MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Risamay
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13
276
« on: September 29, 2010, 08:23 »
...Crowd is out, elite is in.
I might have agreed with this statement, except that I think iStock missed their chance to really go elite and corner the market. Late last year they had some of the elite independent artists (Andres being one of them) reconsidering exclusivity after the prices for exclusive files were increased while non-exclusive file prices did not see the same increase. iStock had the elite independents coming back to the table to give the crown another look, and then they lit the table on fire with this pay cut.
Just imagine what things might look like today if iStock had, at some point this year, raised exclusive rates 5% across the board. Or offered a Black Diamond rate of 45%. They could have even moved forward with the non-exclusive rate cut. Drop all independents down to 15%, and offer a pretty sweet exclusive deal with a rate increase. Maybe guys like Andres would be exclusive today. What if more top tier independents were enticed by the deal and were sold on a higher rate? Maybe Yuri would be exclusive, Ron, Lisa, etc. iStock might have been on the verge of major market dominance by just sweetening the deal a bit more. And we all know they could have done it and that 55-60% profit is sustainable.
Instead, any chance of the most sought-after independent talent ever becoming exclusive is gone, and some people are actually reverting from exclusive back to independent. Makes you wonder if the folks at HQ will ever be looking back on 2010 as the year that could have been.
GREAT points. Cas is right. They should have hired you as a consultant. They'd be untouchable in the market and it would be a veritable IS lovefest at the contributor level.
277
« on: September 28, 2010, 12:02 »
I want iStock to succeed long term too. In addition to liking it as a business partner (in the past), the recent GD survey confirmed their market leadership position.
Absolutely. I wish iStock only success. Though I, like many exclusives, am frustrated and disappointed by recent developments and changes, I would like nothing more than to be won back over and return to an exclusive contract at some point down the line - when/if I can be (more) sure that it is the most beneficial business move for me/my work. It is for that reason that I intend to leave my portfolio on iStock as I build up new ports with other agencies as a non-exclusive. That way, if something changes, I don't have to start from scratch again with IS. Although, at present, I do not intend to upload new work to IS. I want to focus on other agencies as my time for port-building is so limited at present. If my non-exclusive sales at a paltry 15% are notable, I will reconsider my decision not to load new work on IS. Really hoping the company pulls through and gets its act together. It would be a godsend to, again, work with just a single agent, exclusively.
278
« on: September 28, 2010, 11:55 »
Here's my thought on why they didn't wait. RC's are based on cost of the image. Each credit is an RC. If they raise the Vetta pricing now then they have a better chance of proving their point about the contributors making "1/2" of their credits in the last 3 months of the year. If they can prove they were right, and exclusives manage to get back to their canister percentages, then exclusives may choose to stick around after January rather than leave or drop the crown, which many are stating they have/will.
Hm. You have a strong point there, I think.
279
« on: September 28, 2010, 11:47 »
actually, people make new accounts here, not because of fear of iStock retribution--but because their fellow contributors are so abusive at times that they get tired of being bashed. Tyler needs to be more diligent about personal atatcks here. I'm not talking about disagreements or arguments or two way heated discussions. I'm talking about blatantly abusive comments telling people to suck c*cks etc. that stuff is offside, unprofessional and completely abusive.
If you're going to go to the trouble to create new accounts here because you don't like being bashed, you'll have to do more than simply don a different burka to escape the mob. As a writer/editor, I should think you'd be acutely more adept at the development and perfection of more than one voice  But do keep donning new burkas to say the same thing in the same tone/voice. It's endlessly entertaining. As were your recent posts on that iStock thread which you'd deemed dead, uninteresting, unproductive, etc. and called for it (numerous times) to be shut down. The one you were no longer looking in on or posting to? Funny thing, that. Because you were quite busy over yonder there last night - and today too, I see. How curious!
280
« on: September 27, 2010, 22:22 »
OMG - That commercial is hilarious. And spot on our present brouhaha
281
« on: September 27, 2010, 17:39 »
I'm just guessing, but I imagine he is getting paid very, very well to be the bad guy. Either that, or he is genuinely on board with them. But that really defies logic, IMO.
Interesting. He'd never taken the blame for unsavory changes before. Maybe he got a bonus/raise for this? Either way ... Disappointing.
282
« on: September 27, 2010, 17:33 »
I am not sure why I got a call. They had absolutely nothing to offer by way of softening the blow. I don't know how it was decided who got calls and who didn't. If it was an attempt to keep me quiet, it didn't work. But by the nature of the call and the sadness of the administrator, I concluded that these changes were not coming from the Istock team, but higher up and there was nothing they could do about them.
Totally bizarre. I don't know what to make of these calls. Nor do I understand, then, why Kelly took the blame for the changes, if, as you inferred from the sadness of the admin, they didn't come from iStock but higher up the chain.
283
« on: September 27, 2010, 17:28 »
I must say, I am curious as to what "the call" said. Or even what it could have said. Or why anyone would bother calling any submitter to tell them that the announcement was about to be made (that is NOT a negotiation by the way, a negotiation would be about changing the terms to keep you happy).
It makes no sense telling a few people in person about an announcement that everybody will see a few hours later.
Per Lisa's post, these calls don't make a whole lot of sense. Even as an outreach, damage-control effort, as there were no negotiations as part of the call. Nor the sharing of any new/in-depth explanation or information about the changes (outside of or in addition to what's been posted in the forums). And as Lisa got a call, that sinks my theory that only the pom-poms and air horns were contacted.
284
« on: September 27, 2010, 00:30 »
In a sense it doesn't matter one way or the other. As long as they continue to sell licenses - and this week has been very good - I'll do business with them. I don't have to like them or respect them to let them run the store that sells my image licenses.
True.
285
« on: September 27, 2010, 00:23 »
Word, jsnover.
I find it quite odd that so many who are/were so involved and active did not get calls. Yourself included.
Chalking it down as more fodder pointing to the cliquish nature of the way this company seems to run runs its business.
286
« on: September 27, 2010, 00:18 »
^^^ Yeah, how about stopping this bashing that you guys pollute this forum with (and in multiple threads)? I know this is an open arena, not a kindergarten, but, we almost always managed to self-moderate here, so...
Yes please. Let's! It's not about being cool (whatever that is), it's about being constructive. Clearly a challenge, but I think we're up to it
287
« on: September 26, 2010, 23:49 »
I'm a middle of the road contributor, so if they took the time to call me, that certainly doesn't indicate a lack of concern for the well-being of contributors, financially or otherwise, ven if the mandate is to push through an unwelcome change. spin that whatever way suits you best.
That/if such a large number of calls went out, as you suggest, then I'd classify them/the effort en masse damage control. Because clearly the change was going to be unwelcome. And while you may spin the calls as evidence of corporate concern of some kind, I think that's the Kool-Aid talking. It was/is a huge change that was not going to be a welcome one, so it's not rocket science to put calls out, as you suggest. It would be semi-standard/smart pre-announcement damage control, although ... when the news is going to be as bad as this news is/was, no amount of calls beforehand are/were likely to quell the ensuing storm. If you got a call, then, as you say, everyone above you must have got a call (though none of the folks I'm chummy with who are above you got calls, or not that they're admitting to, and they don't seem the types to keep that sort of info on lock from me, but who knows). And with the number of angry Black Diamonds and Diamonds on down that have posted (many who never post in the forums, let alone voice discontent there), "the calls" - it would seem - did little to no good.
288
« on: September 26, 2010, 22:48 »
FWIW, I seriously doubt Lobo is enjoying any of what's going on. I think the sarcasm and testiness are more likely to be a result of the strain he's under.
That's my sense/opinion, too. Rob Sylvan has been always a gentleman and a very fair person. He will do well wherever he goes, as he deserves.
+1
289
« on: September 26, 2010, 22:45 »
I think it is naive to believe that Istock did not open dialog with some of the very top producers before the announcements and I would not be surprise that communication is ongoing because of the conseqences to the bottom line should those contributors decide to leave. Not rocket science by any means.
On the contrary I think it is naive to assume that they did. Perhaps Lise G. was informed but then she's a fairly senior Admin anyway. Clearly the RC scales were carefully constructed to ensure that the top-selling exclusives would not be upset however those individuals are harnessed by their extraordinary incomes anyway. If your portfolio is earning several hundred thousand dollars per year, as many of them are, then you're unlikely to be going anywhere by choice.
you're wrong on this. I'm no Lise Gagne and I got a call warning me of the announcement. I'm not a top producer, just an active and fairly involved contributor.
You got an official call about the announcement, to warn you of it (in detail or just in generalities?) - prior to the announcement? I'll take you at your word and not call you a liar, though I find what you're claiming seriously difficult to believe.
290
« on: September 26, 2010, 22:39 »
koolaid isn't as bitter as whatever you're drinking....
Was that an example of a constructive comment, a productive post? I'm confused ... I think the 'other' thread on istock is the longest of its kind too. I don't know what is happening there. I haven't any real interest since it's the same discussion circling in there now, the whole situation seems a bit moot. we're moving forward, it's done and I don't know that much else will be said.
Funny how you look down on the posting that's still going on in the IS thread, say you have no interest in it since it's "the same discussion circling in there now ... moot" and yet, here you are going at it in here. Despite it being pretty much the same discussion circling in here now. We're moving forward. It's done. And yet we all, including you, seem to have plenty still to say  The pointless nature of both threads, at this point, being equal, the only difference seems to me to be that you post bark under protection of a burka here (though quite poorly or thinly veiled, I must say) and without a guise over on IS.
291
« on: September 26, 2010, 22:25 »
I don't want to pick on caspixel, but if I were to make a constructive comment.....she has truly been threatening to stop buying at iStock since I joined, which was four years ago. it was one of the very first things I noticed about her username in the forums.
so, to suggest that loop's comment was anything but correct just makes you look as biased as you clearly are. seriously tired of watching you attack people, it's completely unproductive.
ROFL  Talk about tiresome, biased, and completely unproductive comments/attacks! You're just like on IS, but on unmoderated steroids over here. Classic!
292
« on: September 24, 2010, 16:41 »
what does that mean to be "ignored"? they can't see anything you post or you just can't sitemail them?
OT: Congrats, Jami! Looks like you're "doing it right" as jsnover instructed - I see you've got two people ignoring you. I've still got you beat. I'm up to four! I like it that you can see everyone's stats. That hawk_eye has the highest I've seen so far with nine! Anyway. As you were.
293
« on: September 24, 2010, 15:58 »
I have as hard a time believing that Rob's departure is unrelated to the recent announcements as I do that anyone will acknowledge that that's the reason. [snip] iStock is the poorer for your departure. I hope they realize that. Any other organization that gets you is lucky indeed 
I wholeheartedly concur
294
« on: September 24, 2010, 15:52 »
^^^ Good post Sadstock (and welcome!). My sources tell me that several inspectors are leaving too. Lots going on behind the scenes at the moment.
My sources tell me that Rob will stay on as a contributor. As to whether this will be in an exclusive capacity or a non-exclusive capacity, I couldn't say. Because I don't know
295
« on: September 23, 2010, 17:03 »
I think all the posts that would get me ignored never made it past the "Post" button. I tend to read, respond, then re-read and think about it before I hit the "Post" button. I have abandoned many 'knee-jerk' snipey replies that way. 
Good on you for censoring editing your posts. I'm used to doing that on iStock (though it may not always seem like it), but only so that I can get the snipes in and past the taco. By which, of course, I mean the Lobo. Snipes are the spice of life. Even over at the U.N. (politicians are the snipey-est)
296
« on: September 23, 2010, 12:44 »
It is indeed a bit rowdy at times, but these forums have been enormously helpful in dealing with all sorts of issues when they come up. Although there is no Lobo riding shotgun, be aware (if you do start submitting to other sites) that there are one or two who will (and have) retaliated against contributors for things said in this forum. That's why there are a number of independents here who don't use their regular name so they don't face their account getting terminated if they speak out about things that need to be addressed.
Just try to stay out of the bar fights and you should be fine 
All good to know. Much appreciated! Thank you  ETA: I see from my profile that I've already been "ignored" by 1 member. How exciting!
297
« on: September 23, 2010, 12:37 »
Won't work. Its a waste of time. There's no such thing as unity. This is an everyone for themselves business with a side of community.
That it is.
298
« on: September 23, 2010, 12:31 »
I don't know who said it above, but I don't think any exclusive should be comfortable with dls numbers decreasing as long as income is increasing. I already said this once, but that is a fairly short-sighted, destructive way to manage your business. after 2008 when dl numbers fell for everyone pretty much, I started watching my numbers increase steadily. granted, money is increasing exponentially while dl number are creeping up slowly....but both are moving upward and that's what I want to see.
I agree - I am not comfortable with dls decreasing, even though income may be increasing. If iStock hadn't increased prices so significantly, this would not be the trend for many of us. Though, of course, as more images come online into any given collection, there is potential for one's dls to fall. I also agree with the person who posted that it seems like iStock is migrating (or being migrated) toward a leader in "midstock". I wish them the best of luck with that. But I think I'd have far more sales if it remained a leader in the microstock market. Even in periods when I've not been uploading consistently. That's my hunch, anyway. All I know is that the new model they're moving to does not inspire me to work more. If fact, it has the opposite effect. With goals that change from year to year and seem generally, vastly unattainable (if you want to move up the ladder), I don't see the point in knocking myself out as I'm guaranteed nothing for my efforts. I'm familiar with a few other iStockers ports that are small, but smashing. And even as they turn out new and wonderful work, their dls hardly tick up, and often continue to dwindle. So, just because one is producing consistently and of a high quality guarantees nothing. You could remain at your current commission level and never go up, or, go down. To me that seems like a lot of effort for random rewards. Which is why going un-exclusive and spreading my work around makes more sense. At least for me and my portfolio and type of work. And also, given that I have a day job that allows me little time to hamster-wheel for any agency.
299
« on: September 22, 2010, 13:06 »
to suggest that any one of us knows anything at all about the cost of doing business at iStock/Getty/H&F/SS/DT/FT etc.......is moot, because none of you know, I don't know. only those privy to that information know. we retain power insofar as we hire them to be our agent, or we don't. that's where your choices are. picketing, unions, co-ops....this isn't Norma Rae and we don't work in a canning factory or a meat plant circa 1929. don't contribute to iStock. there you go. to suggest that all other MS agencies will follow iStock's business model if you don't protest.....I don't see how anyone can say that with a straight face. it's such an absurd magnification. has anyone ever tallied how many of the dire predictions have been false? I would do that but I can't be bothered, because even if I did, someone would have a reason for it.
The precise cost of doing business is irrelevant. The general notion that running any of these businesses on 60% of sales, say, is sound. Why, pray tell, should it cost a penny more to operate? Or grow? iStockphoto is the world's longest-running profitable social network - http://www.web2expo.com/webexsf2010/public/schedule/detail/14511 - and even though the company has been in business for 10+ years now, it's still a relatively new kind of Big Business company/model. So how the business and its employees (we, the crowd) react to unsavory changes is still being formulated. There isn't a go-to tactic or model for crowdsourced companies, yet. Is the way folks have reacted the best way to get HQ/Getty/H&F to take notice and reconsider their actions? Maybe not. But who's to say? And while this isn't 1929, it's still worth fighting the good fight for what you/I/we believe is fair treatment. No matter the era, workers should be free to demand fair pay and treatment for their contributions to any given company. And artists of all ilks, historically, have been among the most poorly rewarded/valued for their work. So if you value your work and the time/effort that went into it, then the array of angry reactions is understandable. And because iStock is a leader (or has historically been so in microstock), it is not a stretch to imagine that any ground-breaking changes they make to the[ir] business will be adopted by the competition, if deemed successful for iStock. How is that not a logical concern or assumption?
300
« on: September 22, 2010, 12:50 »
Seems like the new model all but guarantees burnout. And unlike the old model, you can't really take a sabbatical or healthy inspiration-break and continue to reap top benefits from all the hard work you did (consistently or not) in years past. That's just bananas. Don't the kids at the top know/understand that quality creative work isn't really an on-demand, high volume, 24/7 kind of skill/talent? I would hazard that such a skill/talent is rare, indeed. And that when you push artists too far they break/down and/or their work suffers. Which isn't good for either the artists or the business of selling their work.
Actually, I'm thinking it will make less difference because the levels are so vast that it will be hard to make a change unless you're near one end of it. If you upload 0 files or 1000 files during the year, you will probably still be at the same level at the end of the year. Now, whether the level moves on you is another story.
Good point.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|