Author Topic: You're the new Managing Director at iStock... (Read 17244 times)

gclk · « **on:** August 05, 2011, 08:13 »

...what would your priorities be?

You're moving to Calgary. Taking account of iStock's current position in the marketplace, and its context within the Getty group of companies, what changes would you put into action immediately, and what would your longer term aims and priorities be? And why?

lisafx · « **Reply #1 on:** August 05, 2011, 08:33 »

Quote from: gclk on August 05, 2011, 08:13

...what would your priorities be?

Regaining the trust of contributors and trying to recover as many of the lost buyers as I could. Also making sure that the site functions 24/7, so as to retain the ones I have.

Slovenian · « **Reply #2 on:** August 05, 2011, 08:57 »

I'd split RC levels in half in become a loved dictator

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #3 on:** August 05, 2011, 09:02 »

I'm afraid they went too far to regain contributors' and buyers' trust

I'd sell domain for $10 on ebay and start anew with a different name and site - not before publicly apologising for what happened in the last year or so

e.g., crestock's new management tried to apoligise, but since nothing actually changed the site is almost as bad as it used to be - so they need to do something drastic

gclk · « **Reply #4 on:** August 05, 2011, 09:21 »

Quote from: Slovenian on August 05, 2011, 08:57

I'd split RC levels in half in become a loved dictator

Haha, good plan

One of my immediate goals would be to get rid of the appearance of nepotism, which - whether the 'old boys club' accusations are true or not - has damaged the credibility of the site.

I'd look to address issues around the fact that admins and inspectors control what content makes it into the site, but also often have significant portfolios themselves. The result can be that it often looks as though these people are able to submit an image, and make the decision that it should go directly into the Vetta/Agency collection. This happens very quickly, while a 'normal' contributor would perhaps wait a fortnight before seeing an equivalent image going into the main collection.

It wouldn't make any sense to ban employees/inspectors from being contributors, just treat them like any other 'normal' contributors by making the files in the inspection queue anonymous to make everybody's work stand on its own merit. Buyers don't care if content was produced by a senior member of the content team or whatever. They just want the best content.

To start regaining credibility from buyers and artists, I would make it clear that a fresh start is happening at the company, based on a more open and respectful approach. Without directly saying that major mistakes have been made in the recent past, I'd make it clear that there will be positive changes in the future, based on real consultation and collaboration with buyers and artists.

I see this as a real opportunity to reverse the negativity that has massively damaged the iStock brand since last September. The changes were supposedly meant to address sustainability problems but they may well have done the exact opposite.

I'd see it as a chance to clean up problems within the company which have been badly needing a fresh look for far too long.

If Rebecca shows a genuine interest in involving everyone in changing iStock's future for the better, this could and should be a positive turning point for iStock.

Freedom · « **Reply #5 on:** August 05, 2011, 09:32 »

I agree that the priority should be to faciliate sales and repair its damaged relationship with the majority of contributors, be fair to all.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 05, 2011, 09:34 »

don´t have much to say but I can tell you that I take care of the people, family, friends and "other" who seem friendly and respect me

does she know any of you guys? it will be easy to screw us again without any conscience problem, what a better person to follow Getty desires? maybe she isn´t going to do any bad but that was the first thing that run into my head

stockastic · « **Reply #7 on:** August 05, 2011, 10:14 »

You're the new guy at IS, and your job is to do exactly what the Getty people want: come up with even more ways to jerk the system around and pump up short-term profits.

Freedom · « **Reply #8 on:** August 05, 2011, 10:16 »

Does anyone know Rebecca Rockafellar's background other than what Kelly said? If you google her name, nothing shows up.

Zephyr · « **Reply #9 on:** August 05, 2011, 10:24 »

Quote from: Freedom on August 05, 2011, 10:16

Does anyone know Rebecca Rockafellar's background other than what Kelly said? If you google her name, nothing shows up.

She's on this page:

http://company.gettyimages.com/section_display.cfm?section_id=245&isource=corporate_website_officers#RR

VB inc · « **Reply #10 on:** August 05, 2011, 10:49 »

STAGE 1... id put up a marketing blitz admitting the previous management was a greedy pig who steered us off course and im the right person to steer us back. Instant 25% off credit packages from previous buyers that is coming out of istocks pocket and not the contributors. Contributors get an extra 10% on their royalties for the next 90 days.

STAGE 2... secretly hire hackers and hack SS and the other top 3 sites and cause mayhem

lagereek · « **Reply #11 on:** August 05, 2011, 11:04 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 05, 2011, 08:33

Quote from: gclk on August 05, 2011, 08:13
...what would your priorities be?

Regaining the trust of contributors and trying to recover as many of the lost buyers as I could. Also making sure that the site functions 24/7, so as to retain the ones I have.

I sanction that! me too and if exclusivity was a policy, the perks would NOT be a favourable best match, but more percentage.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #12 on:** August 05, 2011, 11:09 »

I think it depends on whether her mission is to grow IS or manage it as a cash cow - i.e. not invest in it but try to squeeze whatever remaining cash she can.

As H&F are still at the helm and in spite of their $500M payout to themselves last fall they probably want to sell as soon as they can, I'm assuming no investment is coming beyond what's needed to keep the site running.

If cash cow's the goal, I'd remove any opt-in or opt out for contributors and would move content to other Getty properties to see what additional cash could be wrung from it. I'd make soothing speeches in the IS forums about how this was in contributors' best interests. I'd leave the exclusive program in place, but I'd announce more changes that would cut the number of people who make more than 20% as much as possible.

If investment were the goal, they need to get some real software expertise (perhaps via consulting vs. hiring people) and fix the site. They need some aggressive marketing to buyers with some programs to try and get them buying (perhaps something like a Starbucks card where they get something free for every so many they buy; and IS pays for that freebie, not contributors). If buyers come back and the site works, contributors will be more likely to hang around. I think they need to dump the RC system or revise it massively. At a minimum they need to remove the split between content types that crushed multi-media artists and give credit for sales wherever they occur (Thinkstock etc). All money brought in to Getty should receive RC credit if that's the way they want to measure contributor success. All special discounts to buyers below 95 cents a credit should come out of IS's hide, not contributors'. There's probably a ton more, but I don't expect them to go this route...

lagereek · « **Reply #13 on:** August 05, 2011, 11:13 »

Quote from: jsnover on August 05, 2011, 11:09

I think it depends on whether her mission is to grow IS or manage it as a cash cow - i.e. not invest in it but try to squeeze whatever remaining cash she can.

As H&F are still at the helm and in spite of their $500M payout to themselves last fall they probably want to sell as soon as they can, I'm assuming no investment is coming beyond what's needed to keep the site running.

If cash cow's the goal, I'd remove any opt-in or opt out for contributors and would move content to other Getty properties to see what additional cash could be wrung from it. I'd make soothing speeches in the IS forums about how this was in contributors' best interests. I'd leave the exclusive program in place, but I'd announce more changes that would cut the number of people who make more than 20% as much as possible.

If investment were the goal, they need to get some real software expertise (perhaps via consulting vs. hiring people) and fix the site. They need some aggressive marketing to buyers with some programs to try and get them buying (perhaps something like a Starbucks card where they get something free for every so many they buy; and IS pays for that freebie, not contributors). If buyers come back and the site works, contributors will be more likely to hang around. I think they need to dump the RC system or revise it massively. At a minimum they need to remove the split between content types that crushed multi-media artists and give credit for sales wherever they occur (Thinkstock etc). All money brought in to Getty should receive RC credit if that's the way they want to measure contributor success. All special discounts to buyers below 95 cents a credit should come out of IS's hide, not contributors'. There's probably a ton more, but I don't expect them to go this route...

Nice post! but would Getty allow her to run IS, as anything but a cash-cow? doubt it. Poor Rebecca will be just a fly in the ointment, expected to be even more of a yes-woman then KK, was a yes-man.
I would like to see Becky as a Margaret Thatcher, Iron lady. Yes thats it. They wouldnt mess with that.

Freedom · « **Reply #14 on:** August 05, 2011, 11:24 »

For her own sake, she has to demonstrate her ability to make money for Getty quickly and successfully. Short-term monetary success for Getty is more relevant to her own career than contributors' interest.

Since she was not a part of the old iStock, it is hard to tell if it is a bless or curse.

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #15 on:** August 05, 2011, 11:25 »

rubyroo · « **Reply #16 on:** August 05, 2011, 11:40 »

Ban the term wooyay.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #17 on:** August 05, 2011, 11:40 »

Quote from: pseudonymous on August 05, 2011, 11:25

I put a lot of thought into this.

The first thing I would do would be to increase commissions back to 20%. Then I would turn it into a communist regime and pool everyone's portfolios into one giant port and divvy the royalties evenly among all the contributors... just to stick it up all exclusives who have been gloating during a time when all the poor independents had their souls crushed.

Who's been gloating?

lagereek · « **Reply #18 on:** August 05, 2011, 11:49 »

Crushed? I wouldnt go as far as to say that. Im still earning much more out of IS, then their average little exclusive geezer. I dont think for one minute that any die-hard, diamond exclusive is kidding himself, thinking he is imune against coming crazy policies, its the rookies, the grunts who place themselves above, they havent experienced hell, yet.

Slovenian · « **Reply #19 on:** August 05, 2011, 11:51 »

Quote from: pseudonymous on August 05, 2011, 11:25

I put a lot of thought into this.

The first thing I would do would be to increase commissions back to 20%. Then I would turn it into a communist regime and pool everyone's portfolios into one giant port and divvy the royalties evenly among all the contributors... just to stick it up all exclusives who have been gloating during a time when all the poor independents had their souls crushed.

Communism would be great, but OTOH, current exclusives would start submitting to other sites, which means much more competition for us and lower payments at sites that earn us (way) more (SS in my case)

VB inc · « **Reply #20 on:** August 05, 2011, 11:54 »

seriously... can u independent scrubs stop on hating against exclusives? yes i consider u a scrub if you feel hostility to others just for the fact that they are exclusive.

Difydave · « **Reply #21 on:** August 05, 2011, 12:02 »

Quote from: jsnover on August 05, 2011, 11:09

I think it depends on whether her mission is to grow IS or manage it as a cash cow - i.e. not invest in it but try to squeeze whatever remaining cash she can.

As H&F are still at the helm and in spite of their $500M payout to themselves last fall they probably want to sell as soon as they can, I'm assuming no investment is coming beyond what's needed to keep the site running.

If cash cow's the goal, I'd remove any opt-in or opt out for contributors and would move content to other Getty properties to see what additional cash could be wrung from it. I'd make soothing speeches in the IS forums about how this was in contributors' best interests. I'd leave the exclusive program in place, but I'd announce more changes that would cut the number of people who make more than 20% as much as possible.

If investment were the goal, they need to get some real software expertise (perhaps via consulting vs. hiring people) and fix the site. They need some aggressive marketing to buyers with some programs to try and get them buying (perhaps something like a Starbucks card where they get something free for every so many they buy; and IS pays for that freebie, not contributors). If buyers come back and the site works, contributors will be more likely to hang around. I think they need to dump the RC system or revise it massively. At a minimum they need to remove the split between content types that crushed multi-media artists and give credit for sales wherever they occur (Thinkstock etc). All money brought in to Getty should receive RC credit if that's the way they want to measure contributor success. All special discounts to buyers below 95 cents a credit should come out of IS's hide, not contributors'. There's probably a ton more, but I don't expect them to go this route...

Good post. I'm cynical enough to think that cash cow is the goal. I've been wondering if and when the cut in the people who make over 20% will come for nearly 12 months now. Listening to some of the wooyays, and some of the "Money doesn't matter to me / I'm not in it for the money" posts I wonder if they couldn't get away with just cutting the exclusive royalty rate, and still have a lot of people say how wonderful it is. Whatever actually happens I'll be very surprised if there is anything that benefits contributors coming in the near future.

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #22 on:** August 05, 2011, 12:13 »

gostwyck · « **Reply #23 on:** August 05, 2011, 12:23 »

Quote from: jsnover on August 05, 2011, 11:09

I think it depends on whether her mission is to grow IS or manage it as a cash cow - i.e. not invest in it but try to squeeze whatever remaining cash she can.

Exactly __ and that's what is most worrying. My guess is the Rebecca will come breezing in without truly understanding the causes of IS's demise (which of course was operating it for short-term profit). If she simply tries to do more of the same then it is inevitable that she'll just make the problem even worse.

I think the situation at Istock is salvageable but I think to move forward they'd actually have to start with several painful steps backwards. They've got to go back to where they came from, i.e. providing excellent imagery at affordable prices. The practice of filling the top slots of the best match with Vetta/Agency for example was sheer lunacy and bound to alienate a sizable chunk of their clientele. They were able to get away with their arrogance and the frequent site downtime only for as long as the customers were grateful for the service existing.

Istock need to regain the confidence of their contributors too. The quickest way to do that (possibly the only way) would be to abandon the absurd RC system and return to the original commission structure. The RC system is far too complex and everytime they publish or 'revise' the targets it re-opens old wounds. The notion that the original system was 'unsustainable' was always absurd. Being too f**king greedy is unsustainable. Successful long-term business requires a win-win situation for all parties.

They could help themselves enormously by introducing a proper subscription service and taking on SS at their own game. TS is rubbish and undoubtedly has been a gift rather than a hindrance to SS's ambitions. I wouldn't mind betting that a sizeable chunk of those big-spending customers the Getty salesmen tried to convert to subscriptions ended up buying from SS instead.

grp_photo · « **Reply #24 on:** August 05, 2011, 12:27 »

I would make the upload process very easy and I would increase the amount of files to upload.
I would decrease the royalties of non-exclusives to 10-15% depending on performance also I would mirror all non-exclusive stuff at Thinkstock and Photos.com.
I would reduce the percentage for all Vetta- and TAC-files to Getty's standard of 20%.
I would close the forums and would make a blog instead.
Also I would be very happy with my profitsharing at the end of the year :-).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: You're the new Managing Director at iStock... (Read 17244 times)

gclk

lisafx

Slovenian

microstockphoto.co.uk

gclk

Freedom

luissantos84

stockastic

Freedom

Zephyr

VB inc

lagereek

Jo Ann Snover

lagereek

Freedom

TheSmilingAssassin

rubyroo

traveler1116

lagereek

Slovenian

VB inc

Difydave

TheSmilingAssassin

gostwyck

grp_photo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors