MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Nippyish note from Rebecca Rockafellar  (Read 52358 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: December 08, 2012, 16:24 »
0
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.

Exactly!  So, I guess now they'll be effectively communicating how they're screwing us over.  Don't know about everyone else, but I'm happy.


« Reply #126 on: December 08, 2012, 16:28 »
+2
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.




« Reply #127 on: December 08, 2012, 16:33 »
0
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.

« Reply #128 on: December 08, 2012, 16:33 »
0
*
« Last Edit: December 08, 2012, 16:35 by gostwyck »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #129 on: December 08, 2012, 17:36 »
0
Latest from RR:
I said I would reply with more thoughts later today and here I am.  I have read every post on the thread a few times now.   Despite the flinching that I've had to do, I truly appreciate your candid feedback.  We have a lot of work to do to get things back on course, and you have provided many valuable suggestions here which will inform the process a great deal.

That said, some of the things you raised are large and systemic and I can't speak to nor change them quickly.  So give us some time to work out how best to proceed with responses from here.

One key topic: Is best match broken?  We don't think so, but we haven't stopped digging into whether it might be.  Please keep sending in specific examples of what you are seeing and we will keep using them in our investigations.  Single keyword searches that seem broken are the most useful.  If you have any screencaps that show previous results vs. current results for the same search that would be extremely helpful.  Please put your examples over on the best match thread, not here.

You've said loud and clear that we can only make things better with action, so I thought I would also tell you what our priorities are:

Getting to the bottom of Best Match sorting

Site stability and performance

Marketing iStockphoto around the world

Improving the site for customers

You will see movement and improvements in all of these areas in the coming weeks, and we will keep you posted on progress here, in the forums, as well as providing responses to the bigger issues that you've raised.

« Reply #130 on: December 08, 2012, 17:46 »
0
It's been a long time since I've even looked at the istock forums (from memory about the time of royalty cuts). Wow! what a difference to a year or two ago. With so many locked threads, you have to wonder if it would be better just to say close the forum and be done.

once again we have an Istock management post about problems posted on friday afternoon, really? love the irony of it being about poor communication :)
Think I'll chalk it up with not being here for the money and we wont advertise thinkstock to istock customers... 
(but not as bad as "we {> you" and by gum - I dont think I could think of a more nauseating, belittling and insincere message :) )

Maybe they'll makes changes, but for me the lack of integrity shown in the past means that their credibility is so low that I'd struggle to believe anything they said.

The post makes me think of that cartoon you see from time to time with the caption "The whippings will continue until morale improves" :)

« Last Edit: December 08, 2012, 17:56 by Phil »

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #131 on: December 08, 2012, 17:56 »
0
Quote
once 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?

« Reply #132 on: December 08, 2012, 18:21 »
+1
Quote
once 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?

Bad or negative news is traditionally released on friday to allow the weekend to soften the blow on markets / staff / management etc. Positive announcements are made early in the week to maximise benefits.  The irony is that the post is supposed to be a positive about improvements in communication, yet is made on Friday afternoon. (I hadn't got through the whole thread to see a post on a Saturday - certainly an improvement - in the past management haven't posted on the weekend).

just realised the 'we heart you' by gum went out to buyers so may not have seen (do a search here for "by gum" and you'll find it), maybe its cultural differences but it really was horrid.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2012, 18:34 by Phil »

« Reply #133 on: December 08, 2012, 18:23 »
+1
I didn't know who she was, so i googled her:

http://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-men-and-women-managers-rebecca-rockafellar-istock-photo-getty-images-2012-11


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.  ;)

« Reply #134 on: December 08, 2012, 18:48 »
0
I didn't know who she was, so i googled her:

http://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-men-and-women-managers-rebecca-rockafellar-istock-photo-getty-images-2012-11


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.

« Reply #135 on: December 08, 2012, 18:54 »
0
I didn't know who she was, so i googled her:

http://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-men-and-women-managers-rebecca-rockafellar-istock-photo-getty-images-2012-11


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.

Lol  ;D

« Reply #136 on: December 08, 2012, 18:54 »
+3
Good leaders benefit companies and I don't much care if it's a space alien if the leadership is effective. It's unfortunate that there is attention to women in prominent positions because they are relatively few in number. Each one becomes a representative of half the human race in a way a useless or wonderful male leader does not. Same with any group that's underrepresented.

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...

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #137 on: December 08, 2012, 18:55 »
0
Quote
The irony is that the post is supposed to be a positive about improvements in communication, yet is made on Friday afternoon.

I had grasped that bit. There are people who are determined to see the bad in anything relating to IS. I was pointing out the error in your thesis.

lisafx

« Reply #138 on: December 08, 2012, 18:59 »
+3
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...

Totally agree on the conspicuous absence of anything that might generate more immediate revenue for contributors.  Frankly, if my bottom line doesn't improve, I couldn't care less how, when, or if they communicate with me. 

Seems like most of what's wrong with istock is more an example of Getty's policies, rather than simple mismanagement of one individual. 

« Reply #139 on: December 08, 2012, 19:11 »
+1
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 am with the actions speak louder than words crowd.  I stopped buying content on IS when they lowered commissions to a level that was not sustainable for independents.  And based on their actions or treatments of the crowned ones I will never go back to uploading to their site.  They have proved over and over again by their actions that they do not value contributors.  The MS companies in general are robber barons... caring only about filling their pockets at the expense of their contributors. We buy what is needed to produce content for them and they rake in the profit leaving us to starve.

Just look at the money Jon has raked in at SS... how many years has it been since he gave us a raise! With price of living adjustments we are making less and less each year.

When employee's at SS are complaining that the venture capitalist are picking people for all key positions I pay notice. And the moment they pull an IS move I will also not be buying or uploading content to them.

Revenues have dropped at IS even for the crowned ones... there is no way in hell that I will be uploading to IS again at 20%.  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!
« Last Edit: December 08, 2012, 19:32 by gbalex »

« Reply #140 on: December 08, 2012, 19:19 »
+3
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...

That's because she's not actually "in charge" of Istock. She's not talking about the RC system because there's bugg*r all she can do about it. She doesn't have that level of authority. She's the 'General Manager' and her main task is to look internally at Istock and makes sure everyone is doing their job properly __ which quite clearly she is doing pretty badly anyway.

Let me put it like this. When I was on submarines the two people in charge of the boat were the Captain and the Executive Officer (aka "the Jimmy"). The XO's job was to look internally at the crew, ensure the decks were kept clean, fire drills took place, etc, etc. The Captain's job, on the other hand, was to look externally and strategically. Was the boat in the right place, at the right speed/depth and doing the right thing to achieve the mission's objectives? He obviously also needed to consider the threats and opportunities at all times.

RR, as the 'general manager' is basically the XO of Istock so, although you might be thrilled that she's lowered herself to talk to us, there's probably very little she can do about the situation that Istock finds itself in.

« Reply #141 on: December 08, 2012, 20:03 »
0
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.

MetaStocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #142 on: December 09, 2012, 03:11 »
+1
With such a leadership like this, IS is destined to hit the rock bottom soon and being relegated as a sub-collection of Thinkstock.


« Reply #143 on: December 09, 2012, 03:16 »
0
I just hope all the buyers that have been driven away haven't gone to Thinkstock.


20% for independents
Get rid of Vetta and Agency spamming the search.

« Reply #144 on: December 09, 2012, 03:24 »
0
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.

« Reply #145 on: December 09, 2012, 05:11 »
0
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

« Reply #146 on: December 09, 2012, 05:21 »
0
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

You've missed the second speech:
1) I promise to try to make the site work to make Gettyimages richer (because that is my job)
2) I promise to try make buyers happy to make Gettyimages richer (because that is my job)
3) I promise to try to bring in more business by advertising to make Gettyimages richer (because that is my job)
4) Thank you, contributors, for alerting me to these things that I might not have noticed without you, I promise action on them.
5) I promise not to do anything "systemic" (i.e. to commission rates) as that might mean letting go of some money, and that is not my job.

« Reply #147 on: December 09, 2012, 05:36 »
0
I think there's an old idiom that sums this up quite nicely.  We need to speak to the organ grinder not the monkey.

Until whoever is taking the big decisions proves otherwise, I'm convinced they've deliberately made the future of istock unsustainable for non-exclusives.  Some exclusives might still do OK there but it looks like a lot of them are also being hit by the changes.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens in the next few years.  They might be panicking now that istock is losing out so much to SS but unless they deal with the real problems, it's just a turd polishing exercise.  It just seems a matter of time before SS becomes the No.1 microstock site.

Poncke

« Reply #148 on: December 09, 2012, 07:07 »
+2
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.

« Reply #149 on: December 09, 2012, 07:20 »
0
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


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3872 Views
Last post March 26, 2007, 15:37
by yingyang0
7 Replies
4356 Views
Last post March 21, 2010, 20:43
by Lizard
0 Replies
1939 Views
Last post August 19, 2013, 01:48
by picture5469
4 Replies
3737 Views
Last post January 24, 2014, 13:39
by fotoroad
15 Replies
4491 Views
Last post May 12, 2015, 15:11
by Hobostocker

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle