Author Topic: REDEEMED CREDIT SYSTEM BROKEN (Read 30215 times)

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #125 on:** November 22, 2011, 12:00 »

Quote from: fujiko on November 22, 2011, 11:11

...In the end, if you keep track of all the sales as reported on the site, it doesn't report the same total amount of money you earned. You have to keep track of modifications reported only by mail.

It's far from adequate (i.e. I'm not trying to excuse IS's pitiful reporting of sales) but if you get the monthly CSV from your stats page there should be a column called Admin Adj or something like that and that's where those lump sums show up. As long as they pay in the year they effed things up, at least your totals in the CSV will be right even if you can't correctly total a day or week's sales

fujiko · « **Reply #126 on:** November 22, 2011, 12:49 »

Quote from: jsnover on November 22, 2011, 12:00

Quote from: fujiko on November 22, 2011, 11:11
...In the end, if you keep track of all the sales as reported on the site, it doesn't report the same total amount of money you earned. You have to keep track of modifications reported only by mail.

It's far from adequate (i.e. I'm not trying to excuse IS's pitiful reporting of sales) but if you get the monthly CSV from your stats page there should be a column called Admin Adj or something like that and that's where those lump sums show up. As long as they pay in the year they effed things up, at least your totals in the CSV will be right even if you can't correctly total a day or week's sales

Didn't know about this CSV file, never downloaded it until now.
But after downloading it I see it's just another layer of obscurity because it's just a sum of numbers and doesn't have a detailed list of downloads, corrections, deductions or anything else. Everything at IS tries to hide what really happens or makes it difficult to accurately keep track of things.
All other agencies have much better pages to report downloads as a daily report or as a chronological list. IS instead has everything hidden behind clicks or sums.

Artemis · « **Reply #127 on:** November 22, 2011, 13:22 »

Quote from: fujiko on November 22, 2011, 12:49

*snip*
All other agencies have much better pages to report downloads as a daily report or as a chronological list. IS instead has everything hidden behind clicks or sums.

That's the way we know good ol' istock, not?

Needlessly complicated in literally everything; from the upload process (jump hoops!), to the MR system (jump through more hoops!), the reference program (designed to be complicated so the chance at referrals is very small), the search (anyone want to take a 2 day course?), the payout system (a "support" ticket?!), the RC system (no transparency whatsoever)...... chances were small the CSV would have been any better

CarlssonInc · « **Reply #128 on:** November 22, 2011, 14:36 »

Quote from: wut on November 22, 2011, 10:56

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on November 22, 2011, 09:58
Quote from: wut on November 22, 2011, 08:14
Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on November 22, 2011, 06:24
Quote from: wut on November 22, 2011, 05:52
Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on November 22, 2011, 05:49
Quote from: wut on November 22, 2011, 05:32
It looks like all this mess affected the payouts as well. I requested payment last Tuesday (MB cutoff day) and still haven't received the money. I would request another today, but I'm going to wait until they pay me the first. The only good thing is I'm not dependand on this payment, but imagine an exclusive who really depends on it not getting it (I can get it from other sites as well)

It is a bit early in the "day" to expect payment considering it is not even 4 AM in Calgary.... It should be paid out TODAY (Tue Moneybookers, Mon PayPal) during the course of iStock's business day.

Huh, than I guess I misunderstand the cutoff and 5 business days. And wrongfully think it's the 6th business day in a row from the one that I requested payment and was the cutoff day. If I remember correctly I usually got the money by the end of the same week not in the next. But then again, I don't request payments every week at IS

If you go look at the payment schedule (the calendar provided with deadlines and payout dates for each month) you will see that USUALLY the cut-off for MB payouts is Tuesdays, which will then USUALLY be paid out on the following Tuesday. Usually is bar if there are any holidays affecting the schedule. Go look at the payout schedule and you'll understand.

I did look at it and the 5th business day from Tuesday is Monday (cutoff is in the morning, so Tuesday counts). That is if they're paying on the last day of the deadline that they set

Moneybookers are paid out on TUESDAY, doesn't matter how many business days that is after your request. TUESDAYS. Check the schedule, it clearly states which cut-off days and payout days there are for the different payment methods.

I am hearing you out, but you're not hearing me out. If that were true I'd get payed last Tuesday (I requested it in the morning CET too). But it looks like you get payed SOME Tuesday $:-\$ . But yeah I get it, it's five days and it depends wether they make it before the first or second Tuesday, 5 working days until the first Tuesday. I guess I'm spoiled by some other sites making the pyments within hours

You request before the CUT-OFF time on Tuesday week 1 and get paid 7 days later on the FOLLOWING Tuesday (WEEK 2, ONE WEEK AFTER THE REQUEST). You CANNOT request and get paid on the same day, minimum of a week in between.

lagereek · « **Reply #129 on:** November 23, 2011, 01:22 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 21, 2011, 04:52

Quote from: sharpshot on November 21, 2011, 04:00
It doesn't look like istock will be sold though, it seems that they are moving towards it being absorbed by Getty.

Istock was absorbed by Getty five or six years ago, they've just had trouble digesting it, particularly during the period when Bruce Livinstone was still there to fight for his vision. It's fairly clear that after he left iStock didn't have anyone strong enough to stand up to pressure from Getty, whose high-ups had quite a different concept of what istock should be. Without istock having a CEO, the executive function moved upstream and the iStock staff were just there to implement instructions (except, of course, for those who put their ass on the line every day for us and would be the first to quit if iS ever did anything that might hurt its contributors )

True! BUT! when Bruce sold out, Getty already had a tarnished reputation, almost like corporate-raiders, He couldnt have been that naive, not realizing that his "babys" days were numberd?
With 50,million quid on the horizon, I would have done the same, taken the money and run for cover.
Even so, Bruce, wouldnt have been able to do a thing against Getty, exept getting bad nerves and anxiety from all the rubbish.

So, I dont buy all this "Oh if only Bruce had been around lark" he knew exactly what he was doing AND the consequenses.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #130 on:** November 23, 2011, 02:54 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 23, 2011, 01:22

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 21, 2011, 04:52
Quote from: sharpshot on November 21, 2011, 04:00
It doesn't look like istock will be sold though, it seems that they are moving towards it being absorbed by Getty.

Istock was absorbed by Getty five or six years ago, they've just had trouble digesting it, particularly during the period when Bruce Livinstone was still there to fight for his vision. It's fairly clear that after he left iStock didn't have anyone strong enough to stand up to pressure from Getty, whose high-ups had quite a different concept of what istock should be. Without istock having a CEO, the executive function moved upstream and the iStock staff were just there to implement instructions (except, of course, for those who put their ass on the line every day for us and would be the first to quit if iS ever did anything that might hurt its contributors )

True! BUT! when Bruce sold out, Getty already had a tarnished reputation, almost like corporate-raiders, He couldnt have been that naive, not realizing that his "babys" days were numberd?
With 50,million quid on the horizon, I would have done the same, taken the money and run for cover.
Even so, Bruce, wouldnt have been able to do a thing against Getty, exept getting bad nerves and anxiety from all the rubbish.

So, I dont buy all this "Oh if only Bruce had been around lark" he knew exactly what he was doing AND the consequenses.

I never said "if only Bruce had been around", I said he as probably the last one with the authority to stand his ground against Getty. I don't have any doubt about the lure of $50m, or his slice of it. I suspect when he quit, at the end of his contractual lock-in, he was already on the ropes in trying to resist Getty's "ideas" otherwise he might have stayed. But his record does show that if he had been there there would have been less bungling and Getty might have been persuaded to drop some of their worst ideas. Can anybody recall a Kelly-type foot-in-mouth event from Bruce?

cobalt · « **Reply #131 on:** November 23, 2011, 06:51 »

Bruce genuinly believed that selling to Getty was the best way to take the company global. Getty had the international offices, the international CV, experience and contacts with big budget clients. And he negotiated the famous "quit your day job" offer that brought House contracts to high ranking istock exclusives. I am one of the many grateful contributors who got one. The offer was independent of style of portfolio, you just had to be at the right level to get in.

He did lead the company for another 3 (?) years and then moved on, took a break, bought a nice house and certainly enjoys his money. But then he took on a similar job at Saatchionline and is now promoting a marketplace for non commercial art. Again he is so successful at online marketing, that when I google my name the first thing that shows is my Saatchiportfolio with 20 images and not my istock portfolio with 3000+

He genuinly loves interacting with artists and is an excellent communicator and leader.

Whatever is happening now, is not his fault. Getty owns the istock marketplace and it is their responsibility to grow the business. I keep hearing people who blame Bruce for "leaving them", but again, the current managers at istock or Getty are responsible for what is going on now.

And since we don´t have any numbers, it is entirely possible that with the focus on high end content that maybe istock is more profitable now than a year ago, who knows?

It just doesn´t seem to trickle down to the artist like it used to.

ProArtwork · « **Reply #132 on:** November 23, 2011, 07:44 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 23, 2011, 06:51

when I google my name the first thing that shows is my Saatchiportfolio with 20 images and not my istock portfolio with 3000+

~~Can I see your Saatchiportfolio?~~

Never mind, I found it!

cobalt · « **Reply #133 on:** November 23, 2011, 08:50 »

The portfolio is just for fun, I never sold a print there. But I teach at an artistic school for photography and I include Saatchionline in my talk on internet self marketing. I think saatchionline has a very good interface for artists and it seems to have an extremly active community. I was contacted by more than one gallery and asked if I wanted to be part of a project.

Definetly a lot going on over there.

lagereek · « **Reply #134 on:** November 23, 2011, 09:52 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 23, 2011, 06:51

Bruce genuinly believed that selling to Getty was the best way to take the company global. Getty had the international offices, the international CV, experience and contacts with big budget clients. And he negotiated the famous "quit your day job" offer that brought House contracts to high ranking istock exclusives. I am one of the many grateful contributors who got one. The offer was independent of style of portfolio, you just had to be at the right level to get in.

He did lead the company for another 3 (?) years and then moved on, took a break, bought a nice house and certainly enjoys his money. But then he took on a similar job at Saatchionline and is now promoting a marketplace for non commercial art. Again he is so successful at online marketing, that when I google my name the first thing that shows is my Saatchiportfolio with 20 images and not my istock portfolio with 3000+

He genuinly loves interacting with artists and is an excellent communicator and leader.

Whatever is happening now, is not his fault. Getty owns the istock marketplace and it is their responsibility to grow the business. I keep hearing people who blame Bruce for "leaving them", but again, the current managers at istock or Getty are responsible for what is going on now.

And since we don´t have any numbers, it is entirely possible that with the focus on high end content that maybe istock is more profitable now than a year ago, who knows?

It just doesn´t seem to trickle down to the artist like it used to.

Yes but, taking the company global?, I dont see how much more global you can get then being or was, the leading internet based micro agency? Getty came late into RF and Micro, too late to start anything of their own so what better way then to buy-up something like IS, ride it for a few years and then slowly intermingle it into their own as what we are seeing now with TS and everything. Only in the process they are destroying it.
They did exactly the same with Photodisc many years back, did not buy it to expand but to hold it at bay, to controle it.

cobalt · « **Reply #135 on:** November 23, 2011, 09:59 »

Internet marketing is extremely expensive, istock simply didn´t have enough resources, or the expansion would have taken much, much longer than doing it together with getty. Getty also has a huge legal department with international experience, they have unusual content that was added to istock etc...

And Getty sales reps apparently sell a lot of large volume istock credit packs (5000+) to customers who can afford higher prices. We have all benefitted from the much higher price level, since the takeover.

It is only in the last year that we are seeing such a serious drop, I think until 2010 most people I know were doing well.

So it is easy to blame Bruce now, but the reality is when he was in charge, his plan worked. At least from my perspective. Community morale and enthusiasm was also much higher.

ShadySue · « **Reply #136 on:** November 23, 2011, 10:09 »

Back to the topic (sorry) - there are more and more breakages being reported over the last couple of days.
Do they still never test anything before making it live?
Have they never heard of the testing sandbox? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_%28software_development%29

ProArtwork · « **Reply #137 on:** November 23, 2011, 10:33 »

Testing something first is one thing and testing something live with actual traffic is another; that's when the problems begin.

ShadySue · « **Reply #138 on:** November 23, 2011, 10:50 »

Quote from: ProArtwork on November 23, 2011, 10:33

Testing something first is one thing and testing something live with actual traffic is another; that's when the problems begin.

Quite so, but it's notable that none of the other big sites I visit regularly - especially Amazon, of course - don't seem to have many problems at all, despite constantly adding new features.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #139 on:** November 23, 2011, 11:30 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 23, 2011, 09:52

Getty came late into RF and Micro, too late to start anything of their own so what better way then to buy-up something like IS,

Maybe that was a concern - that if iS didn't tie in with Getty they would buy up DT or SS and throw their resources behind that. We'll never know unless someone produces reliable memoirs (and with Kelly's account of his moment on the bridge at midnight, throwing snowballs at the moon, not every memory of that time is still accurate)

Sheridan · « **Reply #140 on:** November 23, 2011, 12:12 »

No wonder stuff is broken if they're wasting their time on crap like this


Glenhairy Glen Ross an iStock Movember Parody

luissantos84 · « **Reply #141 on:** November 23, 2011, 12:22 »

ROTF

Pat is hot

Karen · « **Reply #142 on:** November 23, 2011, 12:58 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 23, 2011, 06:51

Bruce negotiated the famous "quit your day job" offer that brought House contracts to high ranking istock exclusives. I am one of the many grateful contributors who got one. The offer was independent of style of portfolio, you just had to be at the right level to get in.

What is the difference between "regular" and "house contract" exclusive?
Does it make any difference now with RC system?

cobalt · « **Reply #143 on:** November 23, 2011, 13:04 »

The house contract is a contract with gettyimages directly. Apparently the "Holy Grail" in stock photography that thousands of photographers the world over would love to have.

Thanks to Bruce, now many istockers are "in".

The program was stopped, because for many it was enough to work with the Vetta collection. All V/A files are duplicated on Getty.

But a house contract gives you acces to Getty RM division and many other collections.

It is not a license to print money, but my own results are very good, better than on istock. Others are disappointed and after trying it went back to uploading to istock.

It is an opportunity that other agencies cannot offer you. Unfortunately, if you give up your photo exclusivity with istock, you also lose the Getty contract.

It has no effect on your RC´s with istock. It is just an opportunity to build a second portfolio on Getty itself.

jamirae · « **Reply #144 on:** November 23, 2011, 13:23 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 23, 2011, 13:04

The house contract is a contract with gettyimages directly. Apparently the "Holy Grail" in stock photography that thousands of photographers the world over would love to have.

Thanks to Bruce, now many istockers are "in".

The program was stopped, because for many it was enough to work with the Vetta collection. All V/A files are duplicated on Getty.

But a house contract gives you acces to Getty RM division and many other collections.

It is not a license to print money, but my own results are very good, better than on istock. Others are disappointed and after trying it went back to uploading to istock.

It is an opportunity that other agencies cannot offer you. Unfortunately, if you give up your photo exclusivity with istock, you also lose the Getty contract.

It has no effect on your RC´s with istock. It is just an opportunity to build a second portfolio on Getty itself.

if you are referring to the "quit your day job" Getty perk that Diamond and Gold exclusives had, then that did not have anything to do with RM. I was part of that and while we did get to upload images to Getty, they were still part of a Getty RF collection. Also there was no choice of what collection you uploaded to with Getty, it was all the same. So perhaps this is something different now? I know just as I was leaving the whole Vetta and Agency thing was getting pushed through to Getty, so perhaps there is something different now. I honestly haven't paid attention to it since dropping the crown.

Also, when I dropped exclusivity last year (at about this time) my Getty contract, even though I had been accepted via the iStock program, did not automatically cancel. I had to contact Getty directly to cancel. And, it took about 4 months just to get my images off of Getty -- this was after I received notification that they accepted my contract cancellation.

cobalt · « **Reply #145 on:** November 23, 2011, 13:40 »

If you now send a file to the House editors and opt for RM and RF your images will also be inspected with RM in mind. I know photographers who had images taken for RM. But you have to select the RM option when you upload.

Personally I only used two PC RM slots and don´t submit for RM otherwise. Did that change at some point, or was it different in the beginning? I must be getting old, I can´t remember.

Did you want to cancel your getty contract? Did they offer to keep you after you contacted them?

4 months sounds reasonable, I thought it would be much longer, at least 6 months like many of the other agencies.

ETA: you´re right, originally we only had access to RF. When they stopped the program they divided us into house and PC contracts. I was lucky I got the house contract. Sorry about the confusion.

But without istock or Bruce I would never have gotten into Getty.

wut · « **Reply #146 on:** November 23, 2011, 13:52 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 23, 2011, 13:04

The house contract is a contract with gettyimages directly. Apparently the "Holy Grail" in stock photography that thousands of photographers the world over would love to have.

Thanks to Bruce, now many istockers are "in".

The program was stopped, because for many it was enough to work with the Vetta collection. All V/A files are duplicated on Getty.

But a house contract gives you acces to Getty RM division and many other collections.

It is not a license to print money, but my own results are very good, better than on istock. Others are disappointed and after trying it went back to uploading to istock.

It is an opportunity that other agencies cannot offer you. Unfortunately, if you give up your photo exclusivity with istock, you also lose the Getty contract.

It has no effect on your RC´s with istock. It is just an opportunity to build a second portfolio on Getty itself.

I'm just waiting for lagereek to come around and educate you about just what a shitey contract you're proud of

(he has stones, main core RM or whatever it is)

cobalt · « **Reply #147 on:** November 23, 2011, 13:54 »

No doubt he will!

And tell me about the good old days when he and his buddies had to drag their cameras through snow and mud, defend themselves against werewolves and dragons to get their pics delivered to stone in time...

Suljo · « **Reply #148 on:** November 23, 2011, 14:06 »

From bad to worse.
Now acceptance rate is set to 0.00%
Fckin idiots

Zephyr · « **Reply #149 on:** November 23, 2011, 14:15 »

I and many others appreciate your comments Jasmin. The more people know about Getty as well as the other agencies the better decisions we can all make. Unfortunately, the major downside to MSG is the anonymous high school kids who make stupid comments.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: REDEEMED CREDIT SYSTEM BROKEN (Read 30215 times)

Jo Ann Snover

fujiko

Artemis

CarlssonInc

lagereek

BaldricksTrousers

cobalt

ProArtwork

cobalt

lagereek

cobalt

ShadySue

ProArtwork

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

Sheridan

luissantos84

Karen

cobalt

jamirae

cobalt

wut

cobalt

Suljo

Zephyr

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors