Quote from: rubyroo on December 08, 2010, 08:11

Brilliant   Thanks Sue, I'll have a look at those.

Bottled water - yes, I remember thinking the same thing!

Ads - agree there too - I mostly use the Beeb, but I can't stop myself from recording re-runs of Frasier on Channel 4.  I've a soft spot for it 

Oh, I love Frasier - didn't know they were rerunning it.

Quote from: SNP on December 07, 2010, 22:25

I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to...

I don't have as large a portfolio as you do, but I work hard at producing high quality work. I became exclusive with a set of royalty schedules in place that made financial sense. Within weeks of making the 40% royalty rate I've been working towards I lose it because they've changed the rules.

I worked my effing butt off, made it, and had it taken away. I'm pi@#ed, demotivated and deeply, deeply distrustful of just about anything that HQ says.

 It was last December I was overjoyed that they grandfathered the next cannister level only to have them play weasel word games with that promise. They did keep the canister level, but they uncoupled the royalty rate that had always been tied to it (and which they knew no one would ever think would be uncoupled when contributors parsed the sentence promising grandfathering). The joy then makes the anger now even more profound.

The fact that there's some utter hogwash about earning back our trust in the September announcements and then KT goes into hiding around IS just pours fuel on the fire. Yes, he'd get yelled at if he came to the forums, but he just chickened out and abandoned contributors to lick their wounds.

We have recent evidence that just because they say something doesn't mean it'll still be true a short time later. That's not being conspiratorial, it's just being sentient given all the data in front of us.

The whole situation is just so ugly and grasping and greedy. And to think that when they said they were given the target of growing the business by 50% this year, I naively thought they'd actually grow the business, vs. grow their profits by squeezing contributors.

So I really don't appreciate comments about how you work your butt off and it'll all be all right. I did, and it isn't.

From SNP: I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to. my point is that contributors who mean to produce and improve and supply will reach their targets. if contributors on the whole don't meet targets, or just miss them....it seems they'll revisit the targets to the benefit of contributors.

Quote from: jsnover on December 07, 2010, 23:06

Quote from: SNP on December 07, 2010, 22:25

I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to...

I don't have as large a portfolio as you do, but I work hard at producing high quality work. I became exclusive with a set of royalty schedules in place that made financial sense. Within weeks of making the 40% royalty rate I've been working towards I lose it because they've changed the rules.

I worked my effing butt off, made it, and had it taken away. I'm pi@#ed, demotivated and deeply, deeply distrustful of just about anything that HQ says.

 It was last December I was overjoyed that they grandfathered the next cannister level only to have them play weasel word games with that promise. They did keep the canister level, but they uncoupled the royalty rate that had always been tied to it (and which they knew no one would ever think would be uncoupled when contributors parsed the sentence promising grandfathering). The joy then makes the anger now even more profound.

The fact that there's some utter hogwash about earning back our trust in the September announcements and then KT goes into hiding around IS just pours fuel on the fire. Yes, he'd get yelled at if he came to the forums, but he just chickened out and abandoned contributors to lick their wounds.

We have recent evidence that just because they say something doesn't mean it'll still be true a short time later. That's not being conspiratorial, it's just being sentient given all the data in front of us.

The whole situation is just so ugly and grasping and greedy. And to think that when they said they were given the target of growing the business by 50% this year, I naively thought they'd actually grow the business, vs. grow their profits by squeezing contributors.

So I really don't appreciate comments about how you work your butt off and it'll all be all right. I did, and it isn't.

As usual, +1 on jsnover's comments.

I don't appreciate the comment about "being serious about your business" either. Just because a person isn't an uploading factory doesn't mean they aren't serious about their business. The statement and the whole situation reminds me of that of a wife-abuser. He beats the crap out of her then tells her it's her fault because she shouldn't have said or done something. Getty/IS takes away our commissions, changes the goalposts, "borrows" EL money, breaks the search engine, breaks the reporting of sales, and then some people have the gall to say it's our fault because we didn't work hard enough or we're not good businesspeople.

I'd say you are precisely the type of diamond they want producing more. in close to 7 years, you have just 2,500 files. that's less than 40 uploaded per month over 6 years...to be conservative since you're not quite at 7 years. that is simply not enough to maintain sales or growth. in any business that growth per year would not be adequate in terms of supporting further growth.

...there are many higher canister levels who reached diamond--the second to highest canister level--simply by whittling away at it for a few years. that's okay, but why should they get the same income as a contributor producing hundreds of files per month, and therefore generating income with more downloads (assuming the quality is there).

Quote from: SNP on December 08, 2010, 10:42

my only point is that the new system fits contributors according to their rate of production, rather than a blanket level that doesn't differentiate between a contributor that uploads 1200/yr & one who uploads just 100 files per year. the levels are what they are and hopefully they are adjusted to be fair.

Nope, it has nothing to do with contributer's rate of production, but their rate of sales, which isn't necessarilty the same thing.
The figures aren't going to be adjusted to be 'fair', they're going to be adjusted to fit a bell chart which meets their desired profitability rate.
If they can make us all work like drones while our profitability goes down, they're laughing all the way to the bank.

...my only point is that the new system fits contributors according to their rate of production, rather than a blanket level that doesn't differentiate between a contributor that uploads 1200/yr & one who uploads just 100 files per year. the levels are what they are and hopefully they are adjusted to be fair.

Just the fact that istock has to give this RC boost during the Vetta sale seems to suggest that even fewer people are on pace to reach their RC goals than they previously expected. They need to get a bunch more people over the hump and they're going to try and do it with the sale. So come January they have more people at goal levels and they can sell the rest of us on the new rates and RC targets as being "sustainable."

Seinfeld here.