|
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 - caspixel
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41
926
« on: September 28, 2010, 20:47 »
I was trying to be nice. LOL. You are right. They choose to stay. iStockholm Syndrome, perhaps? 
Don't try and be nice __ they're not worth it. They're choosing to sell Istockphoto, it's values and all of us down the Swanee in pursuit of their own bonuses. All this misty-eyed faux 'concern' and 'ass-on the-line' nonsense is just that __ utter f*cking bollocks. Amazingly some poeple are actually falling for it.
Can I just say, I love your no BS forthright attitude.
927
« on: September 28, 2010, 20:34 »
Anyone remember iStock Pro?
928
« on: September 28, 2010, 20:30 »
For the record, I did not mean to impune the character of either RogerMexico or JJRD, but rather using them as a figurehead for the company at which they are employed (HF/Getty - the abusive spouse). I suppose they are as much a victim of them as the contributors. Sad, really. They are tied to the bed and the house is on fire.
I guess I disagree. Everyone has a choice, and these guys have chosen to stay. They maybe don't agree with what's happening, but they are happily taking the paycheck. I just don't see them as a "victim". More of a willing participant.
I was trying to be nice. LOL. You are right. They choose to stay. iStockholm Syndrome, perhaps?
929
« on: September 28, 2010, 19:36 »
For the record, I did not mean to impune the character of either RogerMexico or JJRD, but rather using them as a figurehead for the company at which they are employed (HF/Getty - the abusive spouse). I suppose they are as much a victim of them as the contributors. Sad, really. They are tied to the bed and the house is on fire.
930
« on: September 28, 2010, 16:17 »
So RogerMexico and JJRD have appeared to placate the masses, like the abusive husband who shows up with roses after beating the crap out of his wife. After just a few contrite phrases it appears that some of the battered contributors are ready to believe this won't happen again Mmm hmm. He said that the last time too....
931
« on: September 28, 2010, 09:24 »
I wish more buyers would use the other sites, then perhaps istock wouldn't be able to raise prices and cut commissions? They can only get away with this because they have so much power, being the biggest site. We hold all the cards though, all we have to do is take some positive action. I have stopped uploading, started deleting, removed any links I can find to istock and replaced them with other sites. Buyers have more control, they can really make a difference by buying images elsewhere. Its a shame people are picking on you here, we should all be working hard to change things for the better. I don't really care if you have been threatening to leave istock for years or not. I've threatened to leave a few times and done nothing but this time is different, they have really messed up lately and I can see it isn't going to be beneficial for me to work with them if they keep this up.
Agreed. This time it is different. The previous price increases, while annoying, didn't smack of blatant corporate greed. I can't stand how everytime a money grab happens at iStock, it's preceded by a glowing statement about how GREAT the company is doing and how much money they are making. And yet they still need more! But this time, their actions are beyond the pale. I've long thought, even while iStock was raising prices, that they should still give the photogs a bigger cut. And I think you will start to see more buyers migrate to other sites. I'm just small fries, but I am recommending the other sites now, not just because of the lower prices, but on principle. I hate seeing corporate America stealing from the little guy. We need to hit them where it hurts, it may be the only way they find their ethics again. Thank you sharpshot, Microbius and pdx for your support. @pdx: Once upon a time there were more vocal buyers, but they were chased away. And now, it seems, speak up too much and you will just flat out get banned.
932
« on: September 28, 2010, 09:08 »
This isn't a move to help people make up the difference. The vetta price increase came with a pretty severe cut in royalty percentage. In the end the exclusives only end up making *slightly* more than they would have under the old price/royalty. iStock rakes in the cash though.
They are probably no wear near the 50% increase in revenues that Kelly was tasked with at the beginning of the year. Hence this desperate Hail Mary pass.
933
« on: September 28, 2010, 01:19 »
Another iStock c*ck-up...What is this craziness with vectors now losing their Vetta icons while the pricing stays the same. Way to confuse the buyers even more.
This is certainly one of the more amazing corporate train wrecks to watch.
934
« on: September 28, 2010, 01:17 »
. again, not bothering, who cares
And yet, you still can't stop yourself.
935
« on: September 28, 2010, 00:54 »
I see the pom poms are back. LOL
no one wants to read stupid posts like this. you're not contributing anything but sophomoric comments to a legitimate discussion
Coming from the queen of sophomoric posts. And what makes you think anyone wants to read stupid posts like yours.
936
« on: September 28, 2010, 00:45 »
I see the pom poms are back. LOL
937
« on: September 27, 2010, 23:24 »
LOL. What's with the name change?
938
« on: September 27, 2010, 19:32 »
Haha. Maybe hitting a little too close to home. Seems iStock/Getty is a little sensitive these days. 
939
« on: September 27, 2010, 18:13 »
Jentakespictures asked a question over at iStock: "IMO Vetta needs to be explained more clearly in general. Does the average buyer even know what Vetta is?" and since I can't post there to answer it, I'll answer it here. And that answer would be "no". In fact, I was just talking to someone who I had recommended the site to pre-Vetta and she was commenting on how the prices were so expensive. "A small for 20 credits?!" I explained to her about Vetta and then told her about some of the other sites.
940
« on: September 27, 2010, 17:50 »
Jawdroppingly bad management. The saga never seems to end over there. And for PCC to be pissed, well, that says something.
941
« on: September 27, 2010, 13:20 »
Actually kind of interesting to go back and read that old thread and see that some of the predictions have come true. And also depressing. The economy has been in the sh*tter for a long time. 
942
« on: September 27, 2010, 13:04 »
I posted elsewhere that I did get a call the morning the announcement was made. I am not saying that to blow my own horn, BTW, just to clarify that these mythical calls DID go out to some contributors. I don't know who else got them, just that I did. I assumed they were calling all BD's but apparently they called other canisters as well.
It was't pre-emptive, BTW, it was after the forum announcement was made. The admin who called me was one who had established a relationship with me when I needed help with other issues. She asked if I had seen the forum thread about changes at Istock. I hadn't. She did not clarify what the changes were, but sounded so solemn and serious I was sure the changes were bad. She told me that if I had any questions after I had read it I should give her a call and she would answer any questions I had.
Of course I went right to the forums and checked on the news. Devastating news! I called her back and asked for clarification, like was there wiggle room. Could we expect some flexibility or negotiation? No. Was I going to drop from my current 20%? She told me where to find my current RC tally, and yes, I am going to drop.
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.
943
« on: September 27, 2010, 12:56 »
Here's one of your posts end of 2007 where you said you will start looking elsewhere. See the third post from the top. You may not have said you'll stop buying at iStock, but you sure have made it clear that you were planning to look elsewhere.
I think some of us are just tired of your posts over time how much you dislike where iStock is going (away from "the designer's dirty little secret") and that there are so many other places where you can buy good photos. Just do what you feel is right for you and be done with it.
ONE post in four years (and ONLY stating that I'd be looking for high res elsewhere) certainly is a lot different than claiming it's been an endless litany of threats to leave. It's certainly not much different than views many other people have expressed, but apparently I get to be the whipping boy for everybody. What I find interesting is how buyers were just supposed to take the price increases, shut up and sit down. But I knew there would (inevitably) be a huge uproar when Getty finally started reducing the contributors cut. It was bound to happen. What can I say...first they came for the buyers...
944
« on: September 27, 2010, 09:03 »
You don't remember well.
I remember
You're memory is faulty too. See my post from up above where I pulled MY OWN posts from price increase threads. I don't deny speaking out against price increases, but loop's, Hawk Eye's (and now your) characterization that I have been threatening to stop buying at iStock for four years is a flat out lie. she has truly been threatening to stop buying at iStock since I joined, which was four years ago.
I have definitely noticed this, I think she was particularly vocal when the Logo program was first discussed.
Also not only flat out wrong, but another lie. I couldn't care less out about the logo program. Have fun looking through 1954 posts for all 14 of my posts which will prove you 100% WRONG. And since you can't prove your claim, you should... (see below) shut the f*ck up too Seems to me you guys have a real memory problem or something. Must be another side effect of the iStock Kool-Aid. (BTW, I'd rather be angry than a liar.)
945
« on: September 27, 2010, 00:42 »
who cares about such baloney anyways?
Clearly you do or you would never have mentioned it.
I didn't mention it. I responded to JoAnn's concern that perhaps she hadn't made THE list.
 You are the one who first posted about "the call" in the first place, obviously as a show of importance. I don't think you are fooling anyone here.
946
« on: September 27, 2010, 00:35 »
Watch it, yer getting close there to infringing on a future Apple trademark 
LOL
947
« on: September 27, 2010, 00:33 »
who cares about such baloney anyways?
Clearly you do or you would never have mentioned it.
948
« on: September 26, 2010, 23:57 »
Correction, "corporate iC*ck".
949
« on: September 26, 2010, 23:54 »
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. With the way hawk_eye lied about me threatening to stop buying at iStock since she joined, I'm disinclined to believe this claim of "a call".
950
« on: September 26, 2010, 22:50 »
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.
While he may not be enjoying all of it, I think there are parts of it that he has. My intuition tells me there are some people he took special delight in banning. Rob most certainly will be missed, though. At least I get to see him on Facebook. He was always nice to me, even when spanking me for being naughty in the political threads. Wait. That didn't sound right.
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
