads). The introduction of the RC scheme has now broken the annuity mechanism with the yearly reset of payout percentage. My loss of income at the RC transition has reduced my desire to return to iStock uploading (I have indeed also taken a photographic side trip away from iStock for a few years due to medical issues). For me to lose money in the RC transition to make iStock sustainable does not bode well if I, your contributor and source of images, becomes unsustainable. If I, since 2003 and as a diamond exclusive contributor, become long term unsustainable, then iStock is ultimately still unsustainable.

- The various gradations of image collections have made the site unbearably complex for buyer and seller. I don’t know whether to try my uploads in E, E+, Vetta, Partner, or where. To many choices results in mental inaction. How do I maximize my exposure and my income? Do I take a Best Match hit due to lower sales in the higher collections? Do I make up for lower sales due to higher income per sale? Do I really make higher income per sale at the higher levels? Do I really make higher income over a year in the higher collections? How does iStock want me to manage my portfolio for the good of both of us? These are all questions where I have not seen management answers provided. Even if there were global management responses, how does it apply to my specific portfolio? With all this complexity, iStock is out of control! With all of this complexity, I’m sure cost conscious buyers are baffled!

- Wasn’t a motto from Google to “do no evil”. Can iStock follow such a motto? Why are the past years’ site and compensation changes seeming to alienate your long term contributors? Unsustainable! Unsuccessful iStock contributors will eventually make iStock unsuccessful.

- The introduction of the RC system appears to have pitted contributors against contributors. Gone are the days of contributors helping each other to improve. That has been a past large draw to the site where new people could learn photography and the craft of shooting stock. If contributors are fighting for a payout slot in the system, then why help another contributor attain a better level? This RC system, with the yearly reset, is a detriment to iStock developing new talent. The previous canister level system did not cause me to possibly lose income based on helping new talent that might rise above me. There was always a viable obtainable goal in front of me with the canister system. Under the current RC system the goals will always move. What incentive is this? Work towards a mirage? Early, iStock capitalized on the relevance of repetitive and regular rewards, even if they were only tokens in download counts and canister levels. This helped the excitement and encouraged contributors to measure success. The RC system has broken that since the targets are movable each year (and have moved also during the year) and are reset each year. Removing the yearly reset process would help this situation a bit. Grandfathering in the previous canister levels of payout percentage would also help.

- Maybe the current iStock management should employ Bruce Livingstone as a consultant to review the current operations and enthusiasm levels of the constituents. He likely has the most knowledgeable insight to this specific business and this business model.

SNP · « **Reply #66 on:** August 24, 2011, 19:12 »

Quote from: Microbius on August 24, 2011, 05:15

To all those who have said they are not going to fill in the survey I would beg you to do it. If you don't I bet they will assume that you are happy with IStock rather than so disgusted you can't even bothered to fill in their survey. We will hear the usual "it's just a vocal minority" clap trap. Even if you just fill out every box with a statement that you don't want to help them by filling it in. Just something to let them know that your refusal to fill in the survey isn't a positive statement but a negative one.

if you're unwilling to fill it out than don't gripe when you don't like things that happen.

jamesbenet · « **Reply #67 on:** August 24, 2011, 19:25 »

@StanRohrer

Very well said, lets hope there is some sense in the company and things do start to turn around.

Very much enjoyed reading your responses and many echo mine! The survey is worth it as it is at least a try at getting a point across.

gostwyck · « **Reply #68 on:** August 24, 2011, 19:28 »

Quote from: StanRohrer on August 24, 2011, 18:59

For what it's worth, I took substantial time on this survey. Thanks for all of your comments on this thread as I took some of the comments (that applied to my opinion) and worked them in as well. Here are some of my opinions that I submitted......

-Look at my standard royalty monthly income chart over the last two years. The income reduction in the last 4 months is a strong background of my current negative opinion of iStock. For over two years I have had monthly regular incomes over $xxxx. Of late, monthly incomes do not reach $xxx. These are monthly incomes that I have not seen since 2007. iStock is failing me.

- iStock cannot do a software release/update without creating site operation problems. This happens for every site software release since 2003. iStock needs a beta site running the fixes and when the beta site traffic exceeds the normal site traffic then the update must be useful and usable.

- Bruce Livingstone used to communicate in the forums and this formed a viable community of management and contributors. He may have been a bit harsh and abrupt - but we knew the score from the source. Proposed site changes were often discussed openly and often unique new approaches came from the forum membership. The forums were the strong community that attracted me to iStock in 2003. Kelly Thompson could not type in a forum without putting his foot into his mouth so apparently he stopped working with the forums. Now the forums have become a cesspool of backlashing which cannot be fixed simply by admins locking threads. The fix is a return of _honest_ and straight-to-the-point (no spin doctor) management interactions - but it may be too late. During Kelly’s tenure the “management sourced” comments seem to be about calming the masses instead of actually fixing the problems. If discussed issues are not going to be changed then be honest enough to say that. Get management back into the forums every day if the forums are to be useful. A dialog of proposed fixes, with contributor input, would be useful.

- What you want to know from this survey has already been said in the forums but the management is obviously not paying attention and the admins are just locking the threads and making rude comments about such. The admin rude comments are just adding to the cesspool. The iStock forums are almost useless now. The useful community discussions have moved to off site forums, albeit still with no management interaction and no iStock admins trying to stifle the negativity. If you want useful forums then get the management back into relevant and useful discussions with the constituents.

- Since 2003, as I grew in iStock I viewed it as something close to an annuity retirement income. More downloads produced higher percentages of income (canister levels). More downloads more income (incentive to do more uploads). The introduction of the RC scheme has now broken the annuity mechanism with the yearly reset of payout percentage. My loss of income at the RC transition has reduced my desire to return to iStock uploading (I have indeed also taken a photographic side trip away from iStock for a few years due to medical issues). For me to lose money in the RC transition to make iStock sustainable does not bode well if I, your contributor and source of images, becomes unsustainable. If I, since 2003 and as a diamond exclusive contributor, become long term unsustainable, then iStock is ultimately still unsustainable.

- The various gradations of image collections have made the site unbearably complex for buyer and seller. I don’t know whether to try my uploads in E, E+, Vetta, Partner, or where. To many choices results in mental inaction. How do I maximize my exposure and my income? Do I take a Best Match hit due to lower sales in the higher collections? Do I make up for lower sales due to higher income per sale? Do I really make higher income per sale at the higher levels? Do I really make higher income over a year in the higher collections? How does iStock want me to manage my portfolio for the good of both of us? These are all questions where I have not seen management answers provided. Even if there were global management responses, how does it apply to my specific portfolio? With all this complexity, iStock is out of control! With all of this complexity, I’m sure cost conscious buyers are baffled!

- Wasn’t a motto from Google to “do no evil”. Can iStock follow such a motto? Why are the past years’ site and compensation changes seeming to alienate your long term contributors? Unsustainable! Unsuccessful iStock contributors will eventually make iStock unsuccessful.

- The introduction of the RC system appears to have pitted contributors against contributors. Gone are the days of contributors helping each other to improve. That has been a past large draw to the site where new people could learn photography and the craft of shooting stock. If contributors are fighting for a payout slot in the system, then why help another contributor attain a better level? This RC system, with the yearly reset, is a detriment to iStock developing new talent. The previous canister level system did not cause me to possibly lose income based on helping new talent that might rise above me. There was always a viable obtainable goal in front of me with the canister system. Under the current RC system the goals will always move. What incentive is this? Work towards a mirage? Early, iStock capitalized on the relevance of repetitive and regular rewards, even if they were only tokens in download counts and canister levels. This helped the excitement and encouraged contributors to measure success. The RC system has broken that since the targets are movable each year (and have moved also during the year) and are reset each year. Removing the yearly reset process would help this situation a bit. Grandfathering in the previous canister levels of payout percentage would also help.

- Maybe the current iStock management should employ Bruce Livingstone as a consultant to review the current operations and enthusiasm levels of the constituents. He likely has the most knowledgeable insight to this specific business and this business model.

Superb assessment of the malaise affecting Istock Stan. You are far too patient with them though. If you want a chance of preserving the value and the stability of your 'annuity' then you are probably best giving up your crown. They've let you down like cheap pantihose.

ShadySue · « **Reply #69 on:** August 24, 2011, 19:56 »

Here's what I wrote:

What frustrates you about working with iStock?
Not being able to plan for the future, as things can change without notice. For example, the RCs debacle a few days after I quit my day job (ironically, because of the duplicity of my former boss).
Sometimes very strange and inconsistent inspections.
Sometimes strange rules, i.e. 'respecting IP' seems not to apply to Developing World artisans (I guess because they can't afford expensive lawyers).
Strange rules about not sending sports images taken on public spaces. It might well be an issue in the US, but there's a whole world out here.
Not being able to trust anything which is said, whether it's "It'll be fixed by Wednesday" or "you will be grandfathered in".
Silly games and teasing, all that F5 silliness, which might have been fun while the site was fun, but is now just childish and annoying.
Site problems not being resolved quickly. New site features never seeming to be tested properly before going live. When there's a site fault, buyers get a discount so contributors lose out, though the fault was clearly not our doing.
Lobo.
Slow editorial inspections.
Very slow support/Scout replies sometimes (months)

Why somewhat dissatisfied?
As indicated in the answer about frustrations. Inconsistent inspections, especially about what's allowed and not, what's editorial what's 'main collections'.
Slow response time, sometimes.
Lack of trust.
Apparent lack of a clear way forward - sometimes it seems like they just go in and ask the masseuse, "suggest something new we could do on the site" and the programmers have to implement it by lunchtime.
Although I am signed up for newsletters and group emails, I don't get them, and the Support reason (you haven't provided us with a valid email address) is obviously not true, as I get acceptance emails and payout confirmation emails no problem.

How else could iStockphoto improve the way it communicates with you?
Use clear, unambiguous language. There's no use writing communications which are open to interpretation so that people waste time on the forums trying to thrash out the meaning - but these are only 'peer opinion'. We need it to be clear and unambiguous first time: it never is. Get a variety of people to read over the communications before they go out, e.g. contributors.

Do you have any ideas on how iStockphoto could better serve our current customers and/or attract new ones?
Expand Team Keywords to be able to cope with the mess of spammed files. Make sure all inspectors are onboard with inspecting keywords - pay them more, if necessary. Many files are still being accepted day and daily with badly keyworded files. Some search results are, frankly, risible.

Is there anything else you want to tell us?
Allegedly, iStock's business model was 'unsustainable', so they had to cut most of our percentage rates. We, the suppliers, have expenses too, and for many of us, iStock is becoming unsustainable.
No more bombshells.
You have a LOT of work to do if you are to regain even a fraction of the goodwill you had before September. Kelly was so wrong when he said, "It's all just blown over". NO. If people didn't "calm down" they were LOBOtomised from the forum.
If it's not broke, don't fix it. E.g. F5.
Don't rub our noses in it: just after the RC/%age cut shock, the iStock admins were staying at a London hotel during the 'lypse which cost almost double the central London Holiday Inn I stay in when I'm in London. Clearly, it's only the contributors who are unsustainable. The staff are whistling while the contributors burn.

ShadySue · « **Reply #70 on:** August 24, 2011, 20:01 »

Quote from: StanRohrer on August 24, 2011, 18:59

<snip>
- The introduction of the RC system appears to have pitted contributors against contributors. Gone are the days of contributors helping each other to improve. That has been a past large draw to the site where new people could learn photography and the craft of shooting stock. If contributors are fighting for a payout slot in the system, then why help another contributor attain a better level?
<snip>

Exellent overall post, and I completely forgot the above very important point in my own answers. That is a very clear example of how the current RC system is just them shooting themselves in the foot.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #71 on:** August 24, 2011, 20:19 »

Great post Stan - I wasn't as detailed in my reply (but I used to be quite active in expressing my opinions via the forums and mentioned that almost everything I had to say had already been said there) but touched on most of what you mentioned.

I don't understand why they're having such a hard time getting surveys out to everyone - it'd be funny if this wasn't such a basic function; send e-mail to contributors. Has anyone seen any date mentioned by which they'll get back to us with what they learned and what they plan to do?

cthoman · « **Reply #72 on:** August 24, 2011, 20:37 »

Interesting posts. Mine was all about money because you can easily buy my affection and loyalty (That's how I roll. I'm classy). I told them I don't really care or have a problem with communication. I just want a MUCH HIGHER royalty percentage. The only other thing (besides money, money and more money) I think I mentioned was that pushing higher priced collections on buyers wasn't really benefiting anyone. Also, that I don't favor credit systems and I'd rather pay for what I need as an infrequent buyer.

The Reader's Digest Version:

PAY ME MORE!

gclk · « **Reply #73 on:** August 25, 2011, 02:42 »

@StanRohrer and @ShadySue - thanks for posting, lots of great points in there. Hope some positive action will come out of the survey results.

Wonder if SurveyMonkey go through the returned surveys as part of their service. If so, I guess their reaction will be along the lines of "Holy smokes, this company is in dire straights"

cathyslife · « **Reply #74 on:** August 25, 2011, 06:28 »

Those are some great posts, Stan and Shady Sue. It pretty much sums up my feelings, too.

I didn't get the survey. I got the newsletter where KKT talked about Rebecca stepping in from Aug. 4th, so I get emails from them, just not ALL emails from them, I guess.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New Survey... (Read 21395 times)

jamirae

sharpshot

madelaide

jamesbenet

gclk

rubyroo

gostwyck

gostwyck

cathyslife

rubyroo

lisafx

jamesbenet

lisafx

Microbius

cobalt

StanRohrer

SNP

jamesbenet

gostwyck

ShadySue

ShadySue

Jo Ann Snover

cthoman

gclk

cathyslife

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors