Author Topic: Rates again (Read 10567 times)

rene · « **on:** August 22, 2013, 09:48 »

I almost forgot an old typo: rates at the official iStock page (http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule) are wrong. To fix it probably 1 min will be enough as we are talking about not more than 100 characters. This problem is known for at least 2 months. Not very professional.
But what is really incredible for me is this statement, from iStock admin Kevinjay:
"As noted, the info on the Royalty Rate page is incorrect in places. It's a known issue and will be remedied at some point but thus far has not been a priority. If you have any queries about the royalty rates, please contact Contributor Relations." (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355808&page=1)
Is my understanding of English wrong or is this guy saying that official website is full of crap but they don't care?

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** August 22, 2013, 09:57 »

Quote from: rene on August 22, 2013, 09:48

Is my understanding of English wrong or is this guy saying that official website is full of crap but they don't care?

More or less, yes.
It's a very suspicious issue. At first, they said it was a cut and paste typo (cut and pasted from what?), now they say it's a 'bug'.
Hmmmm.

cobalt · « **Reply #2 on:** August 22, 2013, 10:00 »

It is very easy to change those numbers and put them right.

That they don´t want to do it, either really means they just don´t care about the accuracy on their website or they are delaying it deliberately to see how many people will go exclusive when these are the visible terms. Getty only pays 20% to their own house contributors. I am sure they are not happy about payouts that might reach 45%. If the standard is lower, they can still offer individual contracts with higher rates for those they deem worthy.

Or...they want to change the system completely and adjust royalties up...but even then, it would be simple to update the page and show the correct rate until they have figured out what they want to do.

Anything to do with money should be as accurate as possible. Everyone understands that if the rates are wrong on the website, people will wonder if the accounting in general is correct.

Monkeyman · « **Reply #3 on:** August 22, 2013, 10:08 »

My guess is that those figures are fetched from a database and just shows up in the wrong place because of a layout change. Which would mean that the programmers have to change a little code somewhere. But it's still a tiny problem, though... probably just a few minutes work.

Just like you I'm also surprised by how slow many of the issues are fixed at iStock. They must be very understaffed or have a very messy and inefficient organisation at the moment.

I still haven't quit exlusivity though... I have a tiny little bit of hope left...

tickstock · « **Reply #4 on:** August 22, 2013, 10:20 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** August 22, 2013, 10:41 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 22, 2013, 10:20

Quote from: ShadySue on August 22, 2013, 09:57
Quote from: rene on August 22, 2013, 09:48
Is my understanding of English wrong or is this guy saying that official website is full of crap but they don't care?
More or less, yes.
It's a very suspicious issue. At first, they said it was a cut and paste typo (cut and pasted from what?), now they say it's a 'bug'.
Hmmmm.
It's the Vetta rates posted in two columns.

How difficult would it be for them to fix this apparently very simple typo, if they wanted to? What price accuracy?

Semi-unrelated, having lowered the Vetta rate, are they gauging how many exclusives still submit to Vetta, thereby indicating that they will accept the lower rate, to help them decide how soon they can lower that critical %age rate for all, aided by best match and collections, apparently designed to make sure that fewer people will maintain their current rate.

gbalex · « **Reply #6 on:** August 22, 2013, 10:41 »

Quote from: Monkeyman on August 22, 2013, 10:08

My guess is that those figures are fetched from a database and just shows up in the wrong place because of a layout change. Which would mean that the programmers have to change a little code somewhere. But it's still a tiny problem, though... probably just a few minutes work.

Just like you I'm also surprised by how slow many of the issues are fixed at iStock. They must be very understaffed or have a very messy and inefficient organisation at the moment.

I still haven't quit exlusivity though... I have a tiny little bit of hope left...

Those numbers would come out of a database field. It would take seconds to change them. I agree with Cobalt and Shady Sue. There must be a reason they are not changing them.

landbysea · « **Reply #7 on:** August 22, 2013, 11:08 »

I somehow linked into that page last week and freaked out. Then I remembered this was something old that was never fixed. I find it amazing that they have not fixed it even though it was brought to their attention. Well Rebekah was right, we do think they are incompetent, but if you point this out as an example of it they will suspend you from the forums.

DonLand · « **Reply #8 on:** August 22, 2013, 12:15 »

Even though I'm not exclusive (not even qualified yet) I have stopped uploading to IS simply because of this "bug" or whatever you want to call it.

I have left open the possibility to go exclusive in the future, but with those rates currently being shown there is no way I would ever go exclusive. There are also a number of other reasons I prefer not being exclusive with them.

In reality I sincerely wonder if they are testing the waters to see if they can lower rates once again! I would not leave it past them.

dingles · « **Reply #9 on:** August 22, 2013, 12:25 »

It's such an easy correction and they can't even manage that. Do they only have one web guy dealing with all the issues?

tickstock · « **Reply #10 on:** August 22, 2013, 13:10 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** August 22, 2013, 14:02 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 22, 2013, 13:10

They may just replace the whole thing so why fix these little issues?

Why wouldn't they?
H*ll, I fix a typo on any website I've been involved in as soon as I've seen it or had it pointed out, and I wasn't paid a penny for any of them.

Seems they introduced an odd problem this morning, or overnight iS time:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355814&page=1
They can introduce problems with monotonous regularity, but they can't fix a 'typo'.
Hmmmm.

dingles · « **Reply #12 on:** August 22, 2013, 14:42 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 22, 2013, 13:10

Quote from: dingles on August 22, 2013, 12:25
It's such an easy correction and they can't even manage that. Do they only have one web guy dealing with all the issues?
My guess is they are going to revamp the site soon. They may just replace the whole thing so why fix these little issues? Just a guess.

Because it's live and misinformation

cobalt · « **Reply #13 on:** August 22, 2013, 16:45 »

Because it screams "This management doesn´t care". Even the smallest typo does that, which is why most businesses remove them immediatly, when they are notified.

To advertise wrong financial information to the whole world for over 2 months...it is obvious someone doesn´t really identify with the business they run.

Imagine this was your personal website or your profile page on linkedIn - would you leave wrong data up there for everyone to see?

bunhill · « **Reply #14 on:** August 22, 2013, 16:57 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 22, 2013, 13:10

Quote from: dingles on August 22, 2013, 12:25
It's such an easy correction and they can't even manage that. Do they only have one web guy dealing with all the issues?
My guess is they are going to revamp the site soon. They may just replace the whole thing so why fix these little issues? Just a guess.

I think they have bigger issues to deal with currently. Like the fact that the site remains unstable, is extremely slow and clearly has on going database issues. Stuff which affects the customers should definitely take priority. Especially as September draws closer.

tickstock · « **Reply #15 on:** August 22, 2013, 17:06 »

DonLand · « **Reply #16 on:** August 22, 2013, 17:16 »

I know what the are... it's just what if this is what they will be. I find it hard to believe this is an accident, just my pessimistic side showing as it relates to moves GI has been doing for the past 15 or more years. Until its "fixed" I'll put on hold any uploading to the site as a precaution, that is all. Hope it is just a mistake and will be taken care of but until then I'll remain in a holding pattern there.

tickstock · « **Reply #17 on:** August 22, 2013, 17:27 »

Ron · « **Reply #18 on:** August 22, 2013, 17:41 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 22, 2013, 17:27

Quote from: DonLand on August 22, 2013, 17:16
I know what the are... it's just what if this is what they will be. I find it hard to believe this is an accident, just my pessimistic side showing as it relates to moves GI has been doing for the past 15 or more years. Until its "fixed" I'll put on hold any uploading to the site as a precaution, that is all. Hope it is just a mistake and will be taken care of but until then I'll remain in a holding pattern there.
You aren't exclusive so are what are you worried about? The rates are only wrong for exclusive photos.

You arent even submitting to Shutterstock, yet you constantly try to turn everything they do to a negative. What are you worried about?

tickstock · « **Reply #19 on:** August 22, 2013, 17:44 »

Ron · « **Reply #20 on:** August 22, 2013, 17:55 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 22, 2013, 17:44

What's this about Shutterstock? I feel like you always need a lot of explaining. He said because the exclusive royalty rates are wrongly showing lower than they should he, as a nonexclusive, wasn't going to contribute. I don't see what the relation is.

I feel you always seem to be ignorant of your own comments. I am not the one who needs an explanation. I am just pointing out the irony that you do the same when it comes to Shutterstock. You dont even contribute there, but you always seem to worry about what they are doing. At least he is a contributor at IS.

tickstock · « **Reply #21 on:** August 22, 2013, 18:01 »

Ron · « **Reply #22 on:** August 22, 2013, 18:03 »

You should change your name to Thickstock

DonLand · « **Reply #23 on:** August 22, 2013, 18:21 »

Simply, I was looking towards to future. If the future is actually the current incorrect values I don't see it as being worth uploading to. In the meantime I'll just leave my current small portfolio there and wait until we see where they are actually heading.

Quote from: tickstock on August 22, 2013, 17:27

Quote from: DonLand on August 22, 2013, 17:16
I know what the are... it's just what if this is what they will be. I find it hard to believe this is an accident, just my pessimistic side showing as it relates to moves GI has been doing for the past 15 or more years. Until its "fixed" I'll put on hold any uploading to the site as a precaution, that is all. Hope it is just a mistake and will be taken care of but until then I'll remain in a holding pattern there.
You aren't exclusive so are what are you worried about? The rates are only wrong for exclusive photos.

tickstock · « **Reply #24 on:** August 22, 2013, 19:06 »

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Rates again (Read 10567 times)

rene

ShadySue

cobalt

Monkeyman

tickstock

ShadySue

gbalex

landbysea

DonLand

dingles

tickstock

ShadySue

dingles

cobalt

bunhill

tickstock

DonLand

tickstock

Ron

tickstock

Ron

tickstock

Ron

DonLand

tickstock

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors