It´s an honest post. the best I have read in the whole year, actually.
If they continue being frank and honest without a condescending tone towards the "silly little artist who shouldn´t worry his pretty head over business", they might have a chance to recover.
We are still, by far, the number 1 microstock site revenue-wise.
QuoteWe are still, by far, the number 1 microstock site revenue-wise.
That may be true as a corporation, but not so true for most of us.
She talks as if their lack of communication skills are my main concern. Seriously?
I think she's missing the underlying causes of the anger and until that is addressed more communication is only going to result in even more communication.Yup, totally glossed over the point. My thoughts exactly.
I don't think they're capable of admitting they got that wrong and making changes though.They could just blame it on the ancien regime and start over.
IS are definitely rattled by what they are hearing on the forums, but are not willing to apologise or accept any blame. I am sure it is all about the bottom line. It always is.
Maybe they will do a 'Starbucks' and realise how important their contributors are and start to listen to them, but more importantly change.
And now the Sr. Director of Search Strategy for Getty is posting in the best match Discussion thread (although she's basically saying it's all working like it should) -- what is happening here? :)
I do think that having specific people from management post is a good idea. I do not think that suggesting that contributors need to clean up their act and play nicely is appropriate - not quite such a tin ear as KKT, but close. You take a dump all over us and when we are vocal about how much we dislike it, you ask for our help in returning to civil discourse?! How about something to clean up the mess you made and a promise not to dump on us any more?
I don´t know if it is too late to save the community, it will take years to rebuild the trust that has been destroyed.
We get it, you guys are mad. And reading the forums for the past year has made it clear that some of you think we are lazy, incompetent, greedy or uncaring. The reality is that there are a few hundred people across Getty Images working as fast and as hard as they can to drive iStock forward.
The woman's a waste of space.
If they brought Bruce back and gave him a free hand to work, he would turn the trend around in less than a year.Only if he wanted to; and clearly he wanted to move on to other projects.
From the Glassdoor website the comments about it being laid back with no overtime, no accountability, and no structure seem to match the results.
I was trying to find RR's introductory post where she promised better communication. I can't find a link to it from her profile. I wondered exactly how long ago it was, then nada since the original promise. Anyone better able to find it?
I was trying to find RR's introductory post where she promised better communication. I can't find a link to it from her profile. I wondered exactly how long ago it was, then nada since the original promise. Anyone better able to find it?
Maybe this one started by KK
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=332784&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=332784&page=1[/url])
my guess is that they ARE seeing a drop in their revenue, which has spurred the reach-out. heres an idea...instead of going to the forum with the spin, why not actually prove what they are saying, i.e. like fixing the site, etc. talking means nothing, its the doing that counts. same old, same old.
my guess is that they ARE seeing a drop in their revenue ..
The greedy f*cks have blown it.
As always Lobo will be there to provide additional support and to help us keep the conversation productive.
That seems significant to me. "We will not tolerate unwanted questions."
::)
They have lost too much ground to Shutter thus will probably never be the number one again even with changes...
Maybe they will do a 'Starbucks' and realise how important their contributors are and start to listen to them, but more importantly change.I think there's a possibility that might happen. If Starbucks had no competition, I don't think they would of been concerned but their customers could easily go elsewhere. If the people running istock have any sense, they will see that their reputation is in tatters and they will take drastic action to make sure that they still have a competitive site in 5 years time. It looks like the current strategy is all about making very short term profits and it shouldn't take a genius to recognise that's unsustainable.
my guess is that they ARE seeing a drop in their revenue ..
Of course they are. It's mathematically impossible for so many significant contributors to be reporting drastic falls in sales for that to not be representative of the greater business. They're in a tail-spin with very little chance of pulling out of it. The greedy f*cks have blown it.
I didnt know who she was, so i googled her:
[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-men-and-women-managers-rebecca-rockafellar-istock-photo-getty-images-2012-11[/url] ([url]http://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-men-and-women-managers-rebecca-rockafellar-istock-photo-getty-images-2012-11[/url])
"I was asking some colleagues to help me crystallize what makes me different as a female leader versus some of the male leaders in our organization"
And, sure enough, "a male colleague called out is that I am able to gain the trust of others by just being very visibly confident in my own skills without boasting"
"I was asking some colleagues to help me crystallize what makes me different as a female leader versus some of the male leaders in our organization"
And, sure enough, "a male colleague called out is that I am able to gain the trust of others by just being very visibly confident in my own skills without boasting"
I'm getting so sick of these female execs in IT/ICT companies.
They wouldn't last long in harder and more competitive countries like europe or china.
I feel Rebecca is just the messenger. She is testing the water for her bosses. I wonder what is cooking for the new year.
LOL
Speaking as a woman... I think she should just pay more attention to listening to people with no facial expressions (i.e. in the forum), do the job and be guided by results.
Being concerned about what makes females and males different in the role is a complete waste of time. Just do the job and do it well. The time for reflection on such things is after the event.
I wonder that she didn't get the obvious answers: "A bloke wouldn't ask a stupid question like that" or "you've got ***s, luv".
But, I suppose those aren't career enhancing responses.
And that's why execs should be Male, as females can be certainly better in marketing and in dealing with buyers and dealing with people and teams in general but when it's time to make hard strategical decisions they're too emotional and only man have the balls to look at the situation in a cold and rational way.So KKT was a great leader, then, being apparently male.
And that's why execs should be Male, as females can be certainly better in marketing and in dealing with buyers and dealing with people and teams in general but when it's time to make hard strategical decisions they're too emotional and only man have the balls to look at the situation in a cold and rational way.So KKT was a great leader, then, being apparently male.
It's down to individuals.
Anyone remember a female leader called Margaret Thatcher? She had more balls than any of the males in her party. She stuck to her principles and never seemed emotional about tough decisions. So I have to completely disagree with MetaStocker's male chauvinist views about women leaders. I'm not saying Margaret Thatcher was a great leader, people's opinions on that are biased by their political beliefs.
Anyone want to start a list of all the incompetent male business leaders :)
I feel Rebecca is just the messenger. She is testing the water for her bosses. I wonder what is cooking for the new year.
my guess is that they ARE seeing a drop in their revenue ..
Of course they are. It's mathematically impossible for so many significant contributors to be reporting drastic falls in sales for that to not be representative of the greater business. They're in a tail-spin with very little chance of pulling out of it. The greedy f*cks have blown it.
Just as I feel she shouldn't be making a big deal out of her gender, I feel that assertions by contributors and buyers shouldn't be made on the basis of gender either.
It's not about gender, it's about the ability to do the job, regardless of that. Assess each person on their merits, nothing else.
Just as I feel she shouldn't be making a big deal out of her gender, I feel that assertions by contributors and buyers shouldn't be made on the basis of gender either.
It's not about gender, it's about the ability to do the job, regardless of that. Assess each person on their merits, nothing else.
Is it me or all the female execs in big IT companies have been a disaster?
why is everybody saying they would be happy with the initial %20 commission?In the good old days, they used to sell a lot and 20% of a lot was better than 50% of not much that some other sites had. Now, going back to 20% would be a positive step in the right direction but they would also have to improve sales volume. Unfortunately, I don't think they're capable of doing either.
any other agency would be crucified if they announced they will pay %20, so why be happy if this ridiculous site pays us %20?
I never knew I had this much hatred in me.. >:( >:( >:( >:(
why is everybody saying they would be happy with the initial %20 commission?
any other agency would be crucified if they announced they will pay %20, so why be happy if this ridiculous site pays us %20?
I never knew I had this much hatred in me.. >:( >:( >:( >:(
Now, going back to 20% would be a positive step in the right direction
Now, going back to 20% would be a positive step in the right direction
I think the positive step would be them going to hell and perish.. The last thing I want it them to sell a lot like they used to, and pay us %20..
It is great that other agencies that pay us %50 are growing and these morons are leading the race to the bottom..
Oh and I have good news for IS: I am making 6 times less than what I used to make at IS, but overall make %30 more on 18 agencies.. that tells a lot about how much screwed they are and I am loving it..
why is everybody saying they would be happy with the initial %20 commission?
any other agency would be crucified if they announced they will pay %20, so why be happy if this ridiculous site pays us %20?
I never knew I had this much hatred in me.. >:( >:( >:( >:(
For your mental/emotional wellbeing, you need to quit.
I quit a well-paying and very secure day job because of a boss, and never regretted it - but I am only responsible for myself , and am old enough to have reasonable 'buffers' in place; and realise that may not be everybody's situation.
Also, I could only do it once; though as a vector artist your options may be more open.
why is everybody saying they would be happy with the initial %20 commission?
Now, going back to 20% would be a positive step in the right direction
I think the positive step would be them going to hell and perish.. The last thing I want it them to sell a lot like they used to, and pay us %20..
It is great that other agencies that pay us %50 are growing and these morons are leading the race to the bottom..
Oh and I have good news for IS: I am making 6 times less than what I used to make at IS, but overall make %30 more on 18 agencies.. that tells a lot about how much screwed they are and I am loving it..
It would be interesting to know how much more content you could produce if you were submitting to fewer agencies (I don't necessarily mean being exclusive to any one), and how your overall balance would be affected.
Quotewhy is everybody saying they would be happy with the initial %20 commission?
But you're happy with 25c an image at SS? And if IS are so terrible, why not just delete your portfolio?
To be fair to Rebecca, after KT was ritually dismembered on the iStock forum I think it was a fairly sensible business decision for her to keep her head down with the aim of getting on with managing iStock without creating an excuse for a new firestorm by posing as the wise leader in public.
Ensuring there is good communication should be part of her job, but it doesn't mean that she has to be the one acting as the spokeswoman. She should be making sure that the resources go to the right place to ensure smooth operation of the site and good relations with suppliers and customers. Offering yourself up as a target can distract from the real business without delivering anything good in return.
I find it curious that a post about communication is released late on a Friday afternoon. In the US that is known as the "Friday Night Dump". The reasoning is that is best time of the week to release news to the least amount of people that would notice it. Sort of cushions the blow.IStock have regularly communicated big, unpopular issues on Friday afternoons. I always assumed it was so that the fallout would happen over the weekend and have 'blown over' as KKT so famously said, by Monday (and if anyone didn't let it 'blow over' they'd be LOBOtomised, as RR hinted).
but will definitely leave at some point I can assure you.Of course you will ;)
Same old same old.I bet the communication would have been more interesting if the suits (even though they don't wear suits at iS HQ) had had their income cut to the same extent. And if their income was linked to the site's performance, I bet we'd see a far, far better site.
Same condescending tone.
Same lack of understanding. The issues are concrete and not simply due to "lack of communication".
There is no amount of communication that could have softened the blow of the commission cuts.
To be fair to Rebecca, after KT was ritually dismembered on the iStock forum I think it was a fairly sensible business decision for her to keep her head down with the aim of getting on with managing iStock without creating an excuse for a new firestorm by posing as the wise leader in public. ...
I note that they timed the "return of zoom" message for an hour after the "new communication" message. Obviously, that wasn't an accident and they are trying to project an image of real change and that actions are being taken - one important fix is in the pipeline.
There was a post in that employees comments website that alleged Getty was hamstrung by the effort to sell the place, out of fear that if they did anything they would do something wrong. It is possible that the techies have been drawing up plans to deal with the many bugs and are now being allowed to put them into action.
Whether anything much happens, only time will tell. Like most other people I am sceptical about there being any real intention to mend relations with contributors but announcing a desire to improve communication is potentially a first step on a long road. Rubbishing every initiative without seeing if it is going to go anywhere is not a constructive attitude.
As for Gostwyck's remark about "being invisible to those you lead", I don't really see the IStock CEO's job as being to lead the contributors, I see it as being to lead the employees. As has been stated repeatedly, contributors are impressed by better earnings and better conditions, they don't need guidance to do their work, we all do our own thing. If the CEO gets the staff to fix the bugs and the Getty management to agree policies that deliver growth and fairer returns for us then I think she would be doing her job. I don't need to have a woo-yay experience from her or to think that she is an ultra-cool cat. Those days for iStock are gone forever.
I feel Rebecca is just the messenger. She is testing the water for her bosses. I wonder what is cooking for the new year.
Good possibility. The new owners may have finally looked under the hood of what they just bought and told her to fix the mess they just found. They thought they bought a vintage Ferrari they could flip for a profit and found out it's a bondo'd kit car.
Perception goes a long way toward success. Look at Apple.
why is everybody saying they would be happy with the initial %20 commission?
any other agency would be crucified if they announced they will pay %20, so why be happy if this ridiculous site pays us %20?
I never knew I had this much hatred in me.. >:( >:( >:( >:(
As for Gostwyck's remark about "being invisible to those you lead", I don't really see the IStock CEO's job as being to lead the contributors, I see it as being to lead the employees. As has been stated repeatedly, contributors are impressed by better earnings and better conditions, they don't need guidance to do their work, we all do our own thing. If the CEO gets the staff to fix the bugs and the Getty management to agree policies that deliver growth and fairer returns for us then I think she would be doing her job. I don't need to have a woo-yay experience from her or to think that she is an ultra-cool cat. Those days for iStock are gone forever.
why is everybody saying they would be happy with the initial %20 commission?
any other agency would be crucified if they announced they will pay %20, so why be happy if this ridiculous site pays us %20?
I never knew I had this much hatred in me.. >:( >:( >:( >:(
That's kind of my opinion. When they decided to pay less than 20%, it was a wake up call. It made me realize that I was getting ripped off by most of these agencies. I have to thank iStock though. They put me on the path to building a better microstock business for myself.
why is everybody saying they would be happy with the initial %20 commission?
any other agency would be crucified if they announced they will pay %20, so why be happy if this ridiculous site pays us %20?
I never knew I had this much hatred in me.. >:( >:( >:( >:(
That's kind of my opinion. When they decided to pay less than 20%, it was a wake up call. It made me realize that I was getting ripped off by most of these agencies. I have to thank iStock though. They put me on the path to building a better microstock business for myself.
totally agree.. we should continue improving our own businesses.. as I mentioned somewhere above, istock is making less for me, but overall I am making much more..
the wake up call for me was when fotolia screwed up the contributors before istock but I was reluctant to act fast.. istock provided the last straw for me.. so I am grateful to them as well..
^ I like the magnifier too, IS should include a bunch if not all of the GM Scripts
However, nothing that was said in this thread was new. It's all been said, repeatedly, in the forums over the last two years. If she wasn't listening before, why is she going to start now?
Hello all. Just a quick note to say that I'm in here, reading all of your thoughtful and thought provoking posts.
You have made one thing abundantly clear - we have to prove it. Duly noted.
More from me when I've had time to process all of this - later today. And I do mean today, unless I am hit by a bus.
And this is even a weekend!
However, nothing that was said in this thread was new. It's all been said, repeatedly, in the forums over the last two years. If she wasn't listening before, why is she going to start now?
I think RR's post has gone wildly off the topic she intended. She just wanted to announce a 'fresh start for communication'. If anything she was giving contributors a bollocking for being so mean in the forums when actually everyone at IS/Getty is working really, really hard for us.
If you read the OP, she wasn't asking what our concerns are or what we wanted to see improved. In her world our job is to listen and gratefully accept the pearls of wisdom she might bestow upon us, if and when she feels like doing so.
Unfortunately, now that she's broken cover and popped up in the forum, everyone is using the opportunity to get a few things off their chest and/or give her a well-deserved slap.
I wouldn't bet on RR remaining as Istock's GM by the end of 2013. Carlyle will want action taken if targets fail to be met at one of their prime assets.
I was surprised to see her post this about 45 minutes agoQuoteHello all. Just a quick note to say that I'm in here, reading all of your thoughtful and thought provoking posts.
You have made one thing abundantly clear - we have to prove it. Duly noted.
More from me when I've had time to process all of this - later today. And I do mean today, unless I am hit by a bus.
And this is even a weekend!
I was surprised to see her post this about 45 minutes agoQuoteHello all. Just a quick note to say that I'm in here, reading all of your thoughtful and thought provoking posts.
You have made one thing abundantly clear - we have to prove it. Duly noted.
More from me when I've had time to process all of this - later today. And I do mean today, unless I am hit by a bus.
And this is even a weekend!
I was surprised to see her post this about 45 minutes agoQuoteHello all. Just a quick note to say that I'm in here, reading all of your thoughtful and thought provoking posts.
You have made one thing abundantly clear - we have to prove it. Duly noted.
More from me when I've had time to process all of this - later today. And I do mean today, unless I am hit by a bus.
And this is even a weekend!
Give the girl a coconut. ::)
As for Gostwyck's remark about "being invisible to those you lead", I don't really see the IStock CEO's job as being to lead the contributors, I see it as being to lead the employees. As has been stated repeatedly, contributors are impressed by better earnings and better conditions, they don't need guidance to do their work, we all do our own thing. If the CEO gets the staff to fix the bugs and the Getty management to agree policies that deliver growth and fairer returns for us then I think she would be doing her job. I don't need to have a woo-yay experience from her or to think that she is an ultra-cool cat. Those days for iStock are gone forever.
Istock haven't had a CEO since one Bruce Livingstone sold out. That's part of the problem. Rebecca is just the General Manager, a part-time job that she juggles whilst also being Getty's Senior VP for E-Commerce.
Istock's greatest strength was most definitely the crowd-sourcing community it built up __ and that takes leadership. Back in the day many contributors were positively fanatical, signing up for exclusivity when it was not really in their financial interest to do so, happily donating their time and services in writing articles, helping others, 'keyword wiki-ing', etc, etc. You can't buy that stuff and they don't stock it on the shelves but it is incredibly valuable. Such leadership and vision may not be essential for an agency to be successful __ but it sure does help.
At this moment no agency is doing all that brillant and they have all got their differant problems. Right now IS have got the right timing to do something constructive here, try to capitalize on the situation. I hope they realize that.
The only people left (buyers and contributors) are the true believers and those that want the "good old days" back. Everybody else has moved on and they aren't coming back.Interesting how you know what everyone is making at iStock and what they would make as independents, maybe you could share where you get your figures?
At this moment no agency is doing all that brillant and they have all got their differant problems. Right now IS have got the right timing to do something constructive here, try to capitalize on the situation. I hope they realize that.
That opportunity was 2 years ago. They blew it. The only people left (buyers and contributors) are the true believers and those that want the "good old days" back. Everybody else has moved on and they aren't coming back. Neither are the "good old days". I don't see how they can repair the damage even if they were sincere about doing it. Unless, they have invented a time machine.
I really don't get what . Rebecca thought she was doing. Her post was alternately defensive and hostile. How exactly was this sort of communication supposed to improve anything? Not that the biggest problem at iStock is one of communication. It's all about performance, what contributors have to put up with and what we get in return. And that's a growing disaster with no sign of letting up. At least it is for me; your mileage may vary.
I WOULD bet that by the end of 2013 there will be no more istock. It will be absorbed into Getty or Thinkstock, whichever category the contributor's portfolio fits into by their reasoning.
The only people left (buyers and contributors) are the true believers and those that want the "good old days" back. Everybody else has moved on and they aren't coming back.Interesting how you know what everyone is making at iStock and what they would make as independents, maybe you could share where you get your figures?
She is completely out of touch. She talks as if their lack of communication skills are my main concern. Seriously? No my main concern is my bottom line. And iStock is hurting my bottom line the way they are treating us contributors. No, Rebecca, paying contributors 15-19% on iStock, moving and promoting content on thinkstock for less than 30 cent pr download are my two main concerns when it comes to iStock.
They should just set istock free.
Give it back to Bruce or find somebody from the community and come to a sensible agreement. They can then have a licensing agreement for the exclusive content and cherry pick whatever they want for their luxury brands that they can micromanage to their hearts content. Getty is the Hermes of the stock industry, they have the upper market locked in very well, where you can go wheeling and dealing for multimillion dollar contracts with large cooperations. Nothing wrong with that business model.
But istock doesn't fit in there.
They need a licensing agreement similar to the one they have with flickr.
Istock can then go back to growing organically and becoming the marketplace of the industry.
Well. at least that scenario would give us a future. Sort of like Steve Jobs saved Apple when he came back in after John Scully nearly destroyed it. And look were Apple is now, even without him.
I don't see anyone from Getty having the necessary skills and vision to replace Bruce.
They have owned the place for 6 years and still don't get it.
once again we have an Istock management post about problems posted on friday afternoon, really? love the irony of it being about poor communication
(but not as bad as "we {> you" and by gum - I dont think I could think of a more nauseating, belittling and insincere message
Quoteonce again we have an Istock management post about problems posted on friday afternoon, really? love the irony of it being about poor communication
Where is the irony? She posted on Friday and is there on Saturday responding to posts.Quote(but not as bad as "we {> you" and by gum - I dont think I could think of a more nauseating, belittling and insincere message
is what you're smoking available freely?
I didn't know who she was, so i googled her:
[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-men-and-women-managers-rebecca-rockafellar-istock-photo-getty-images-2012-11[/url] ([url]http://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-men-and-women-managers-rebecca-rockafellar-istock-photo-getty-images-2012-11[/url])
Wow! Look at this:
"I was asking some colleagues to help me crystallize what makes me different as a female leader versus some of the male leaders in our organization"
Am I alone in reading that as "All right, underlings, tell me why I'm the most wonderful person in the business".
And, sure enough, "a male colleague called out is that I am able to gain the trust of others by just being very visibly confident in my own skills without boasting"
Give that boy a Christmas bonus!
Note the "called out", it wasn't a private chat, apparently, it was a question to a full room.
I didn't know who she was, so i googled her:
[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-men-and-women-managers-rebecca-rockafellar-istock-photo-getty-images-2012-11[/url] ([url]http://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-men-and-women-managers-rebecca-rockafellar-istock-photo-getty-images-2012-11[/url])
Wow! Look at this:
"I was asking some colleagues to help me crystallize what makes me different as a female leader versus some of the male leaders in our organization"
Am I alone in reading that as "All right, underlings, tell me why I'm the most wonderful person in the business".
I think she was just asking if they could see any differences in leadership between her and male leaders which may be because of common gender traits.
And, sure enough, "a male colleague called out is that I am able to gain the trust of others by just being very visibly confident in my own skills without boasting"
Give that boy a Christmas bonus!
Note the "called out", it wasn't a private chat, apparently, it was a question to a full room.
The answer seems like a valid one, as I personally believe that in general men tend to boast more, need to show how smart they are more than women (I'm a bloke in case anyone was wondering).
She obviously liked the comment which is not a problem and although it seems boastful that she reiterated the answer in this article, the article title is
"An Exec Tells Us 3 Ways Women Leadership Benefits A Company", so mentioning the answer which was called out is relevent to the article. What we don't know is if questions of gender were put to her by Business Insider, or if she was asked to choose a subject and this is what she chose.
p.s. I can't believe I just defended the general manager of iStockphoto. I do apologise everyone. ;)
I didn't know who she was, so i googled her:
[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-men-and-women-managers-rebecca-rockafellar-istock-photo-getty-images-2012-11[/url] ([url]http://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-men-and-women-managers-rebecca-rockafellar-istock-photo-getty-images-2012-11[/url])
Wow! Look at this:
"I was asking some colleagues to help me crystallize what makes me different as a female leader versus some of the male leaders in our organization"
Am I alone in reading that as "All right, underlings, tell me why I'm the most wonderful person in the business".
I think she was just asking if they could see any differences in leadership between her and male leaders which may be because of common gender traits.
And, sure enough, "a male colleague called out is that I am able to gain the trust of others by just being very visibly confident in my own skills without boasting"
Give that boy a Christmas bonus!
Note the "called out", it wasn't a private chat, apparently, it was a question to a full room.
The answer seems like a valid one, as I personally believe that in general men tend to boast more, need to show how smart they are more than women (I'm a bloke in case anyone was wondering).
She obviously liked the comment which is not a problem and although it seems boastful that she reiterated the answer in this article, the article title is
"An Exec Tells Us 3 Ways Women Leadership Benefits A Company", so mentioning the answer which was called out is relevent to the article. What we don't know is if questions of gender were put to her by Business Insider, or if she was asked to choose a subject and this is what she chose.
p.s. I can't believe I just defended the general manager of iStockphoto. I do apologise everyone. ;)
^^^ Sorry, but that's just utter drivel.
The irony is that the post is supposed to be a positive about improvements in communication, yet is made on Friday afternoon.
I think Ms. Rockafellar is just the wrong person for this job and somehow is expecting to regain trust with a few "I hear you" comments. No talk about the RC system or even adjusting it in light of the pitiful site behavior over the last 3 months. No talk about the delay in payments or ongoing problems with refunds. No talk about...
why is everybody saying they would be happy with the initial %20 commission?
any other agency would be crucified if they announced they will pay %20, so why be happy if this ridiculous site pays us %20?
I never knew I had this much hatred in me.. >:( >:( >:( >:(
That's kind of my opinion. When they decided to pay less than 20%, it was a wake up call. It made me realize that I was getting ripped off by most of these agencies. I have to thank iStock though. They put me on the path to building a better microstock business for myself.
I think Ms. Rockafellar is just the wrong person for this job and somehow is expecting to regain trust with a few "I hear you" comments. No talk about the RC system or even adjusting it in light of the pitiful site behavior over the last 3 months. No talk about the delay in payments or ongoing problems with refunds. No talk about...
It is clear that when they screwed us, they screwed themselves more.
And it is bizarre that most do not see that we are truly in the driver seat. What most of these sites have failed to realize is that a significant portion of their buyers are also independent contributors.
I say let them burn in hell, they deserve what is coming to them!
It is clear that when they screwed us, they screwed themselves more.
IS screwing its contributors does seem to have had negative effects for them. But IS are by no means screwed yet.
And it is bizarre that most do not see that we are truly in the driver seat. What most of these sites have failed to realize is that a significant portion of their buyers are also independent contributors.
I say let them burn in hell, they deserve what is coming to them!
Most aren't though. It's a very small percentage of contributors who provide most of the content. It's in their hands, but these few have never utilised the power that they have. Arcurs made a stand by creating his own site, but it's not much of a stand really. If those few top dogs had got together and coordinated something, which wouldn't be difficult really, companies like IS could have been long gone and other agencies wouldn't dare to pull the antics that IS did.
Shorter version of RR's speech:
OK, after a year of watching - I, The Boss decided to say something*
1. ...just because people from Getty also read this forum.
2. 'My' message is: to draw a thick red line and listen to people.
3. 'You' are mad (can be) and 'we' are not greedy (hmmm, 'we' have been soooo busy, you know).
4. 'Sustainability' is not the current headline. Now: 'global website scalability + collective reset'
5. People are rude from behind, again, you need collective reset!
6. 'You' always complain, 'we' need constructive conversations.
7. 'We' are not going to talk about 'our' money. This is not 'your' business.
8. When iStock is successful 'we're all' successful - I had to say it just because people from Getty also read this forum.
P.S. I'll take part of the blame. Your Rebecca.
*rather bad example of PR
I have been reading up on this thread and the IS one with the message from that Rebecca woman. I think her OP is really poor communication. You dont talk like that to really upset people. Its like throwing oil on a fire. The message is even further frustrating the contributors and I find the tone very condescending. Its also a complete hit and miss when she comes back saying she is reading the thread, on her weekend that is. Are you for real, she must be making about 150k a year (correct me if I am wrong) and you are a GM. Your work never stops. Does she think the contributors don't work on a Saturday? What I consider utter fail is first say you have been watching the forum for a year and then you say I have been reading all your complaints and post a summary like its all new to you. What has she been reading for that year then? And the cherry on top is that the summary of the 4 problems misses the biggest frustration of them all, the commission!! I have never seen such amateur management, poor communication and display of completely missing the point by a general manager of any large company. Well the utter fail of BP's Tony "I'd like my life back" Hayward managing the Deep Horizon disaster is a classic. To me it seems Rebecca wants her life back back as well after she got ridden by Getty's/Carlyle's board for making a complete mess of iStockphoto.
I am sorry, but I am completely missing the joke. I'm prolly missing something ;)I have been reading up on this thread and the IS one with the message from that Rebecca woman. I think her OP is really poor communication. You dont talk like that to really upset people. Its like throwing oil on a fire. The message is even further frustrating the contributors and I find the tone very condescending. Its also a complete hit and miss when she comes back saying she is reading the thread, on her weekend that is. Are you for real, she must be making about 150k a year (correct me if I am wrong) and you are a GM. Your work never stops. Does she think the contributors don't work on a Saturday? What I consider utter fail is first say you have been watching the forum for a year and then you say I have been reading all your complaints and post a summary like its all new to you. What has she been reading for that year then? And the cherry on top is that the summary of the 4 problems misses the biggest frustration of them all, the commission!! I have never seen such amateur management, poor communication and display of completely missing the point by a general manager of any large company. Well the utter fail of BP's Tony "I'd like my life back" Hayward managing the Deep Horizon disaster is a classic. To me it seems Rebecca wants her life back back as well after she got ridden by Getty's/Carlyle's board for making a complete mess of iStockphoto.
Well I guess you will have to make an honest women of her. Can hear wedding bells coming on! ;D
I am sorry, but I am completely missing the joke. I'm prolly missing something ;)I have been reading up on this thread and the IS one with the message from that Rebecca woman. I think her OP is really poor communication. You dont talk like that to really upset people. Its like throwing oil on a fire. The message is even further frustrating the contributors and I find the tone very condescending. Its also a complete hit and miss when she comes back saying she is reading the thread, on her weekend that is. Are you for real, she must be making about 150k a year (correct me if I am wrong) and you are a GM. Your work never stops. Does she think the contributors don't work on a Saturday? What I consider utter fail is first say you have been watching the forum for a year and then you say I have been reading all your complaints and post a summary like its all new to you. What has she been reading for that year then? And the cherry on top is that the summary of the 4 problems misses the biggest frustration of them all, the commission!! I have never seen such amateur management, poor communication and display of completely missing the point by a general manager of any large company. Well the utter fail of BP's Tony "I'd like my life back" Hayward managing the Deep Horizon disaster is a classic. To me it seems Rebecca wants her life back back as well after she got ridden by Getty's/Carlyle's board for making a complete mess of iStockphoto.
Well I guess you will have to make an honest women of her. Can hear wedding bells coming on! ;D
I am sorry, but I am completely missing the joke. I'm prolly missing something ;)I have been reading up on this thread and the IS one with the message from that Rebecca woman. I think her OP is really poor communication. You dont talk like that to really upset people. Its like throwing oil on a fire. The message is even further frustrating the contributors and I find the tone very condescending. Its also a complete hit and miss when she comes back saying she is reading the thread, on her weekend that is. Are you for real, she must be making about 150k a year (correct me if I am wrong) and you are a GM. Your work never stops. Does she think the contributors don't work on a Saturday? What I consider utter fail is first say you have been watching the forum for a year and then you say I have been reading all your complaints and post a summary like its all new to you. What has she been reading for that year then? And the cherry on top is that the summary of the 4 problems misses the biggest frustration of them all, the commission!! I have never seen such amateur management, poor communication and display of completely missing the point by a general manager of any large company. Well the utter fail of BP's Tony "I'd like my life back" Hayward managing the Deep Horizon disaster is a classic. To me it seems Rebecca wants her life back back as well after she got ridden by Getty's/Carlyle's board for making a complete mess of iStockphoto.
Well I guess you will have to make an honest women of her. Can hear wedding bells coming on! ;D
It's the malt scotch version of forum posts. :o
Some of the MSG people on this list (e.g. Lisa or Sean) may want to chime in on the IStock thread as their names are being taken vain:By reading your quote I think that poster meant they will offer their advice for free, as in not sending an invoice.
Quote from funky-data page 11:
Many things said, If I were you I would listen people like Cobalt, Sjlocke, RapidEye, StanRohrer, Lisafx, Inhauscreative, etc. These people have very serious experience on stock business and they can help you. They won't ask any money. Fixing the site and increasing sales will be satisfactory for these people.
Seems to be putting words in people's mouths by saying they don't want a fairer commission structure just the site fixed ("it's not about the money" ;D).
great post from Juan bringing up his grandfather farm ;D
I have been warned and spanked by my friend Lobo so I must calm down. I still see iStock dancing around the real issues here. what if they did this and what effect do you think it woud make if any.
great post from Juan bringing up his grandfather farm ;DI wish Juan and some others wouldn't bang on as though the current best match was the worst thing that had ever happened.
Its getting ridiculous. They dont need any help with straightening things out. The Getty people have got tons of experience and have probably forgotten more then anybody else will ever learn.
How difficult can it be?
Just remove this RC nonsense. fix the bugs/glitches, etc. Make it worthwhile for independants to return and ofcourse, take care of the remaining exclusives.
jeez, you dont have to be a brain surgeon for this.
Sue, I completely agree that the issues go far beyond Best Match. But this Best Match is a bona fide slo-mo disaster that could damage iStock seriously in a short time -- not least because of the astounding denial of a problem by TPTB.I'm getting very different results than are being reported there. They're complaining about a lot of new files hogging the top spots. I've just been uploading some photos from Paris, and photos that went into my port yesterday are already down below position 100 ('photos only'), and at the top are an assortment of well-selling files Not the same as downloads, but certainly not giving new files their 'moment in the sun'.
As a former software developer for big companies - I can tell you that questions lke "how hard could it be?" are typically not well received.
The honest answer is often "very hard and I couldn't possibly explain why, in non-technical terms". But my guess is that the site is frozen - due to some grand coporate reorganization that was supposed to happen months ago but stalled out. The web site is in limbo, the people have been told not to work on it, pending handover to some new group, at some unspecified future time.
Its getting ridiculous. They dont need any help with straightening things out. The Getty people have got tons of experience and have probably forgotten more then anybody else will ever learn.Isn't it the Getty people that have made this mess? Who told istock to get their overall commissions down to 20%, hence bringing in the commission cuts and the RC nonsense? Who's idea was it to send istock buyers to Thinkstock? Whose idea was it to keep raising prices, even when it was obvious that buyers couldn't take any more? Haven't they reduced the istock workforce and then sat back and watched as things have become worse and worse.
How difficult can it be?
Just remove this RC nonsense. fix the bugs/glitches, etc. Make it worthwhile for independants to return and ofcourse, take care of the remaining exclusives.
jeez, you dont have to be a brain surgeon for this.
To fix the problems, I think those responsible for this mess have to be replaced by people that can do the job properly. Perhaps that might include the person that's been in charge of istock for over a year now and has just started the thread in the istock forum? There might be an excuse that Getty/istock was being sold and nothing could be done during that time but I don't believe that all the horrendous problems problems with istock can be fixed without changing the big decision makers that have caused the current problems.
To fix the problems, I think those responsible for this mess have to be replaced by people that can do the job properly. Perhaps that might include the person that's been in charge of istock for over a year now and has just started the thread in the istock forum? There might be an excuse that Getty/istock was being sold and nothing could be done during that time but I don't believe that all the horrendous problems problems with istock can be fixed without changing the big decision makers that have caused the current problems.
Has such as RR got any power at all?
Can she actually make the changes are may help to reassure the contributor community?
Has she said even one thing to try to defend the company from accusations of being 'greedy', which she herself has observed?
Yeah, pretty much everything they SHOULD do they can't/won't do. They've boxed themselves in to the current program and the short-term change would be too painful with no guarantee of success. Ouch.
The reality is....why did she make that post?
1. Are they seeing a defect rate that is killing sales?
2. Is she trying to appease contributors for a "bit" longer to string us along long enough to pay off those venture capitalists?
3. Is she trying to deflect "communication" from "commission"?
4. ADD YOUR OWN SPECULATION HERE.......
They should just set istock free.
Give it back to Bruce or find somebody from the community and come to a sensible agreement. They can then have a licensing agreement for the exclusive content and cherry pick whatever they want for their luxury brands that they can micromanage to their hearts content. Getty is the Hermes of the stock industry, they have the upper market locked in very well, where you can go wheeling and dealing for multimillion dollar contracts with large cooperations. Nothing wrong with that business model.
But istock doesn't fit in there.
They need a licensing agreement similar to the one they have with flickr.
Istock can then go back to growing organically and becoming the marketplace of the industry.
Well. at least that scenario would give us a future. Sort of like Steve Jobs saved Apple when he came back in after John Scully nearly destroyed it. And look were Apple is now, even without him.
I don't see anyone from Getty having the necessary skills and vision to replace Bruce.
They have owned the place for 6 years and still don't get it.
Give it back to Bruce? yeah right, he was the one that put us there from the very start, by selling it, knowing full well the Getty track history after take-overs.
Youre 100% right though, Getty has the upper end well and truly and IS as you say dont fit in there.
It is clear that when they screwed us, they screwed themselves more.
IS screwing its contributors does seem to have had negative effects for them. But IS are by no means screwed yet.
And it is bizarre that most do not see that we are truly in the driver seat. What most of these sites have failed to realize is that a significant portion of their buyers are also independent contributors.
I say let them burn in hell, they deserve what is coming to them!
Most aren't though. It's a very small percentage of contributors who provide most of the content. It's in their hands, but these few have never utilised the power that they have. Arcurs made a stand by creating his own site, but it's not much of a stand really. If those few top dogs had got together and coordinated something, which wouldn't be difficult really, companies like IS could have been long gone and other agencies wouldn't dare to pull the antics that IS did.
Absoloutely! had the top guys got together and showed some guts the situation would have been totally differant and other agencies would have got a serious lesson. Thats what happend within the Image-Bank, in 92.
Well the way things have turned out I am sure some of them wished they had done something. The future isnt looking all that bright, is it.
[OT] I'm looking forward to reading the December sales thread. They're claming 42,876 extra downloads over their 'expectations', although they have made their expections non-transparent, as it's not 'extra downloads over the same period last year', but
"*"Extra files" determined by aggregating the total number of downloads over the campaign period which ranges from November 19 to December 13 and comparing this data to the total number of downloads that we expect to generate during this timeframe which is based on results from a similar period of time in the previous year; any incremental downloads beyond the expected downloads for this period will constitute an extra file.
That could mean anything. Their target could be based on the worst four weeks last year (that would be a similar period of time).
It's all smoke and mirrors.
most of the contributors fell into the trap by believing they have good intentions now :DI don't see any sign of that. Almost all the posts in that thread seem to be heavily laced with scepticism. Giving a civil response to a question isn't the same as believing in good intentions.
most of the contributors fell into the trap by believing they have good intentions now :DI don't see any sign of that. Almost all the posts in that thread seem to be heavily laced with scepticism. Giving a civil response to a question isn't the same as believing in good intentions.
As for why she posted, I'd run with the idea that the Carlyle group, having discovered what they have bought, want to try to undo some of the damage to the brand that H&F and Getty inflicted on it. It's significant that Rebecca admitted that "some" contributors think istock is incompetent, uncaring and greedy. I can almost hear the Chairman telling her "we've got to change that perception, Rebecca, it's bad for business. Win back their confidence and it will help stop the hemorrhaging on the bottom line".
So the whole thing is probably just a PR exercise. My guess is that the response has been exactly as expected. If there are any surprises in it, it will probably only be that so many diamonds and even black diamonds are openly talking about quitting exclusivity. That one may have caught them off balance, I doubt if anything else has.
ClaridgeJ - one reason they might want it is that it is still a cash cow.
most of the contributors fell into the trap by believing they have good intentions now :DI don't see any sign of that. Almost all the posts in that thread seem to be heavily laced with scepticism. Giving a civil response to a question isn't the same as believing in good intentions.
As for why she posted, I'd run with the idea that the Carlyle group, having discovered what they have bought, want to try to undo some of the damage to the brand that H&F and Getty inflicted on it. It's significant that Rebecca admitted that "some" contributors think istock is incompetent, uncaring and greedy. I can almost hear the Chairman telling her "we've got to change that perception, Rebecca, it's bad for business. Win back their confidence and it will help stop the hemorrhaging on the bottom line".
So the whole thing is probably just a PR exercise. My guess is that the response has been exactly as expected. If there are any surprises in it, it will probably only be that so many diamonds and even black diamonds are openly talking about quitting exclusivity. That one may have caught them off balance, I doubt if anything else has.
ClaridgeJ - one reason they might want it is that it is still a cash cow.
Yes its a cash cow! as I said, still a good source of income. Dont know about you Paul but Im having a great month right now.
best. :)
....To be fair to her, she was not the one who started the RC and decline.But she has been the boss for over a year, wouldn't anyone capable of making positive changes start doing something much sooner than this? Do you think istock is better now than a year ago? And from her comments in the forum, she has very little understanding of the problems most of us see with the site. She has already told us she can't do much about the big things that have ruined istock for many of us, like the commission cuts below 20% and the RC levels, that obviously should of been lowered a lot when many of their buyers were sent to Thinkstock.
....To be fair to her, she was not the one who started the RC and decline.But she has been the boss for over a year, wouldn't anyone capable of making positive changes start doing something much sooner than this? Do you think istock is better now than a year ago? And from her comments in the forum, she has very little understanding of the problems most of us see with the site. She has already told us she can't do much about the big things that have ruined istock for many of us, like the commission cuts below 20% and the RC levels, that obviously should of been lowered a lot when many of their buyers were sent to Thinkstock.
most of the contributors fell into the trap by believing they have good intentions now :DI don't see any sign of that. Almost all the posts in that thread seem to be heavily laced with scepticism. Giving a civil response to a question isn't the same as believing in good intentions.
As for why she posted, I'd run with the idea that the Carlyle group, having discovered what they have bought, want to try to undo some of the damage to the brand that H&F and Getty inflicted on it. It's significant that Rebecca admitted that "some" contributors think istock is incompetent, uncaring and greedy. I can almost hear the Chairman telling her "we've got to change that perception, Rebecca, it's bad for business. Win back their confidence and it will help stop the hemorrhaging on the bottom line".
So the whole thing is probably just a PR exercise. My guess is that the response has been exactly as expected. If there are any surprises in it, it will probably only be that so many diamonds and even black diamonds are openly talking about quitting exclusivity. That one may have caught them off balance, I doubt if anything else has.
ClaridgeJ - one reason they might want it is that it is still a cash cow.
Exactly. Thats why I think its a fail. She should have come prepared to the forum, she had been watching it for a year. Thats why I think she has no clue how to manage this situation.....To be fair to her, she was not the one who started the RC and decline.But she has been the boss for over a year, wouldn't anyone capable of making positive changes start doing something much sooner than this? Do you think istock is better now than a year ago? And from her comments in the forum, she has very little understanding of the problems most of us see with the site. She has already told us she can't do much about the big things that have ruined istock for many of us, like the commission cuts below 20% and the RC levels, that obviously should of been lowered a lot when many of their buyers were sent to Thinkstock.
It's significant that Rebecca admitted that "some" contributors think istock is incompetent, uncaring and greedy. I can almost hear the Chairman telling her "we've got to change that perception, Rebecca, it's bad for business. Win back their confidence and it will help stop the hemorrhaging on the bottom line".
The problem is there is nothing they can do to change that perception.. They will remain incompetent, uncaring and greedy for as long as the contributor royalties stay at current levels..
Already paying to worst commissions "by far" before the changes, they made it even worse than the worst..
How can a company reverse that kind of screw up?
I´m wandering if part of the problem is that all the getty employees don´t have portfolios themselves.Good obeservation. Most stock sites were founded by photographers or designers or at least by people with some passion or somewhat related to imagery. After two take overs by investment companies and having lost and replaced loads of people in management, they probably also lost connection with creating images and the mechanics of a commercial portfolio.
Even if you have a small portfolio, you become much more invested in the success of the site, it stops being "just a job".
I doubt that a "search fairy" with her own portfolio would ever have allowed best match to deteriorate to the state it is in. You are simply more connected to your job if you are truly involved.
Same goes for Rebecca and the others.
The old istock had a lot of people, and certainly the executives, that had portfolios so they would always be "in tune" with the site.
I´m wondering if part of the problem is that all the getty employees don´t have portfolios themselves.
Even if you have a small portfolio, you become much more invested in the success of the site, it stops being "just a job".
I doubt that a "search fairy" with her own portfolio would ever have allowed best match to deteriorate to the state it is in. You are simply more connected to your job if you are truly involved.
Same goes for Rebecca and the others.
The old istock had a lot of people, and certainly the executives, that had portfolios so they would always be "in tune" with the site.
istock had a culture with a strong entrepreneurial flair, with very dedicated passionate people that live and breathe the site.
I really don´t think people who approach their job from a distance, or one day work on this getty agency, the next day on another one can ever have the passion that drives excellence. The emotional connection just isn´t there.
They probably don´t have friends or family with portfolios either, so their work does not influence the monthly income of their friends.
I´m wondering if part of the problem is that all the getty employees don´t have portfolios themselves.
Even if you have a small portfolio, you become much more invested in the success of the site, it stops being "just a job".
I doubt that a "search fairy" with her own portfolio would ever have allowed best match to deteriorate to the state it is in. You are simply more connected to your job if you are truly involved.
Same goes for Rebecca and the others.
In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStock
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url])
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)
In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStock
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url])
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)
thats why Rebecca is lying when saying iStock is doing well, its impossible, its Sean its Manuel its António its everybody, the overall cannot be higher
There was a massive new ingestion of Getty Agency images over the last few days and the first page (200) of searches supposedly by Best Match are larded with those. Clearly new images and Getty transfers - or both - are currently considered "best" to the exclusion of just about anything else but a pink flame
In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStock
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url])
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)
In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStock
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url])
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)
thats why Rebecca is lying when saying iStock is doing well, its impossible, its Sean its Manuel its António its everybody, the overall cannot be higher
In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStock
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url])
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)
thats why Rebecca is lying when saying iStock is doing well, its impossible, its Sean its Manuel its António its everybody, the overall cannot be higher
If you read what she said carefully I think you will find that a claim that it was doing well was stunningly absent. She said "any rumors of iStock's impending demise are incorrect. We are still, by far, the number 1 microstock site revenue-wise".
It would be a surprise if that wasn't still true. Shutterstock had $120million in revenue last year whereas KT in 2010 was boasting about $1.7million a week being paid out to contributors = $85million a year and if that was 25% of the take, iStock would have been turning over about $350million a year = nearly three times what Shutterstock did last year.
If iStock revenues have fallen 50% over the last two years, it would probably have around $200million this year, which is still "number one, revenue-wise" even though it is an awful performance.
Next year might be a different story.
And you can see why they might be panicking.
In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStock
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url])
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)
thats why Rebecca is lying when saying iStock is doing well, its impossible, its Sean its Manuel its António its everybody, the overall cannot be higher
If you read what she said carefully I think you will find that a claim that it was doing well was stunningly absent. She said "any rumors of iStock's impending demise are incorrect. We are still, by far, the number 1 microstock site revenue-wise".
It would be a surprise if that wasn't still true. Shutterstock had $120million in revenue last year whereas KT in 2010 was boasting about $1.7million a week being paid out to contributors = $85million a year and if that was 25% of the take, iStock would have been turning over about $350million a year = nearly three times what Shutterstock did last year.
If iStock revenues have fallen 50% over the last two years, it would probably have around $200million this year, which is still "number one, revenue-wise" even though it is an awful performance.
Next year might be a different story.
And you can see why they might be panicking.
Same goes for Lobo. Bet he wouldn't be as quick to ban the dissenters who wouldn't let it 'just blow over' if his income had been cut.
As a former software developer for big companies - I can tell you that questions lke "how hard could it be?" are typically not well received.
The honest answer is often "very hard and I couldn't possibly explain why, in non-technical terms". ...
In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStockHoly crap, thats freakin ridiculous. I am shocked to see the downward trend that steep
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url])
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)
It was very significant when former forum moderator and contributor Rob Sylvan left iStock. Probably, he had some inside knowledge about their planned shenanigans.Same goes for Lobo. Bet he wouldn't be as quick to ban the dissenters who wouldn't let it 'just blow over' if his income had been cut.
She could signal their fresh start to communications by inviting the banned back on board and refreshing the moderation team. Maybe bringing to the front some people with a different style and approach.
It was much better there when more of the contributing Admins and Inspectors were involved at the forum. They messed up when they tried to kill the community side of things.
In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStockHoly crap, thats freakin ridiculous. I am shocked to see the downward trend that steep
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url])
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)
Futile! no matter what we say or wish. Our voices wont be heard. Wont even be read. Their 100% top priority are all their exclusives. Thats their life-blood and frankly quite rightly so.Sean's sales graph and many posts on RR's thread and the Oct and Nov sales threads would suggest that many/most exclusives are suffering just as much - indeed many have seen slumps so deep they're assuming iStock wants rid of 'expensive' exclusives.
There was a massive new ingestion of Getty Agency images over the last few days and the first page (200) of searches supposedly by Best Match are larded with those. Clearly new images and Getty transfers - or both - are currently considered "best" to the exclusion of just about anything else but a pink flame
In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStock
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url])
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)
As a former software developer for big companies - I can tell you that questions lke "how hard could it be?" are typically not well received.
The honest answer is often "very hard and I couldn't possibly explain why, in non-technical terms". ...
It's not about the question how hard can it be to fix the broken site.
It's about whether they finally accept the fact that the original platform is bound to cause issues as we all can see now.
Don't you agree that if IS invested $30,000,000 some really capable company could actually design a functioning web site? They would recoup that money within months of increasing revenue because buyers would come back...
P.S. In fact who the heck designed Getty Images? Maybe those programmers would be able to provide a starting point...
In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStock
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145[/url])
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)
I read the situation for Istock to be really, really serious. Sean's sales have halved over the last two years, so have yours, mine and lots of others too. Pretty much anyone, it would seem, who haven't increased their portfolio massively (like 2-3X) over that period. Until Sean published his graph I had no idea that things were quite this bad.
It might sound crazy but at the current rate of decline ... in a further two years from now ... Istock's sales would actually be zero, or at least close enough for it not to matter. If you draw a trend-line on Sean's graph, following the decline from Nov 2010, it actually hits the x-axis in about 15 months from now.
Prices have already been hiked to the maximum, possibly even beyond what most customers will bear, so no relief is to be found there. All this when the contributors themselves are spitting blood on the forums and threatening to ditch their crowns, if they haven't already done so.
It could hardly be more serious for Istock. Unless they do something drastic and fast they could be effectively out of the microstock game in little more than two years. I really don't see what other conclusions could possibly be drawn from such a massive and sustained decline in sales in so short a period. Istock's position is quite literally unsustainable.
I have a strange feeling that the Carlyle group didn't grasp all of this at the moment when they signed the cheque.
There was a massive new ingestion of Getty Agency images over the last few days and the first page (200) of searches supposedly by Best Match are larded with those. Clearly new images and Getty transfers - or both - are currently considered "best" to the exclusion of just about anything else but a pink flame
So when they say the best match is right where it should be, they're not kidding. If, as an individual, if someone asked you to 'reset the conversation' while simultaneously taking actions to hurt you ... isn't that a bit psychotic?
I have a strange feeling that the Carlyle group didn't grasp all of this at the moment when they signed the cheque.
I think it is about to dawn on the Carlyle Group that they've been 'done up like a kipper' by H&F!
I read the situation for Istock to be really, really serious. Sean's sales have halved over the last two years, so have yours, mine and lots of others too. Pretty much anyone, it would seem, who haven't increased their portfolio massively (like 2-3X) over that period. Until Sean published his graph I had no idea that things were quite this bad.
Uh-oh. Rebecca (for it is she) has just spoken again on her 'Communication" thread;You got to wonder what her minions have been telling her all along?
"Hello all, just a brief note to let you know that I am still in here, reading and listening. You have raised a myriad of issues, both big and small, so we're trying to get our arms around how to address them.
That said, the #1 priority for today, as it has been all weekend, is Best Match, which Mary and the engineers are looking at and working on as we speak. Please stay tuned."
Is it just me or does anyone else notice a completely different tone to her last compared to how she started the thread?
She sure got herself some 'communication' going in that thread! I'd love to be a fly on the wall when her bosses at Getty phone her whilst reading it.
Hello all, just a brief note to let you know that I am still in here, reading and listening. You have raised a myriad of issues, both big and small, so we're trying to get our arms around how to address them.
That said, the #1 priority for today, as it has been all weekend, is Best Match, which Mary and the engineers are looking at and working on as we speak. Please stay tuned.
Futile! no matter what we say or wish. Our voices wont be heard. Wont even be read. Their 100% top priority are all their exclusives. Thats their life-blood and frankly quite rightly so.
I remember learning at university that the number one most common problem in all hierarchical organisations is the inability of those at the top to actually listen to the people at lower levels. Communication flows downwards very easily, but all the routes upwards are blocked. As soon as I heard that, I realised that indeed that HAD been the major problem in a lot of companies I'd worked for. Such a shame that this still continues... it's all just wasted opportunity.
Uh-oh. Rebecca (for it is she) has just spoken again on her 'Communication" thread;
"Hello all, just a brief note to let you know that I am still in here, reading and listening. You have raised a myriad of issues, both big and small, so we're trying to get our arms around how to address them.
That said, the #1 priority for today, as it has been all weekend, is Best Match, which Mary and the engineers are looking at and working on as we speak. Please stay tuned."
Is it just me or does anyone else notice a completely different tone to her last compared to how she started the thread?
She sure got herself some 'communication' going in that thread! I'd love to be a fly on the wall when her bosses at Getty phone her whilst reading it.
I thought that the dropping in the suggestion that the tech team have been working all weekend so it isn't a 9-5 operation was a subtle stroke, much better done than her self-applause for working on a Saturday. But there also seems to be a change of priority, didn't the search escape notice in the last list of top priorities?
It's strange that best match can go from being 'not broken' to priority #1 just like that.
"That said, the #1 priority for today, as it has been all weekend, is Best Match, which Mary and the engineers are looking at and working on as we speak. Please stay tuned."
What a farce.
An IT/ICT illiterate female announcing that another female (Mary) will take over the Best Match issue aided by their eunuch engineers.
I've seen first hand what kind of disasters females in management can do, you better leave the ship before it sinks like the Titanic.
And she must be really desperate to ask for help in the forum as it's backfiring big time.
Futile! no matter what we say or wish. Our voices wont be heard. Wont even be read. Their 100% top priority are all their exclusives. Thats their life-blood and frankly quite rightly so.
is Sean independent? ::)
With a nod to Florence and the Machine
I thought "Mary and the engineers" were the latest sensational rock group.
Metastocker,
could you please keep your hatred of women to yourself? You are really just making a fool of yourself, as if you´re uncontrolled hormones are in complete overdrive.
Gender has got nothing to do with the quality of a manager. Neither does their religion, their skin color, their age or their body height. Or any other sizes.
Leadership comes from proving yourself and getting results.
Hatred and uncontrolled emotion can never bring results.
Metastocker,
could you please keep your hatred of women to yourself? You are really just making a fool of yourself, as if you´re uncontrolled hormones are in complete overdrive.
Gender has got nothing to do with the quality of a manager. Neither does their religion, their skin color, their age or their body height. Or any other sizes.
Leadership comes from proving yourself and getting results.
Hatred and uncontrolled emotion can never bring results.
+!.
And of course, the people making the real decisions which shaft us all, are, wait for it, MEN.
"That said, the #1 priority for today, as it has been all weekend, is Best Match, which Mary and the engineers are looking at and working on as we speak. Please stay tuned."
What a farce.
An IT/ICT illiterate female announcing that another female (Mary) will take over the Best Match issue aided by their eunuch engineers.
I've seen first hand what kind of disasters females in management can do, you better leave the ship before it sinks like the Titanic.
And she must be really desperate to ask for help in the forum as it's backfiring big time.
I thought "Mary and the engineers" were the latest sensational rock group.
Hatred and uncontrolled emotion can never bring results.
"That said, the #1 priority for today, as it has been all weekend, is Best Match, which Mary and the engineers are looking at and working on as we speak. Please stay tuned."
What a farce.
An IT/ICT illiterate female announcing that another female (Mary) will take over the Best Match issue aided by their eunuch engineers.
I've seen first hand what kind of disasters females in management can do, you better leave the ship before it sinks like the Titanic.
And she must be really desperate to ask for help in the forum as it's backfiring big time.
I thought "Mary and the engineers" were the latest sensational rock group.
"That said, the #1 priority for today, as it has been all weekend, is Best Match, which Mary and the engineers are looking at and working on as we speak. Please stay tuned."
What a farce.
An IT/ICT illiterate female announcing that another female (Mary) will take over the Best Match issue aided by their eunuch engineers.
I've seen first hand what kind of disasters females in management can do, you better leave the ship before it sinks like the Titanic.
And she must be really desperate to ask for help in the forum as it's backfiring big time.
There was a massive new ingestion of Getty Agency images over the last few days and the first page (200) of searches supposedly by Best Match are larded with those. Clearly new images and Getty transfers - or both - are currently considered "best" to the exclusion of just about anything else but a pink flame
"That said, the #1 priority for today, as it has been all weekend, is Best Match, which Mary and the engineers are looking at and working on as we speak. Please stay tuned."
What a farce.
An IT/ICT illiterate female announcing that another female (Mary) will take over the Best Match issue aided by their eunuch engineers.
I've seen first hand what kind of disasters females in management can do, you better leave the ship before it sinks like the Titanic.
And she must be really desperate to ask for help in the forum as it's backfiring big time.
What has this got to do with anything you nitwit. As a father of two daughters this kind of casual sexism really gets my goat.
"That said, the #1 priority for today, as it has been all weekend, is Best Match, which Mary and the engineers are looking at and working on as we speak. Please stay tuned."
What a farce.
An IT/ICT illiterate female announcing that another female (Mary) will take over the Best Match issue aided by their eunuch engineers.
I've seen first hand what kind of disasters females in management can do, you better leave the ship before it sinks like the Titanic.
And she must be really desperate to ask for help in the forum as it's backfiring big time.
What has this got to do with anything you nitwit. As a father of two daughters this kind of casual sexism really gets my goat.
Exactly what it was intended to do.
Read over this guy's posting history. He's just a troll. He's not even amusing anymore.
Once again, Thanks to Tyler for the ignore feature :) .
Uh-oh. Rebecca (for it is she) has just spoken again on her 'Communication" thread;
"Hello all, just a brief note to let you know that I am still in here, reading and listening. You have raised a myriad of issues, both big and small, so we're trying to get our arms around how to address them.
That said, the #1 priority for today, as it has been all weekend, is Best Match, which Mary and the engineers are looking at and working on as we speak. Please stay tuned."
Is it just me or does anyone else notice a completely different tone to her last compared to how she started the thread?
She sure got herself some 'communication' going in that thread! I'd love to be a fly on the wall when her bosses at Getty phone her whilst reading it.
istock needs to stop running the business like Walmart and instead be more like Costco.I get your point, but lowering the prices is not beneficial to us either. Giving away images also makes 0 dollar
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/business/yourmoney/17costco.html?pagewanted=all[/url] ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/business/yourmoney/17costco.html?pagewanted=all[/url])
istock needs to stop running the business like Walmart and instead be more like Costco.I get your point, but lowering the prices is not beneficial to us either. Giving away images also makes 0 dollar
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/business/yourmoney/17costco.html?pagewanted=all[/url] ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/business/yourmoney/17costco.html?pagewanted=all[/url])
Metastocker,
could you please keep your hatred of women to yourself? You are really just making a fool of yourself, as if you´re uncontrolled hormones are in complete overdrive.
Gender has got nothing to do with the quality of a manager. Neither does their religion, their skin color, their age or their body height. Or any other sizes.
Leadership comes from proving yourself and getting results.
Hatred and uncontrolled emotion can never bring results.
123rf must surely be watching this unfold with interest...
More graphs posted but I have to warn you, its R-rated and could upset you
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&page=18[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&page=18[/url])
I'm tired of all the discussion about istock, I think the general consensus is that they're never going to be able to admit to and fix all their problems.
More graphs posted but I have to warn you, its R-rated and could upset you
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&page=18[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&page=18[/url])
More graphs posted but I have to warn you, its R-rated and could upset you
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&page=18[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&page=18[/url])
you are kidding :) I am loving those graphs :D
More graphs posted but I have to warn you, its R-rated and could upset you
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&page=18[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&page=18[/url])
you are kidding :) I am loving those graphs :D
Not really. Whilst I am really glad that Istock themselves appear to have been negatively impacted by their greed, and hope it serves as a warning to other agencies, it's clearly not good for individual exclusive contributors whose stability of income has been so damaged by the incompetence of IS/GI management. Spare a thought for them and their generosity in sharing their data for the greater good of others.
More graphs posted but I have to warn you, its R-rated and could upset you
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&page=18[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&page=18[/url])
you are kidding :) I am loving those graphs :D
Not really. Whilst I am really glad that Istock themselves appear to have been negatively impacted by their greed, and hope it serves as a warning to other agencies, it's clearly not good for individual exclusive contributors whose stability of income has been so damaged by the incompetence of IS/GI management. Spare a thought for them and their generosity in sharing their data for the greater good of others.
I am of course not happy about the situation individual exclusives are in.. but they have a wayout.. it's not the end for them.. it's only a time for change.. they can go non-exclusive and survive whatever happens to istock..
so again.. I am hoping istock will go down and down until there is no where to go..
if anything, this will be great for exclusives.. they will finally be able to breath the reality and stop worrying..
after all, as a non-exclusive, istock makes less than %6-7 of my earnings..
PS: any exclusive who will ditch the crown after reading this MUST BEWARE that I am submitting to 18 agencies and that involves a lot of work..
If IS went under I wonder how a massive flood of new images at SS and other sites would affect everyone elses sales.
If IS went under I wonder how a massive flood of new images at SS and other sites would affect everyone elses sales.
it can't be good for us.. if all of them were to go non-exclusive they should also lower their expectations as there is gonna be a lot of competition..
More graphs posted but I have to warn you, its R-rated and could upset you
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&page=18[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&page=18[/url])
you are kidding :) I am loving those graphs :D
Not really. Whilst I am really glad that Istock themselves appear to have been negatively impacted by their greed, and hope it serves as a warning to other agencies, it's clearly not good for individual exclusive contributors whose stability of income has been so damaged by the incompetence of IS/GI management. Spare a thought for them and their generosity in sharing their data for the greater good of others.
I am of course not happy about the situation individual exclusives are in.. but they have a wayout.. it's not the end for them.. it's only a time for change.. they can go non-exclusive and survive whatever happens to istock..
so again.. I am hoping istock will go down and down until there is no where to go..
if anything, this will be great for exclusives.. they will finally be able to breath the reality and stop worrying..
after all, as a non-exclusive, istock makes less than %6-7 of my earnings..
PS: any exclusive who will ditch the crown after reading this MUST BEWARE that I am submitting to 18 agencies and that involves a lot of work..
If IS went under I wonder how a massive flood of new images at SS and other sites would affect everyone elses sales.
If IS went under I wonder how a massive flood of new images at SS and other sites would affect everyone elses sales.
If IS went under I wonder how a massive flood of new images at SS and other sites would affect everyone elses sales.
it can't be good for us.. if all of them were to go non-exclusive they should also lower their expectations as there is gonna be a lot of competition..
Well, anybody that's hoping for IS to fail may want to think about how that would affect them.
I'd say that the concept of a level playing-field would be far more worrying for exclusives who have always enjoyed an artifical boost for their work.
If IS went under I wonder how a massive flood of new images at SS and other sites would affect everyone elses sales.
I have absolutely no problem with that. Bring it on. At least the other agencies, most importantly SS, are a genuine meritocracy when it comes to default sort-order position. I'd say that the concept of a level playing-field would be far more worrying for exclusives who have always enjoyed an artifical boost for their work.
really? I have the feeling that most exclusives hate "subscription" agencies, perhaps joining FT or DT exclusivity ;D
really? I have the feeling that most exclusives hate "subscription" agencies, perhaps joining FT or DT exclusivity ;D
I love subscription sites and they love me too.
If IS went under I wonder how a massive flood of new images at SS and other sites would affect everyone elses sales.
it can't be good for us.. if all of them were to go non-exclusive they should also lower their expectations as there is gonna be a lot of competition..
Well, anybody that's hoping for IS to fail may want to think about how that would affect them.
well, if IS goes bankrupt, there will be some buyers to come to other agencies along with exclusive contributors.. IS still have some buyers..
I would rather have them shop at agencies that pay %50.. we should try our best to redirect those buyers to agencies like stockfresh..
exclusives pool is not as big as you are worrying about.. vast majority of IS content is still non-exclusive..
This is I know is a worry about all the agencies not just Stockfresh, but at least the criteria to give more support for an agency should be to those with good commissions and where the owners have never sold.
I'm tired of all the discussion about istock, I think the general consensus is that they're never going to be able to admit to and fix all their problems. What about the sites that have followed their demotivating strategies? Are FT going to end up in the same mess or will they be able to see where this is going and do something about it? It might be too late for them already. Will DT carry on ignoring their contributors concerns until its too late? I don't really care about 123RF, they're insignificant.
Metastocker,
could you please keep your hatred of women to yourself? You are really just making a fool of yourself, as if you´re uncontrolled hormones are in complete overdrive.
Gender has got nothing to do with the quality of a manager. Neither does their religion, their skin color, their age or their body height. Or any other sizes.
Leadership comes from proving yourself and getting results.
Hatred and uncontrolled emotion can never bring results.
I agree in general but would definitely say GraphicLeftovers rather than stock fresh. They are selling a lot better, have good commission rate and let you set your price.
I would rather have them shop at agencies that pay %50.. we should try our best to redirect those buyers to agencies like stockfresh..
exclusives pool is not as big as you are worrying about.. vast majority of IS content is still non-exclusive..
I don't want IS to fail - I make good money from them each month. I would like them to fix their busted site, drop the RC system and scrap all the Getty zombie images on the site - with a decent, working site and 20% royalties things might look pretty decent as a #2 earner in the monthly sweepstakes.
Please lets not make this thread about one random troll's mental issues.
Just hit ignore and lets get on with our lives.
any exclusive who will ditch the crown after reading this MUST BEWARE that I am submitting to 18 agencies and that involves a lot of work..
Quoteany exclusive who will ditch the crown after reading this MUST BEWARE that I am submitting to 18 agencies and that involves a lot of work..
AND, we mustn't forget your telling 'all' your clients ( and I bet there are hundreds of them) not to buy at IS. It's a wonder you have any time to do any work at all.
PS: any exclusive who will ditch the crown after reading this MUST BEWARE that I am submitting to 18 agencies and that involves a lot of work..
I thought that the dropping in the suggestion that the tech team have been working all weekend so it isn't a 9-5 operation was a subtle stroke, much better done than her self-applause for working on a Saturday. But there also seems to be a change of priority, didn't the search escape notice in the last list of top priorities?
Did she? Rebecca? Worked on the weekend? I had no idea. The way things are going some of us contributors might even have to work the odd weekend too. ::)
If IS went under I wonder how a massive flood of new images at SS and other sites would affect everyone elses sales.
I don't want IS to fail - I make good money from them each month. I would like them to fix their busted site, drop the RC system and scrap all the Getty zombie images on the site - with a decent, working site and 20% royalties things might look pretty decent as a #2 earner in the monthly sweepstakes.
If IS went under I wonder how a massive flood of new images at SS and other sites would affect everyone elses sales.
Yes, EXACTLY. Istock going under isn't good for anyone. Any independents enjoying a bit of schadenfreude right now will not be so delighted when their sales drop due to an onslaught of new, formerly exclusive files at other sites.
Not to mention, as JoAnn pointed out:I don't want IS to fail - I make good money from them each month. I would like them to fix their busted site, drop the RC system and scrap all the Getty zombie images on the site - with a decent, working site and 20% royalties things might look pretty decent as a #2 earner in the monthly sweepstakes.
Sometimes the protege out-skills the master, in this case SS is now the 'master'. No?If IS went under I wonder how a massive flood of new images at SS and other sites would affect everyone elses sales.
Yes, EXACTLY. Istock going under isn't good for anyone. Any independents enjoying a bit of schadenfreude right now will not be so delighted when their sales drop due to an onslaught of new, formerly exclusive files at other sites.
Not to mention, as JoAnn pointed out:I don't want IS to fail - I make good money from them each month. I would like them to fix their busted site, drop the RC system and scrap all the Getty zombie images on the site - with a decent, working site and 20% royalties things might look pretty decent as a #2 earner in the monthly sweepstakes.
Exactly! IS crashing will leave a bad scar and tarnish the whole industry. No mater what one thinks of IS, in some ways they are the mentors, the rest are just followers, some good ones, some lousy.
Sometimes the protege out-skills the master, in this case SS is now the 'master'. No?If IS went under I wonder how a massive flood of new images at SS and other sites would affect everyone elses sales.
Yes, EXACTLY. Istock going under isn't good for anyone. Any independents enjoying a bit of schadenfreude right now will not be so delighted when their sales drop due to an onslaught of new, formerly exclusive files at other sites.
Not to mention, as JoAnn pointed out:I don't want IS to fail - I make good money from them each month. I would like them to fix their busted site, drop the RC system and scrap all the Getty zombie images on the site - with a decent, working site and 20% royalties things might look pretty decent as a #2 earner in the monthly sweepstakes.
Exactly! IS crashing will leave a bad scar and tarnish the whole industry. No mater what one thinks of IS, in some ways they are the mentors, the rest are just followers, some good ones, some lousy.
If it could be fixed in the couple of days that the thread on IS has been active, why wasn't it fixed before?
If it could be fixed in the couple of days that the thread on IS has been active, why wasn't it fixed before?If I was being really paranoid I'd say they have been working on it all that time. They got it ready, then started the "new leaf" thread so they could roll out the fixes to seem like they are a response to the thread.
If it could be fixed in the couple of days that the thread on IS has been active, why wasn't it fixed before?If I was being really paranoid I'd say they have been working on it all that time. They got it ready, then started the "new leaf" thread so they could roll out the fixes to seem like they are a response to the thread.
So what's the direction now? Downwards with a nice zoom :) I'm still heading for a commission cut next year and I still feel no motivation to upload new images. If they revised this year's RC targets, to reflect the facts that they've sent buyers to Thinkstock and diluted sales with all the Getty images, I might start to think they're really changing.If it could be fixed in the couple of days that the thread on IS has been active, why wasn't it fixed before?
I speculated before, I think I was right. Before the new boss took over, there was no clear directions, and probably no funding either.
Ain't we disappointed that doomsday didn't happen after all?? :-\
In a way this explanation gives them more credit.If it could be fixed in the couple of days that the thread on IS has been active, why wasn't it fixed before?If I was being really paranoid I'd say they have been working on it all that time. They got it ready, then started the "new leaf" thread so they could roll out the fixes to seem like they are a response to the thread.
Yeah I tend to agree...it sounds like they probably had the fixes ready to go before RR started the thread. It seemed to happen really quick.
So what's the direction now? Downwards with a nice zoom :) I'm still heading for a commission cut next year and I still feel no motivation to upload new images. If they revised this year's RC targets, to reflect the facts that they've sent buyers to Thinkstock and diluted sales with all the Getty images, I might start to think they're really changing.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... This all seemed like smoke and mirrors. Are people really going to forget about everything else (like income) with a couple site upgrades? That can't possibly work... Can it? Or is the goal to just string people along for a little bit longer? It all seems very odd.
I completely agree. These "fixes", whether in response to Rebecca's communication thread (which I doubt), or ready ahead of time are not putting any more money in contributor pockets. The buyers who got frustrated with site problems are already gone. The site fixes work just as well on all the Getty content they are larding the site with, as they do on genuine contributor content. And they are still leaving the main issue of RCs completely alone.
Too little and WAY TOO LATE.
The part I have never been able to work out on most of their "HQ" update type communications is the fact that why don't they just talk to us like intelligent players that are on the same team for once? It's always a goofy communication with some fluff about how great things are going and as if we are just a bunch of blind sheep that need a hug.
You would think though after all the contributor back lash telling them what time it is time and time again that a switch would go off in their heads by now and they would realize their insults to contributor intelligence haven't gotten them a free ride on the microstock merry-go-round.
If they eventually are able to move on from this point where they are stuck though, and make a departure from this ineffective way of talking to contributors, then we all might be able to make some sort of positive progress together for a change.
Maybe one day... Let's hope...
Well, you've got to give it to the girl, she said pretty much the same as KT, but she did say it in a much better way.
Sylvanworks has already stated that is the reason he left istock.
But the whole thing seemed like a fishing exercise for free information on what needed fixing.
Sylvanworks has already stated that is the reason he left istock.
Where did he state that? I don't remember reading his reasons...
Sylvanworks has already stated that is the reason he left istock.
Where did he state that? I don't remember reading his reasons...
In a facebook post last week.
Sylvanworks has already stated that is the reason he left istock.
Where did he state that? I don't remember reading his reasons...
In a facebook post last week.
Wolfman, facebook friend of Sylvanworks, longtime lurker at MSG with few posts, tell me, does "wolf-man" translate into "lobo-man"? No, it couldn't, could it?
Sylvanworks has already stated that is the reason he left istock.
Where did he state that? I don't remember reading his reasons...
In a facebook post last week.
the only thing she said in her OP was: SHUSH
I rather take it that they would like us all to go and recruit buyers as well as whatever they have in mind to do that (cutting rates a bit, I suspect).
can I hear some HURRAY's for the zoom feature?? thats all we gonna get ;D
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY thanks a lot iStock, thank you Jessica, oh sorry Rebecca!
If I were Yuri Arcurs, I would be wondering what would happen if I cut a deal with the top 40 exclusives.....
Meanwhile... preparing my house for a new paradigm as I leave the istock ship....
Wow, with her latest response I don't even know where to start.
To summarize
- There are too many of us adding too much content (and there are not enough buyers to keep pace)
- Their business is doing fine
- We should help with marketing (our 60-85% cut to them isn't enough)
So basically, she's saying that looking at their numbers, contributor's falling revenue hasn't affected them financially enough to make any major changes. And until it does they don't plan to do much other than fix broken stuff, communicate more, and ask us for help with marketing.
There, that should keep people happy.
I think they are selling more of their wholly owned content, and even if they sell fewer images they get to keep 100%, so profit wise they meet their targets.
Hmmm. To summarise ... Istock are basically f*cked.You're almost certainly right.
I reckon Rebecca has genuinely looked into the issues, has probably concluded that the RC system is a major part of the problem, has approached her bosses at Getty about it ... and been told to 'f*ck off'. End of.
All I can do is tell you once again that the overall business is meeting our expectations. The reality, as some of you have pointed out, is that there is an ever increasing number of contributors over time, and more content in the collections. This is why I maintain that the primary focus of most of the people who work on iStock should be on bringing more new buyers in the door.
Will the zoom feature work on my earnings chart :)
Hmmm. To summarise ... Istock are basically f*cked.You're almost certainly right.
I reckon Rebecca has genuinely looked into the issues, has probably concluded that the RC system is a major part of the problem, has approached her bosses at Getty about it ... and been told to 'f*ck off'. End of.
600 posts and we've got nowhere.
"We are meeting our expectations" means nothing.
If I were trying this month to reach $$ I made in December 2007, one year after I started and with 1/7th of the files I have now, I might just reach my expectations - b
ut if the rest of the month is like yesterday and today, I might not.
Set the 'expectations' bar low, and you'll be likely to achieve your aims.
Chain yank, Rebecca; well done.
I think they are selling more of their wholly owned content, and even if they sell fewer images they get to keep 100%, so profit wise they meet their targets.
I doubt that she bothered the bosses at Getty. But it doesn't look like istock are f*cked just yet. I'm sure as that time approaches there will be a new leader that will make another attempt at improving communications.Wow, with her latest response I don't even know where to start.
To summarize
- There are too many of us adding too much content (and there are not enough buyers to keep pace)
- Their business is doing fine
- We should help with marketing (our 60-85% cut to them isn't enough)
So basically, she's saying that looking at their numbers, contributor's falling revenue hasn't affected them financially enough to make any major changes. And until it does they don't plan to do much other than fix broken stuff, communicate more, and ask us for help with marketing.
There, that should keep people happy.
Hmmm. To summarise ... Istock are basically f*cked.
I reckon Rebecca has genuinely looked into the issues, has probably concluded that the RC system is a major part of the problem, has approached her bosses at Getty about it ... and been told to 'f*ck off'. End of.
I doubt that she bothered the bosses at Getty. But it doesn't look like istock are f*cked just yet. I'm sure as that time approaches there will be a new leader that will make another attempt at improving communications.Wow, with her latest response I don't even know where to start.
To summarize
- There are too many of us adding too much content (and there are not enough buyers to keep pace)
- Their business is doing fine
- We should help with marketing (our 60-85% cut to them isn't enough)
So basically, she's saying that looking at their numbers, contributor's falling revenue hasn't affected them financially enough to make any major changes. And until it does they don't plan to do much other than fix broken stuff, communicate more, and ask us for help with marketing.
There, that should keep people happy.
Hmmm. To summarise ... Istock are basically f*cked.
I reckon Rebecca has genuinely looked into the issues, has probably concluded that the RC system is a major part of the problem, has approached her bosses at Getty about it ... and been told to 'f*ck off'. End of.
In response to a great question raised today in this thread, a couple of folks from the content team are writing up a post that addresses what you, as an individual contributor, can do to drive your business forward on iStockphoto. We have some good thoughts on this and will share ASAP.
Personally I couldn't care less about 'more communication from her or others from Getty', I don't go to iStockphoto for social networking I go there to see if they're selling my images which, correct me if I'm wrong, is the purpose of the site. I'd rather nobody from HQ communicated with me, instead I'd prefer they got on and did what they're meant to do and sell our content.
The problem is, as we've seen on many occasions, there will be a select number of naive contributors that will believe this BS and reply with some heart felt, vomit inducing dribble thanking her, and to this end as normal nothing will get done and the site will continue along the downward slope that it's been on for the past couple of years.
So Rebecca if you read this, don't bother replying, not even on your precious weekend, just get on and do the job you're being paid for, it's not an impossible task as thousands of other bigger companies than yours can/do run and maintain a sales website completely trouble free, oh and stop pretending that everything is fine at iS, I,we,you and the rest of the industry all know it's sinking rapidly, it may come as a surprise but quite a lot of us keep track of sales figures you know.
If I were Yuri Arcurs, I would be wondering what would happen if I cut a deal with the top 40 exclusives.....
My thoughts also when he released his site, I would not be at all surprised to see it roll out in some fashion.
From RRQuoteIn response to a great question raised today in this thread, a couple of folks from the content team are writing up a post that addresses what you, as an individual contributor, can do to drive your business forward on iStockphoto. We have some good thoughts on this and will share ASAP.
I guess I obviously missed the point of hiring iStock as my agent when I signed up with them to be my exclusive sales representative. I made the obvious mistake of expecting them to take on the sole responsibility of selling my pictures for me while I took on the sole responsibility to create content for them to sell. You see it's not like that at all. I am spending way too much time creating content it seems and not enough time promoting it on my own. In fact, pretty soon iStock will be paying themselves even more to do less for me than what they are doing now when they cut everyone's royalty rates as people fail to reach their RC targets in the future.
What I realized though about this latest nonchalant post from HQ is that they don't take our rants and raves seriously, nor do they feel they need to act on or respond to them. That's right, we are just venting, but we will eventually get in line with it once we have gotten it off our chests. So they believe no matter what **IT they shovel on top of us that we will just suck it all up as we have always done and grin and bare it because they are still the best deal in town. And 30% of what we were earning before is still better than nothing for us so we aren't going to go anywhere.
Well it will be interesting to see what happens when the bigger, better deal eventually comes along as it always does in business when the top company in an industry gets complacent and other companies see it as an opportunity to take away market share. Then when exclusives start walking out in single file to take the better offer, and not looking back, iStock bean counters will be gobsmacked. They will be simply left with a whole bunch of over-priced, non-exclusive content.
They won't care at that point though I assume because the people pushing the wrong buttons now on the iStock side will already have been made redundant and the next investment banker group will already be at the helm thinking of new ways to squeeze a dollar out of a quarter.
All I can do is tell you once again that the overall business is meeting our expectations
I can understand why but I do think exclusives running their own site might be an option worth considering.If I were Yuri Arcurs, I would be wondering what would happen if I cut a deal with the top 40 exclusives.....
My thoughts also when he released his site, I would not be at all surprised to see it roll out in some fashion.
I'm not sure you'll find any exclusives interested in "cutting a deal" with that business.
Well, I am just going to have to be frank here. Evidently any adjustment to the RC credit system is off the table, and without that, there is no way to regain the good will of most of the contributor community. We are here to sell images and make money, and when the site continues to take a higher and higher percent of our work, there is no way to feel good about that company. Contributors who are also buyers have no incentive to buy here anymore, and none of us have any incentive to refer the site to buyers. Unless this one issue, which is CRUCIAL to contributors bottom lines, is remedied, the site will continue its decline. No amount of communication or (loooong overdue) bug fixes will matter if there are no buyers, and the buyers aren't likely to come back to a place that is paying artists so poorly.
Clearly this thread was an exercise in PR and not a serious effort to repair relations with contributors, because money IS what's going to make us happy.
Istock's signed their own death warrant. *ETA - I posted about istock signing their death warrant and then saw Joe's post saying exactly the same thing. He said it first and best, but great minds think alike ;D )
Here are my feelings, as expressed in the istock thread (for however long they manage to avoid deletion):
Well, I am just going to have to be frank here. Evidently any adjustment to the RC credit system is off the table, and without that, there is no way to regain the good will of most of the contributor community. We are here to sell images and make money, and when the site continues to take a higher and higher percent of our work, there is no way to feel good about that company. Contributors who are also buyers have no incentive to buy here anymore, and none of us have any incentive to refer the site to buyers. Unless this one issue, which is CRUCIAL to contributors bottom lines, is remedied, the site will continue its decline. No amount of communication or (loooong overdue) bug fixes will matter if there are no buyers, and the buyers aren't likely to come back to a place that is paying artists so poorly.
Clearly this thread was an exercise in PR and not a serious effort to repair relations with contributors, because money IS what's going to make us happy.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose ;D
Well the discussion was pretty much finished when she made the go f*ck yourselves post right?
You know this one:
"We are not contemplating changes to the RC system at this time
Nor are we contemplating changing the recently published RC levels at this time
We will continue to work on Best Match to balance the need to show bestselling material with new material, with the right spread of products, always ensuring the highest relevance possible – our work here never stops"
une crepe nutella pour moi ;D
Mission accomplished! Thank you to everyone who took part in our Make the Difference campaign.So did they donate $66,222?
We were able to reach our goal of 50,000 downloads. In fact, we blew it out of the water with a total of 66, 222 extra downloads. Amazing job!
It feels wonderful to support so many great causes. Thanks for helping make a difference!
une crepe nutella pour moi ;D
Unfortunately what they serve has an extra "a" and is lacking two "e"s
Not really surprising - I guess the only real info from that whole thread was how much big exclusives sales were down.
Not really surprising - I guess the only real info from that whole thread was how much big exclusives sales were down.
That info was pretty shocking.
Not really surprising - I guess the only real info from that whole thread was how much big exclusives sales were down.
That info was pretty shocking.
Exactly. More than 'pretty shocking' in fact. It might even be 'unsustainable'. Where have I heard that before?
ISTOCK MANAGEMENT QUOTE OF THE YEAR AWARD!
"We get it, you guys are mad. And reading the forums for the past year has made it clear that some of you think we are lazy, incompetent, greedy or uncaring."
Gawd I love it!