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.

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.

...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.

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.

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..

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.   

The survey may well be Rebecca's first initiative to test the water before she decides how to run the business.

I'd say they are reading them and swearing under their breath.

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. 

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.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote from: cclapper on August 19, 2011, 12:57

...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.