They have lost too much ground to Shutter thus will probably never be the number one again even with changes...

If they brought Bruce back and gave him a free hand to work, he would turn the trend around in less than a year.

But it takes someone with his level of talent and skill to do it. And it has to be someone the community trusts. It is very difficult to bring in an outsider.

Otherwise SS will probably win the race, I have to agree with that.

The woman's a waste of space.

That's the truth of it. She doesn't understand a fraction of the business she is supposed to be in charge of. iStock is basically f*cked.

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
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=332784&page=1

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.

Hey guys, I just can't take it anymore! I think I'm going to be banned for this, at Istock, hope note here . Maybe but I wrote a bit longer than usual so I'm gonna paste it here, just to keep it alive... And I'm sorry in advance for the length of the writing. But this is just plain offensive, disturbing and ignorant! And stupid! Nervous breakdown again... tic-toc...

We've been thinking for some time that we need to make changes to how we communicate to the contributor community at iStock.

Some time? Ages... FAILED!


We created the iStock HQ alias to post from last year, because we thought it would be a good vehicle through which many different people could contribute. 

It's not a good vehicle, it's a broken vehicle! FAILED

And frankly, I had watched the forums for some time and was not excited about getting myself or other key members of our team pulled into conversations that often carry on well beyond their useful life and end up wasting valuable time for all parties involved, even sometimes ending in personal attacks.

You should try READING it instead of WATCHING it! We've wasted weeks,months, years - asking, begging, shouting, we've waisted more than valuable time and are wasting more of it as we speak cause files aren't selling, site isn't working, and now you've decided to speak! You don't have any moral rights to say anything about "WASTING TIME"!!! FAILED!

In the ensuing year or so, things have gotten even uglier on the forums.  I accept that part of the problem is that we aren't communicating enough, and another part of it is that there have been a variety of issues that have you worried about iStock performance.

Again, you need years?! You need a year to understand something that thousands of people are speaking out loud in those same forums?! FAILED!

I don't want to turn this into a revenue thread, so will just say that any rumors of iStock's impending demise are incorrect.  We are still, by far, the number 1 microstock site revenue-wise.  That said I'd like to continue on the subject of communications�

Your revenue, Getty's revenue, not contributor�s revenue! Demise is happening over four years now... oh, and yeah, we know you don't want to turn anything into revenue... you're Getty... FAILED

To dispel one more rumor, we do read the forums, in fact there are many people across Getty Images who read the forums every day.   On the worst days it is like watching a car-crash � something horrible that you cannot look away from.

Yaaaay, whoooooraaay! You read forums now! But you need a year to answer... LOL... FAILED DOUBLE!

We get it, you guys are mad.

No! We, mad?!?! After just a few years? Why would you think that? FAILED!

And reading the forums for the past year has made it clear that some of you think we are lazy, incompetent, greedy or uncaring.

Reading the forum for the past year... again. LOL! You, lazy, incompetent, greedy? Uncaring?!?! Nooooo! Those scripts/zoom/RC's/best match/web design/site management/ are wicked stuff and the royalty structure clearly shows that you guys are caring and not greedy! Do you remember Punctum day? No? Canister levels? No? FAILED!!!!

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.

Errr... I would love to say to this - "hey, Istock is going backwards" but If I say that I would be saying that Istock is going into some shiny and good times... so... yeah... Istock is going forward... towards a cliff... FAILED!

I can't easily convey in a forum post how hard it is to do that, how complex this business is, but presumably that's why you have chosen us as your distributor, so you don�t have to worry about things like marketing, ecommerce, localizing into eleven languages, search engine relevance, global website scalability (the list goes on and on). We�ve got that end of things.

No, you can't convey! We didn't choose you, we've chosen Istock several years ago and Istock right now is a website where I have to think about search engine relevance (best match and google), have to implement plenty of THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE so I/we can have a easier way arround - deep meta, Livestock, SJlocke's Greasemonkey scripts, Stockperformer, this performer, that blog, this chart� etc... global website scalability - LOL... that does not exist, and the list goes on and on, believe me, you got something but it's not the end of things... FAILED BIG

IMO, if we could to step back together and do a collective reset, we would return the forums to a more productive place for sharing of information about the iStock business, be that HQ to the community or peer to peer.

We can't step back together because you want to walk alone. Collective shut down is what you did (Getty), not you Rebecca. Forums were productive as you say but you have broken it. Now you want it back? Nope! FAILED!

It is not a very civilized place at the moment.  I'll take part of the blame for that since we changed our communication style this past year and aren't sharing enough information, but I will need all of your help to turn the tone around.

Ok, the thing with YEARS is getting boring and old! You are mentioning years and years for years now... Stop!
You to blame? Why? 
You are saying that you aren't sharing enough and now you want us to take hands and make a forum a better place? Should we sing? You need OUR HELP??? WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE LOCKED THREADS IN THE HELP FORUM?!?!?!? FAILED!

It is a well-known internet phenomenon that people are more rude from behind a computer because it is easier to be rude to someone you have never met, particularly if they are posting from an alias.

Yah... so you've decided to take off your aliases and start posting with your real names... Did anyone told you that you have PASSPORTS OR GOVERMENT ISSUED ID OF EVERY SINGLE CONTRIBUTOR AT ISTOCK YET WE DON'T KNOW YOUR NAMES FOR HOW LONG ... YEARS? And we get to go through strict procedure but hey, hey, hey, here comes the fraudulent downloads... HOW THE HACK?! FAILED BECAUSE THIS IS INSULTING!!!

We're going to come out from behind the HQ alias, as it were, by having some of the key people that are working on the programs that you care about log in with their own membernames and start to directly communicate with you. We feel this is the right thing to do to help change the tone.

Check the writings above.
And what's with the "tone"? You, people from Getty, created that "tone" and now you want that "tone" out of here? Why? I don't see a point! FAILED!!!

We may also be sharing things with you that our competitors would find interesting.

If any of your competitors find anything interesting in your �secret sharing�s about Istock business� they would probably go bankrupt if they follow it� so� FAILED!

I cannot see any way around this, but there are guaranteed to be times when you want more information than it would be wise for us to give. 

Now you are talking like a true Gettyian citizen! That�s the rhetoric�s we, the people, are used to here, in this not so civilized place in the past year or so� and that�s the same time you�ve been watching and reading forums.. and several hundred from Getty too� this is so LOL AND FAILED!!! Do you realized that with this sentence you�ve just wiped clean everything you�ve wrote above?

And we're just going to say that, and ask that you understand this reality.

Being a Gettyian again!

Your part in this reset is to listen, ask sensible questions, be patient as we tackle any issues that arise, and try to take the vitriol and hyperbole down a notch.

Remember � you�ve shut down this place (forums)! You are the ones that should LISTEN! You should ask very, very sensible questions and with a smile on your face cause there are some mad people here� You have said that.

Over the next few weeks you will see various Getty Images employees participating in the forums on the topics on which they are experts to provide first hand information where it's needed. 

No need, to late, we�re used to work in the dark, with a broken website and to sell images and videos and other medias that nobody wants to buy� What would we get with these participants? More sand in the eyes and �keep it peaceful while sales are going down�? This is how it was - Example: Hey, the best match is broken� � LOBO/KELVIN/CANT REMEMBER ANY MORE WHO: TALKING ABOUT best match IS FORBIDEN! THIS TOPIC IS LOCKED AND YOU MAY BE BANNED FOR MONTH!!! NEW EXAMPLE: �Hey, the best match is broken� � Hello there, we cannot talk about best match so please be kind and never come back to this topic!  FAILED!!!

As always Lobo will be there to provide additional support and to help us keep the conversation productive.

So if Lobo doesn�t come out behind his alias everything you are talking about is flushed down the drain right?

I don't expect I can reassure everyone here that we have your best interests at heart, but we do.

You�ve ripped the heart out of this Calgary finest long time ago� stop the sweet talk.

That's because our interests are aligned � when iStock is successful we're all successful.

This is very scary cause Istock, at the moment, is far away from success! So where does that put you?

Very much looking forward to some civilized and constructive conversations with you all.
Rebecca

You lied in plain sight many times. What do you expect? No, really, what do you expect? You lied many times! You lied! Simple as that! You are behaving like dictators, ok, it�s private property but this got to stop!

Again, if you can do ONE thing out of all of those that you�ve wrote about up there, you would make some contributors happy, mostly the new ones!

This kind of conversation is telling me just one thing� that I need a life and some sleep! Now let�s see some Lobo action and a monthly ban 

^ 
I had to save a copy.

Thank you!!!

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.

So anyhow seams
Retarddrebeka is real person? Not fake ghost avatar of retarted Kelly Konjson?
I dont believe in her/it cheap sorry/story

I agree. Maybe if they had a normal ftp upload and submission process, they could gain a few points of sympathy for caring about the time we put into working with them and dealing with their arbitrary rejections. 

They have lost too much ground to Shutter thus will probably never be the number one again even with changes...

Comical. iStock is so focused on the tone of the contributor voice and yet they make no mention of HQ's maddening ineptitude or provide one iota of feedback on critical site performance issues.

It matters none and changes nothing if contributors rant all day long on forums. iStock needs to cowboy up and focus purely on tangibles that matter. 

IStock has one responsibility and that is to provide a working and efficient cutting-edge cyber platform for contributors to sell their creations. iStock gets paid handsomely for bringing in the buyers, that which makes iStock a viable business model for everyone. At the moment, iStock is doing neither of those things and they haven't been for at least 12 months or more. Downloads overall have fallen to less than half of what they were a year ago. As a result, contributors are losing their livelihood and iStock is failing hard. They need to change this now. End of story.

So its a simple solution. Those iStock admins need to start growing some thicker skin. Hire IT people that are capable of continuing to develop the site and fix site bugs expeditiously when they are discovered. Acknowledge site problems and keep contributors informed about progress of their repairs. Lastly, they have to grow the iStock buyer market. They have failed to do this though as evidenced already by steadily falling Alexa site traffic rankings.

For starters, iStock could improve iStock traffic, rankings, and sales by getting the istockreseller scam site taken down immediately where XXL exclusive contributor content is being sold illegally everyday for just $7 a pop.

Now if they can do these simple things correctly, then they can close down the forums completely if HQ is too fragile to handle the contributor "rudeness".

The forums are simply the result of cause and effect. Fix the cause and iStock contributors will give them fuzzy secret handshakes and high-fives all day long if that's what Rebecca needs to make her world go round.

And the dumbest thing in all this is that they don't realize that the contributors know the stock photo business better than they do. Because of the forums, the contributors have a means of providing HQ some of the best free advice they could ever hope for. Yet all they are focused on is contributor tone and demeanor. Pathetic. Scary to think the fate of iStock contributors is in the hands of powerful people that don't get it or know how to implement change.