MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Shank_ali on August 18, 2011, 12:14
-
Reaching out to it's contributor base or perhaps more concerned with how buyers are viewing the current site.Hope the information collected is acted upon in due course and not some useless propaganda move.
I shall complete the survey but would like a prize of $1000.
-
Maybe they want to know how I feel about the 17 cents I got for my latest sale.
-
Maybe they want to know how I feel about the 17 cents I got for my latest sale.
There are spaces where you can mention exactly that.
-
I thought it was a good survey. You really get to say what you want. I said I wanted 50%. We'll see how that works out. ;D
-
Those who haven't done it yet: when it's your turn, take your time. As soon as I hit 'done' I thought of a whole lot more I should have said.
-
crap i havent gotten mine... was it all sent out at once?
-
crap i havent gotten mine... was it all sent out at once?
Nope, it was going out in stages, though I guess I was one of the last as I had to sitemail them because I'm one of those who doesn't get emails or newsletters despite being opted in.
Thread here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333260&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333260&page=1)
-
I thought it was a pretty good survey too. Gave you plenty of chances for comments.
Since I have nothing to lose I gave my very honest opinion in both the positive and negative.
I thought the fact that they had questions on the forum and it's moderators was telling. What it tells is yet to be seen.
-
It seems like a very positive move. Hopefully they listen to some of the things we say.
-
Quite frankly, after the thousands of messages from contributors on their forum, if they still don't know how we feel then this little survey isn't likely to do them much good.
When SS did a similar survey last year they did it properly and used the services of an independent professional survey company. All the interviews were done on camera (from home PC's) and the contributors who agreed to take part were paid $100 for their time (it took less than 30 mins). Much better than being entered into a raffle for a couple of iPods.
I guess the lack of investment into this 'survey' is a fair reflection of how much they actually care and how much notice they are likely to take of contributors' views. Not a lot.
-
As others have pointed out, there's no need for IS to spend one penny to get contributors' opinions - they're readily available. The only motivation I can think of for a contributor survey at this point would be that it's just more fresh paint being applied in hopes of a sale. There might be one or two questions in the survey that, taken out of context, become positive spin. "Look - our contributors say they'll stick with us."
-
Why these guys need a survey to figure out what's wrong with their company is beyond me.
-
Yeah, maybe nothing comes of it. But, isn't the whole point of leaving, not uploading or any other protesting is to get the other side to listen to your demands. I don't see a problem with spending 15 minutes to actually tell them specifically what I want.
-
I gave 'em hell. I told them exactly why I wasn't uploading, and am in fact removing what content I have there. I expressed my views on the royalty changes, the zero sum nature of the current system, and the dishonest explanations from Kelly. I also said the forum was a failure, and had been moderated into a state of utter uselessness.
Somehow I don't think I'll be asked for a followup.
-
Quite frankly, after the thousands of messages from contributors on their forum, if they still don't know how we feel then this little survey isn't likely to do them much good.
When SS did a similar survey last year they did it properly and used the services of an independent professional survey company. All the interviews were done on camera (from home PC's) and the contributors who agreed to take part were paid $100 for their time (it took less than 30 mins). Much better than being entered into a raffle for a couple of iPods.
I guess the lack of investment into this 'survey' is a fair reflection of how much they actually care and how much notice they are likely to take of contributors' views. Not a lot.
I suppose it's like a company meeting versus the suggestion box. people tend to be less showoffy and more honest when the communication is direct and not public like a forum. I think they're also looking to distill comments into actionable points rather than sifting through rants....the proof will be in the application (or lack thereof) of the data collected ....
-
I suppose it's like a company meeting versus the suggestion box. people tend to be less showoffy and more honest when the communication is direct. I think they're also looking to distill comments into actionable points rather than sifting through rants....the proof will be in the application (or lack thereof) of the data collected ....
I'd suggest that Rebecca has simply breezed in to her new job, had a meeting and been told that dissatisfaction amongst contributors is one of the issues facing the business. So she's decided to have a survey to find out why (she doesn't know because she wasn't there). She probably thinks that giving contributors the opportunity to vent will probably help anyway.
-
I suppose it's like a company meeting versus the suggestion box. people tend to be less showoffy and more honest when the communication is direct. I think they're also looking to distill comments into actionable points rather than sifting through rants....the proof will be in the application (or lack thereof) of the data collected ....
I'd suggest that Rebecca has simply breezed in to her new job, had a meeting and been told that dissatisfaction amongst contributors is one of the issues facing the business. So she's decided to have a survey to find out why (she doesn't know because she wasn't there). She probably thinks that giving contributors the opportunity to vent will probably help anyway.
I'd guess it's a bit of both. but anything that indicates concern for contributor sentiment is a good thing right now, assuming that it's used for good and not evil.
-
I suppose it's like a company meeting versus the suggestion box. people tend to be less showoffy and more honest when the communication is direct. I think they're also looking to distill comments into actionable points rather than sifting through rants....the proof will be in the application (or lack thereof) of the data collected ....
I'd suggest that Rebecca has simply breezed in to her new job, had a meeting and been told that dissatisfaction amongst contributors is one of the issues facing the business. So she's decided to have a survey to find out why (she doesn't know because she wasn't there). She probably thinks that giving contributors the opportunity to vent will probably help anyway.
I wasn't aware that she had started yet. I thought the change was to take affect after this month.
-
I thought it was a good survey as it gave lots of tell us what you think spaces.
The software actually worked as expected - a new thing for istock.
I think it's worth having atleast having a whinge, if you don't then they'll use the data to prove that everything is rosy.
Points I highlighted
Pissed off with reduction in royalities
Reduction in royalities means that
a) don't upload or produce work specifically for Istock customers
b) I won't refer customers there
Site doesn't work for long periods
Dumping of agency etc and stupid best match
Rude responses to customers in the forums from Istock staff, contributors have to help
-
I'd guess it's a bit of both. but anything that indicates concern for contributor sentiment is a good thing right now, assuming that it's used for good and not evil.
It's a nice thought ... but I suspect it's not how it's going to work. The people that run H&F only understand numbers expressed in P&L. KT did not satisfy their expectations so out he went. Rebecca's job will be to grow the business and improve profits ASAP. 'Concern for contributor sentiment' is unlikely to sway many of her decisions because it doesn't add directly to the bottom line and takes a relatively long time to have a measurable effect.
I think Istock are basically f**ked because their (bosses') time-lines are too short to enable them to grow the business properly. It seems to me that their attempt to rapidly boost profits, with total disregard to both contributors and customers, has imploded fairly spectacularly in their faces. The route back is obvious enough but I doubt that anyone within the organisation has either the guts, the authority or the understanding of the the situation to make it happen.
-
I think it's the conspiracy theorist coming out in me, but when I was filling out the survey, I had this thought. IS has shown good faith in offering a survey to hear our opinions. But, all the survey information is private. IS can say the results were WHATEVER they wanted them to be. Therefore make any changes they desire claim that "Your survey results suggest you wanted us to raise RC targets 300%."
-
I think it's the conspiracy theorist coming out in me, but when I was filling out the survey, I had this thought. IS has shown good faith in offering a survey to hear our opinions. But, all the survey information is private. IS can say the results were WHATEVER they wanted them to be. Therefore make any changes they desire claim that "Your survey results suggest you wanted us to raise RC targets 300%."
Maybe KK is filling out 3000 himself
-
Quite frankly, after the thousands of messages from contributors on their forum, if they still don't know how we feel then this little survey isn't likely to do them much good.
When SS did a similar survey last year they did it properly and used the services of an independent professional survey company. All the interviews were done on camera (from home PC's) and the contributors who agreed to take part were paid $100 for their time (it took less than 30 mins). Much better than being entered into a raffle for a couple of iPods.
I guess the lack of investment into this 'survey' is a fair reflection of how much they actually care and how much notice they are likely to take of contributors' views. Not a lot.
!
This does seem the best approach rather than staff at HQ thinking up the questions.Hopely the results don't lead to 8/10 dont give a h@@@
-
I am still waiting for mine. I think that they are sending out a survey to everyone is good.
They can always follow it up with interviews of a smaller group later. Certainly sounds interesting what Shutterstock did and that they paid the participants properly for their time shows how much they appreciate their input.
I hope that istock will do surveys like these every year. The contributors are paying the agency a lot of money for the service the agency offers. It is always good to get feedback from your customers.
-
It seems a bit redundant to me. Seems like most of the questions were about how to best sugar coat bad news. If the truth is "we want to shaft you for more money" it doesn't matter how honest and open they are about it, you still ain't gonna be sitting comfortably when they finish. I doubt the results will have any impact outside of contributor relations, and all they can do is fiddle with the wrapper not the content.
There is no way it's going to result in higher commissions for us, so it's a waste of time as far as I'm concerned.
-
when I read the survey OP and subsequent replies on the IS forum, I also had the impression that the survey is about delivering news more effectively and reducing contributor backlash. I suspect the survey is really meant to improve communication and nothing more.
in any case, how I feel can be summed up as follows:
don't go back on promises made to contributors even if technically the contract protects you (the agent) as you effectively do as you please. value contributors because our work and only our work fuels the agency. take a long-term approach to our business model rather than implementing initiatives designed to achieve short-term profit increases that ultimately alienate your suppliers. truly lead in the industry; be successful without cutting corners or commissions further. value the work that you attach value to when charging customers. devaluing work and contributors will do nothing more than whittle revenue down to nothing in the long run for all of us. nourish your suppliers and we'll in turn provide you with our best work, some of us exclusively.
I also have to add that they need to do away with discussions in the forum now. people have to be so guarded and careful and the forum no longer serves any discussion purpose, at least as far as I'm concerned. use it to post announcements. the community has moved offsite to social networks and third party forums.
-
... don't go back on promises made to contributors even if technically the contract protects you (the agent) as you effectively do as you please. value contributors because our work and only our work fuels the agency. take a long-term approach to our business model rather than implementing initiatives designed to achieve short-term profit increases that ultimately alienate your suppliers. truly lead in the industry; be successful without cutting corners or commissions further. value the work that you attach value to when charging customers. devaluing work and contributors will do nothing more than whittle revenue down to nothing in the long run for all of us. nourish your suppliers and we'll in turn provide you with our best work, some of us exclusively.
Very well said. If you sorted the punctuation out they could etch that onto a brass plate and get the management to sing it as the 'Company Song' each morning.
It's not exactly rocket-science is it? Running Istock, after the legacy left by Livingstone, should have been child's play. Somehow they have conspired to destroy it in an astonishingly short time-scale. Still, at least someone has made an awful lot of money from their mistakes __ Jon Oringer.
-
balancing the success of the company with the success of its suppliers and customers is a science. my summary isn't meant to gloss over the complexity of managing a venture as large as iStock. But, Getty has been around the block a few times; they should have access to good business minds and it's obvious that if they don't prioritize the financial success of their suppliers; it's not because they can't, it's because they choose not to. that's what needs to change.
-
Why these guys need a survey to figure out what's wrong with their company is beyond me.
Exactly. And if they really wanted to know, wouldn't they have listened a year ago, when they screwed everybody over?
And let me know when you guys all get a check in the mail for your consulting time on telling them how they should run their business and what they need to do to fix it. Didn't they just replace KK with someone who can do a better job? Shouldn't she know how to fix it, after all, doesn't she get paid big bucks?
-
...And let me know when you guys all get a check in the mail for your consulting time on telling them how they should run their business and what they need to do to fix it.
Exactly why I didn't fill out the survey. I'd be happy to consult on what they're doing wrong and what they can improve on. They can contact me to discuss terms if they're interested.
-
...And let me know when you guys all get a check in the mail for your consulting time on telling them how they should run their business and what they need to do to fix it.
Exactly why I didn't fill out the survey. I'd be happy to consult on what they're doing wrong and what they can improve on. They can contact me to discuss terms if they're interested.
perhaps this is a last ditch effort by istock to try to get TPTB to come to their senses before they run things into the mud?
ETA - in light of the 'sugar-coated' comments, I realize this is a bit of a naive comment. I'm one of the ones who didn't receive the survey.
-
It seems a bit redundant to me. Seems like most of the questions were about how to best sugar coat bad news. If the truth is "we want to shaft you for more money" it doesn't matter how honest and open they are about it, you still ain't gonna be sitting comfortably when they finish. I doubt the results will have any impact outside of contributor relations, and all they can do is fiddle with the wrapper not the content.
There is no way it's going to result in higher commissions for us, so it's a waste of time as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, I noticed the sugar coating thing. I did remember to say that sugar coating meant nothing to me. I also said that a lot of the contract blurb is ambiguous - maybe deliberately so? - vide the discussions in the forums about details of e.g. the exclusivity contract or the content licence agreement, where no admins ever come in to give a definitive interpretation, and peer discussion is inevitably inconclusive, because different, even opposite interpretations are perfectly valid. I mentioned the Plain English Society, but then I often suggested them to whoever writes that stuff.
-
To get even marginally valid results from a survey, you need to use a random sample of the target group; and provide a sufficient incentive, otherwise results are skewed towards respondents who are anxious to express their opinions
Most corporate 'surveys' are self-serving, although the reasons may not be obvious.
-
I think it's the conspiracy theorist coming out in me, but when I was filling out the survey, I had this thought. IS has shown good faith in offering a survey to hear our opinions. But, all the survey information is private. IS can say the results were WHATEVER they wanted them to be. Therefore make any changes they desire claim that "Your survey results suggest you wanted us to raise RC targets 300%."
you don't show good faith with a survey..
no, no!
you can't show good faith with a survey after cutting the commissions to insulting levels..
-
Sometimes people pretend they are listening to what people say. Then they change something irrelevant, saying they're listening, but do not change core issues.
There is a quote by someone that is something like "In order not to change anything, you have to change something". Fom Visconti's "Il gattopardo", if I am not mistaken.
-
As others have posted - IS already has all the information they could possibly want. Like what's already in their database. They could ask an IT guy to develop some queries for that database that might, for example, extract a set of contributors whose images sold reasonably well, and see if the volume of submissions fell off when commissions were reduced or rejection percentages increased. They don't care if we're happy, but they might care if they thought their supply of new images was drying up as a result of their actions. But I doubt anyone currently there cares very much about anything long-term.
-
Haven't got it.
These days even sending an email seems to be to complicated for Istock's IT.
Can somebody post the survey's questions here please? I'm curious to know what they still don't know...
Thanks
-
The survey may well be Rebecca's first initiative to test the water before she decides how to run the business.
-
The survey may well be Rebecca's first initiative to test the water before she decides how to run the business.
I think you are right. Also it could be used as a tool to gauge her success a year from now if they choose to send out the same survey and compare the results.
I wonder if they are reading the comments and cringing or reading the comments and laughing.
-
I'd say they are reading them and swearing under their breath.
-
It may take months/years to read all the replies if a high percentage replies to the survey.Still no sign of the survey but Joyce said it will be sent again on Monday....Waiting
-
I have not received the survey yet.
I will give Rebecca the credit for doing her homework first. The contributors have complained a lot since the RC announcement last year but she was not managing IS then.
I will keep an open mind until at least she makes her first annoucement.
-
I got the survey and completed it. I told them what I think in unvarnished terms. I really don't find anything positive in sending out the survey - it's acting on what information they receive back that counts.
Given that they've used the forums as a virtual safety valve to let buyers and contributors vent so they don't have to deal with them, I'm not even slightly optimistic that change will be forthcoming. Meaningful change, not a new newsletter to be able to say you've "done something".
Earning back lost trust is a very hard row to hoe. It can be done, but words mean less than nothing. I'd be happy if some things changed, but I can no longer take iStock's word for anything. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...
-
This survey seems kind of dumb and pointless from where I sit. I mean, do they really need a survey to tell them what people don't like? Do they just ignore their forums or what?
Also, did everyone see this from Joyze:
There will be a number of us reviewing the responses which will help us understand what you like, don't like, what can be improved etc. We're not making any promises to implement every suggestion we get, but we're building a plan that will allow us to communicate more effectively with all of our contributors.
So basically, that's letting them off the hook from doing anything, except "communicating" more "effectively.
-
Also, did everyone see this from Joyze:
"... We're not making any promises to implement every suggestion we get...."
So pathetic, the only suggestion is really "stop screwing us" but I'm sure they'll be doing their very best to read around it rather than actually correcting the root problem.
-
There will be a number of us reviewing the responses which will help us understand what you like, don't like, what can be improved etc. We're not making any promises to implement every suggestion we get, but we're building a plan that will allow us to communicate more effectively with all of our contributors.
So basically, that's letting them off the hook from doing anything, except "communicating" more "effectively.
Exactly. The survey is just about 'communication', nothing more. That's probably because nobody at Istock actually has the authority to do much else. Their targets are set by Getty/H&F and the targets dictate how the business will be run. Fail to meet those targets and at best you get 'promoted' to be VP of a minor department based 3000 miles from where you live. Any optimism about the situation is likely to be misplaced.
-
What concerns me is that they can't even email all their contributors successfully ...
-
Filled out the survey last night. I liked the way there's plenty opportunity to write opinions freely in text boxes.
Very much hope iStock will go through the surveys properly and some positive changes will result. After 11 months of disappointment, broken promises, cynicism and all the rest of it, the ball is in iStock's court to turn things around, if they want to. I'm being optimistic and hoping this survey is the first stage in that process.
Doing similar surveys of customers and iStock staff would also be useful if iStock are interested in knowing where they've been going wrong and how to fix it.
-
I don't think they are pretending that they are even considering changing any of their policies.
It just seems to be about how they communicate ie. not really addressing the size of the appendage, just the amount of lubricant used.
-
...And let me know when you guys all get a check in the mail for your consulting time on telling them how they should run their business and what they need to do to fix it.
Exactly why I didn't fill out the survey. I'd be happy to consult on what they're doing wrong and what they can improve on. They can contact me to discuss terms if they're interested.
+1 except that I wouldn't want them to contact me. I've wasted enough of my time with them.
-
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.
-
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.
-
What concerns me is that they can't even email all their contributors successfully ...
As you can see, communication is not their strength. ;D
-
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?
-
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.
-
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'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.
-
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)
-
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 .
-
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. :)
-
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. :o
Although to be fair, it does convey the sense of outrage and injustice a lot of us feel...
-
LOL Lisa ;D
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!
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
<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.
-
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?
-
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!
-
@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"
-
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.
-
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.
Same for me.
Maybe they decided to not send it out to contributors without active files in their portfolio....
-
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.
Same for me.
Maybe they decided to not send it out to contributors without active files in their portfolio....
But I actually still have 5 active files, so that can't be the excuse.
-
I think it's probably just another bug.
-
But I actually still have 5 active files, so that can't be the excuse.
Oh, I thought you had deactivated everything - my mistake.
Anyway, sending an e-mail to all contributors seems to be a major challenge...
-
Excellent post from StanRohrer on the previous page. I couldn't agree more, and have raised at least some of those points in the survey I returned.
-
Excellent posts Stan and Liz. You were both more detailed in your responses than I was, but the bottom line was the same. My main concerns are the RC system (and the grossly high sales numbers required to meet the levels), the confusing collections and pricing schemes, and the incompetent site maintenance.
-
Excellent posts Stan and Liz. You were both more detailed in your responses than I was, but the bottom line was the same. My main concerns are the RC system (and the grossly high sales numbers required to meet the levels), the confusing collections and pricing schemes, and the incompetent site maintenance.
yes, I agree, I wasn't as verbose, but pretty much responded the same way.
-
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.
Same for me.
Maybe they decided to not send it out to contributors without active files in their portfolio....
But I actually still have 5 active files, so that can't be the excuse.
did you check spam folders? it isn't actually coming from them since it's a survey monkey thing or some other service (i dont exactly remember). i didnt think I got it either but there it was hiding in the spam folder. :)
-
Nothing in the spam folder either...
-
Not in mine, either. I went back to July 27. No biggie, most have shared the same thing I would have and was probably more eloquent about it. I seriously don't think it matters a bit, since ALL of these concerns have been posted over and over at the forums and no one bothered to pay attention. All Rebecca had to do was sit and read through the threads. Maybe then she would at least get the idea of how annoying it is to have to wade through threads just to find important IS announcements.
To me it just looks like another carrot being dangled to get everyone to "settle down" and feel as though they actually ARE important. ::)
-
I think the survey is important because this should give her the opinion of the overall mood of the contributors. She has no prior experience with istock, maybe she thinks that the forums are just for the "untalented whining artists" while the "real pros" are all superhappy and content and don´t bother with the forums at all.
That is why I believe it is very, very important to make your voice heard and fill out the survey even if you just answer every question with just a half sentence.
-
I think the survey is important because this should give her the opinion of the overall mood of the contributors.
Sorry but you are fooling yourself if that's what you believe. Rebecca will only be interested in meeting the targets set by Getty/H&F. Contributors and their precious feelings are essentially an irritation and inconvenience to their ambitions to make spectacular short-term profits and sell the business on.
-
their ambitions to make spectacular short-term profits and sell the business on.
I think you have said similar before. I cannot find a link, sorry, but I believe it was either here or on the iStock forum. And I wondered then -- which bit of the business do you believe will be "sold on" - the portfolio of Getty brands as a whole or iStockphoto in isolation ?
Do you think that it is likely that iStockphoto would be sold in isolation when so much of what has happened over recent years seems to point towards stratifying and streamlining the various brands such that there is product available at all price points across various different models - whilst really they are all part of the same whole. The whole thing surely only works if they are all part of a whole.
-
I really don´t know - who would they sell istock too? Maybe Getty as a whole?? But I still don´t understand the business logic of undermining the community.
The community was the basis of the economic success of istock. It is in their own economic interest to keep people interested in staying exclusive, uploading as many pictures as possible to fill several agencies and various collections.
I know a lot of exclusives who are thinking of quitting or are just uploading a lot less. The photographers are focussing more on their assignment work, the people with other day jobs on their other work. And pond5 is attracting the photographers who are learning video. 50% royalties with no shifting mirage targets is hard to beat as a offer.
Like Stan said, the RC system is dividing the community, there is a lot less interest in sharing and JJ´s announcement that the "hard working and talented artist has nothing to fear" is unfortunately not calming people. Because who will make that decision? The customers or istock?
Ok, now i am ranting. I just thought the survey was really well designed. It gives me hope that they do want to bring the site back into it´s leadership position.
-
Gray suit to lowly intern: "So here's the new batch of the responses to go through. The interface is a little buggy but as you can see in the column on the left these are your keywords to search for. The main one of course is 'professional', then there's 'communication', etc. That's what we're focusing on, we need to get rid of rogermexico. He's Mr. Casual and that won't cut it any more with the kind of news we have in the pipeline. He's got to go but we need the data to back us up, so find it. Good luck, you'll do swell. Oh, and if you finish by 4pm, you get a really cool rubber duck as a memento. Bitter used to play with it in the corporate bathroom. Just imagine!"
I ain't filling out no stinkin survey!
-
Both rogermexico and lobo are doing a great job. I´d be very surprised if they let go of them.
I know lobo and his comments aren´t popular, but the "good cop/bad cop routine" works well between both.
They can always bring in additional moderators or admins to liven up the place if they want to. Or just post any bad news and disappear from the forums without answering questions.
I am still trying to be optimistic and hope there will be a new positive direction. But maybe as an exclusive I have to see the half full glass.
-
Cobalt - and I quote "Both rogermexico and lobo are doing a great job. I´d be very surprised if they let go of them"
Sincerely - what planet are you living on?
Rogermexico (OK - maybe) but Lobo...? Your are completely insane, or delusional. In your defense your 'exclusive' so probably the latter.
-
their ambitions to make spectacular short-term profits and sell the business on.
I think you have said similar before. I cannot find a link, sorry, but I believe it was either here or on the iStock forum. And I wondered then -- which bit of the business do you believe will be "sold on" - the portfolio of Getty brands as a whole or iStockphoto in isolation ?
Do you think that it is likely that iStockphoto would be sold in isolation when so much of what has happened over recent years seems to point towards stratifying and streamlining the various brands such that there is product available at all price points across various different models - whilst really they are all part of the same whole. The whole thing surely only works if they are all part of a whole.
I think the general assumption, based on what H&F does, is that it will sell what it acquired in 3-5 years (if possible) to make a profit and move on. Whether the pieces are sold separately or as a whole is only a matter of where they can find the best deal. I read one article about them (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0805/gallery.private_equity_power_list.fortune/14.html) that claimed their men's room urinals are named for deals that didn't work out. Google brings up many articles about their other acquisitions and one has a picture of Mr. Hellman (http://www.benjaminjgarber.com/blog/lessons-learned-the-hard-way-from-warren-hellman) with some of his acquired wisdom.
The dividend recapitalization at the end of last year (talked about before here in another thread and in this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/business/03views.html)) suggest that they can't sell at a profit at the moment.
-
"Rogermexico (OK - maybe) but Lobo...? Your are completely insane, or delusional. In your defense your 'exclusive' so probably the latter."
No, I was a moderator. MichaelJay and me had similar dynamics on the German forum. He took a lot of heat but sometimes his hardline attitude was necessary. Moderators get a lot of emails and sitemails with complaints about other contributors. Keeping a balance and communication flowing is an art form. What you see in the forum is just a small part of their work.
Especially during the crisis in September I admired Chris (lobo) very, very much. He was doing one hell of a job and he was doing it alone.
However, I did add in my forum comments that I think too many posts are being zapped and not just by him. I believe in editing posts, but of course it takes a lot more time.
At the moment rogermexico isn´t there to balance the team but he is coming back end of summer, at least that was what he said.
In the end it all comes back to what the management directs the moderators to do. They don´t work in a vacuum.
They are also welcome to get on the stage and do it themselves...;-)
-
I am not nearly as worried about the moderators as I am the future direction of Istock. As an independent it's a hard world over there....so many * layers that it becomes nearly impractical to upload.
-
I am not nearly as worried about the moderators as I am the future direction of Istock. As an independent it's a hard world over there....so many layers that it becomes nearly impractical to upload.
I was a little worried too, after reading this thread, that some of the real issues won't be looked at because of the tons of minutia/complaints. After all, are nicer moderators and better communication really going to make you happy? ;D
-
After all, are nicer moderators and better communication really going to make you happy? ;D
I was under the impression that is was, since the money didn't ;)
-
The forums don't pay my bills. The survey was so heavily weighted to "does LOBO or Pinky do you right?" that it tells me clearly that the message of this survey is "facade at its best". Challenge me, please. Istock has stuck it to their contributors so hard and for so long that this survey is nothing more than a business facade. If this new gal was really interested in turning the business around in favor of the contributors this survey would have been way different. They need to focus on what the buyers have to say and not what the contributors have to offer.
-
Great posts.
After changing too many variables now they look behind and they cant see which footprint cause the biggest demolition.
You could not explain more clearly.
-
I never got the survey either, but you can bet I have some opinions for them now.
-
I'm even surprised that the survey is open, as recent announcements led to negative views. It just reinforces the idea that they do not plan to do anything with it...