Author Topic: Nippyish note from Rebecca Rockafellar (Read 82830 times)

rubyroo · « **Reply #350 on:** December 12, 2012, 18:39 »

ROFL

Now THAT'S what I'd call a feature!

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #351 on:** December 12, 2012, 18:45 »

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.

rubyroo · « **Reply #352 on:** December 12, 2012, 18:49 »

Yep. That's pretty much how I read it too. When problems impact their bottom line, a door opens and we're all included in to try to help solve the problem. Once that problem's solved, the door slams shut again.

It'd be nice to be proved wrong on that... but it's not looking promising is it?

gbalex · « **Reply #353 on:** December 12, 2012, 18:59 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 12, 2012, 18:17

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.

sc · « **Reply #354 on:** December 12, 2012, 19:04 »

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.

rubyroo · « **Reply #355 on:** December 12, 2012, 19:12 »

Quote from: wolfman on December 12, 2012, 17:19

Meanwhile... preparing my house for a new paradigm as I leave the istock ship....

Good luck with the voyage Wolfman! Wishing you a fair wind and a good tide.

gostwyck · « **Reply #356 on:** December 12, 2012, 19:30 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 12, 2012, 18:45

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.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #357 on:** December 12, 2012, 19:35 »

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.

not that I want you guys (exclusives) getting out of iStock but seriously why keeping up on an agency that just said that, not only telling that it is your fault of having fewer sales but also to go and hunt buyers (when its their JOB)

-1 - istock is doing fine, needless to say with the help of contributors providing them content
0 - its not enough and we are doing badly, we need to be more competitive bla bla bla
1 - cut on royalties (RC's show up)
2 - their collection continues to grow with everybody effort
3 - we are now ready and will listen to you
4 - its actually your fault and on the new contributors (that do peanuts!!)
5 - go and get us more buyers
6 - we will pay you the same royalties (and iStock of course will do more $ spending zero)
7 - number 6 only happen if your work is better than what you have been doing, previous downloads don't matter, maybe starting a new portfolio under other name

it is certainly the 1st agency begging desperately for such thing, its sad and so low for a multi-millionaire company...

gbalex · « **Reply #358 on:** December 12, 2012, 19:44 »

Quote from: SC on December 12, 2012, 19:04

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 agree

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #359 on:** December 12, 2012, 19:57 »

Yep, whatever is helping them meet expectations isn't all from contributors.

They've obviously been constantly planning for what they would need to do to keep squeezing contributors without taking a hit financially.

They may be meeting expectations now. But the fact that they bothered to show up and make an effort to do anything probably means some chart is showing them things are trending toward not meeting expectations sometime in the near future.

This is a test. Nothing more.

ShadySue · « **Reply #360 on:** December 12, 2012, 20:09 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 12, 2012, 19:30

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.

You're almost certainly right.
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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #361 on:** December 12, 2012, 20:41 »

RR is certainly not setting a new low in communications skills, but she still managed the defensive whine that suggested most of the problems are not her fault or Getty's responsibility. She started with the "you need to help by being nicer" insult and ended with the transparently ridiculous "sales are dropping 'cause there's too much content" coupled with the notion that she had real work to do so wasn't going to continue communicating.

I thought the majority of posts in that thread were (a) touching (b) sad and (c) a goldmine of business intelligence handed to her on a platter which she apparently has just turned her back on to go do her job...

You couldn't make this stuff up.

It does remind be a bit of the last days of the US election where the soon-to-be-losing camp was convinced it was winning and just would not look at any of the poll data that predicted accurately how the outcome went. That is giving RR the benefit of the doubt that she actually believes the stuff she's saying.

Do other people remember past "state of the company" speeches where management talked about how the company was growing - not "meeting expectations"? If you're not using the word growing, I think it's because you're not.

cthoman · « **Reply #362 on:** December 12, 2012, 21:03 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 12, 2012, 19:35

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.

Wow! That is the most awesomely honest thing I have ever heard.

This isn't just a problem for iStock. It's an inherent flaw in the business model of microstock for contributors. It's great to hear an agency actually admit this. Hopefully, some of them start working to solve it or they will be replaced by an agency or agencies that do.

qwerty · « **Reply #363 on:** December 13, 2012, 00:29 »

Yeah I should work harder bringing in buyers so you can pay me 16-17% if I manage to get a sale buried in the best match sort behind 500 agency shots.

They want it to be purely business decisions when it suits them and We're all in it togther buddy-buddy when it suits them.

Get $%%3d Istock. I will never ever refer a single buyer to your store.

JPSDK · « **Reply #364 on:** December 13, 2012, 00:39 »

What she really wanted, was us to stop spreading negative karma and scare buyers away.
And I bet, the the things they are going to say soon, has to do with it.

They are now sitting and sugar coating the coorporate BS.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #365 on:** December 13, 2012, 01:21 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 12, 2012, 18:38

Will the zoom feature work on my earnings chart

Like a macro lens......

Microbius · « **Reply #366 on:** December 13, 2012, 01:33 »

Has anyone else noticed the conspicuous abscence of any discussion of thinkstock. Seems like they did a great job getting our eyes off that particular ball. I am sure if it was under the IS banner it would feature a lot more in discussions about how terrible their compensation rates are.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #367 on:** December 13, 2012, 02:10 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 12, 2012, 20:09

Quote from: gostwyck on December 12, 2012, 19:30
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.
You're almost certainly right.
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.

She has a nice pair of legs though!

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #368 on:** December 13, 2012, 03:03 »

Quote from: SC on December 12, 2012, 19:04

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.

They no longer have targets, they have expectations. There is a big difference between the two: The expectation is that Greece will default on its debt and leave the eurozone; the target is to ensure Greece remains solvent and does not default.

It sounds as if the management know where iStock is headed (the expectation) and don't expect to be able to turn that round to meet any targets.

sharpshot · « **Reply #369 on:** December 13, 2012, 04:09 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 12, 2012, 19:30

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 12, 2012, 18:45
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.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #370 on:** December 13, 2012, 04:37 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 13, 2012, 04:09

Quote from: gostwyck on December 12, 2012, 19:30
Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 12, 2012, 18:45
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.

I think your right. At her level you dont go to your bosses at Getty, you use your own initiative. Further more I dont think Getty gives a * abot IS, really. They have been a thorn in the side of Getty untill they bought the thing.

There is no doubt at all that Getty wants the stock world to get back to what it used to be, by listening to some ppl working there its obvious.
So why should they pay IS any attention?

RT · « **Reply #371 on:** December 13, 2012, 06:24 »

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.

iStop · « **Reply #372 on:** December 13, 2012, 06:57 »

From RR

Quote

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.

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.

iStop · « **Reply #373 on:** December 13, 2012, 07:15 »

Quote from: RT on December 13, 2012, 06:24

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.

Extremely well put. Truer words never spoken.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #374 on:** December 13, 2012, 07:24 »

Quote from: gbalex on December 12, 2012, 18:59

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 12, 2012, 18:17
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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Nippyish note from Rebecca Rockafellar (Read 82830 times)

rubyroo

PaulieWalnuts

rubyroo

gbalex

sc

rubyroo

gostwyck

luissantos84

gbalex

PaulieWalnuts

ShadySue

Jo Ann Snover

cthoman

qwerty

JPSDK

BaldricksTrousers

Microbius

ClaridgeJ

BaldricksTrousers

sharpshot

ClaridgeJ

RT

iStop

iStop

Sean Locke Photography

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors