Good luck JoAnn. Am on the fence myself.

Quote from: sjlocke on March 18, 2011, 14:01

Quote from: caspixel on March 18, 2011, 13:33
Did anyone expect a different result? Of course iStock would say they are doing everything they could and that the clawbacks were justified.

They did not say "We are doing everything we can".  They gave several concrete actions and the reasons behind those actions, both reactive and pro-active.  There was no justification given for the withdrawal action, and I think it would have been good apologetic PR to let us keep the money, but there you go.  That was just a business decision, and I'm glad to see that in the short term, going forward, there will be no more withdrawals.

I for one hope you don't have to eat your words on the clawbacks Sean. But from the past trackrecord, for gods sake don't hold your breath.

Well they send an e-mail asking for donations. Fully understandable.
But in the same e-mail they say they are matching all donations up $25,000. Now I can read into that, that each and every donation up to $25,000 they will match. This is the problem with the place. Those undefined and un-clarified types of statements can hang their asses.

Quote from: helix7 on March 18, 2011, 00:06

Quote from: Justme on March 17, 2011, 23:51
You have to admit Sean. people dont act they have a brain to think with anymore...

Anymore? It's not a new phenomenon. Just the usual "woo yay" stuff going on again.

Call me a cynic, skeptic, all around negative nelly, whatever, but I'd bet considerably more money than I lost today that we see another mass fraud and deduction this year. I can appreciate that istock is taking steps to seal the leaks in their security, but I'm less than convinced that it will help as much as they're suggesting it will. We're talking about the same company that doesn't have the IT capabilities to fix even the most basic site bugs. Do they really have a staff of security experts capable of stopping this from happening again?

And if/when another theft takes place, let's keep in mind that little gem of info that was divulged in today's conference call about how they're only guaranteeing there will be no fraud deductions while the new security measures are being put into place. After that, the door is wide open for more deductions if istock is the victim of more fraud.

If you read the response from those who attended the meeting. No where did it say they were not going to take from our accounts again. If you can find a definitive statement saying that, please copy it for me. At no time as I read all the responses did I see that promise/statement made by any official at iStock, or for that case any of those who attended.

Quote from: sjlocke on March 17, 2011, 23:38
"Classic iStockholm syndrome"

Lol, classic caspixel...

You have to admit Sean. people dont act they have a brain to think with anymore. And when they speak up they get either deleted by Lobo or my new best friend Oh Kelvin AlMighty.

I would have no issues in stating to you  "classic Sean". wink wink... MA

Looks as if the meeting was as expected. IGetty states they are working on it, but no promises. No real surprises.

Quote from: cobalt on March 17, 2011, 14:43
@Curt

my sympathies. But most forum bans are temporary, they are more of a time out to take a step back and refocus. The world is bigger than istock :-)

Also keep in mind that the istock forums are very diverse and not everyone has the same type of humour. Some artists are extremely sensitive and read "critical" language as strong insults, not just on istock, but on themselves. They will then complain to the moderators. Other contributors, especially those with poorer English language skills, will just avoid the forums alltogether if they see "all that emotion". And it is not just the exclusives that withdraw. I live in Germany so the very direct "in your face talk" suits me fine, but people from other countries or cultures react differently.

Moderators have to find a balance to allow as many people as possible to take part in the forums. Plus it´s a company forum, not a free for all student board.

FWIW, I hope you have fun here in the meantime and can get in touch with Lobo, when the time is right.

My Ban was needed Cobalt. I said what I had to say. If they want to listen thats their prerogative.  It was Lobo who canned me not JJRD.  I don't think I will ever again have the need to speak to them. But time will tell. One thing for sure, there will be no apologies in any form or fashion from my end if thats what they are looking for. Any who !!!    Thanks !

Quote from: caspixel on March 17, 2011, 02:53

Quote from: Justme on March 17, 2011, 02:39

Quote from: caspixel on March 16, 2011, 22:40

Quote from: Susan S. on March 16, 2011, 21:52

I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.

Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo  that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.

Curt Pickens seems to get away with a lot too. He's said way worse stuff than I ever did and he still has his posting privileges. And when he was threatening to leave exclusivity, Lobo even contacted him directly and talked him down. It is interesting to see how far some people can push it (and how some people get special treatment as well). BTW, Susan, I am glad you can still post. You crack me up.

Cas, no worries. Lobo did not contact me directly. I contacted him. We had a discussion and Lobo being Lobo calmed me down. I relented. Tried being a good boy. But he didn't give me any preferential treatment in any way shape or form. I hope he is still there honestly. I do think he has left. Just wanted to set that part of the story straight.  Best of luck to you.
Curt

LOL. Lobo has a very different effect on you than on me! Our last sitemail exchange was anything but calm. Well, I'm sorry they banned you, because you did speak the truth, and they can't handle the truth! It's just a shame so many good people are getting hurt because of their corporate dishonesty.

I don't know why he and I hit if off. But years ago he called me to chew my ass, and it turned into a very pleasant conversation. Go figure !
I was wondering what happened to you folks. Got out while the getting was good eh !!

Quote from: OhGoAway! on March 17, 2011, 02:35

Quote from: Justme on March 17, 2011, 02:23
Yep they Banned Curt Pickens. Yep thats me !! Oh well. Sometimes the truth hurts. I need a break from that caompany anyhow. Now to do more research on other sites.

So, you're Curt? If so I was enjoying your posts . . .

Well I'm glad you enjoyed them.   I never was one to hold my tongue. And see where it got me !!!  Actually feels like a ton lifted from my back.

Quote from: caspixel on March 16, 2011, 22:40

Quote from: Susan S. on March 16, 2011, 21:52

I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.

Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo  that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.

Curt Pickens seems to get away with a lot too. He's said way worse stuff than I ever did and he still has his posting privileges. And when he was threatening to leave exclusivity, Lobo even contacted him directly and talked him down. It is interesting to see how far some people can push it (and how some people get special treatment as well). BTW, Susan, I am glad you can still post. You crack me up.

Cas, no worries. Lobo did not contact me directly. I contacted him. We had a discussion and Lobo being Lobo calmed me down. I relented. Tried being a good boy. But he didn't give me any preferential treatment in any way shape or form. I hope he is still there honestly. I do think he has left. Just wanted to set that part of the story straight.  Best of luck to you.
Curt

More or less told them (Getty Employees)  they are full of BS. Not transparent. All talked the company line. And hope their conscious would eat their hearts out.  Nothing to bad really !!   Anyway JJRD banned me. Maybe best. I was getting way to attached to the crap they fed people and, I never was one to hold my tongue. And never will be. So, off to my next venture.

Yep they banned Me. Oh well. Sometimes the truth hurts. Time for a break and off to find other avenues.
Yes it's me .

Curt Pickens.

Yep they Banned Curt Pickens. Yep thats me !! Oh well. Sometimes the truth hurts. I need a break from that caompany anyhow. Now to do more research on other sites.

Yes be very careful about using sitemail on these sites. The admins have access to them.

So it looks like there has been a preliminary announcement " ass chewing " of iStocks contributors. And they are asking everyone to remove their Opt Out AVI's.  Must be having an effect. I think I will keep my AVI !

Quote from: gostwyck on May 06, 2009, 22:03

Quote from: jsnover on May 06, 2009, 20:53
It's a real shame that some at IS will give this scheme the benefit of the doubt, because the only power we have is to withhold the content from  the Jupiter sites. Getty doesn't care if anyone's upset, but they would take notice if they had no new content to provide to their subscription properties.

That's not true __ you have far more powers than that if you choose to use them. You can suspend new uploads (which has proved very effective elsewhere), you can drop the crown (which takes a month to take effect anyway), etc, etc.

To be honest I've never understood the attraction of exclusivity. In the normal world higher risk should be in pursuit of higher reward but you guys earn significantly less for taking the risk, you put your livelihoods at the whim of a single distributor and then suffer all the instability that comes with it. Then you complain when it all goes wrong. Why?

Can you make an average of $3 on each download where your at ? Can you explain to me your ROI of each image ? If you haven't been there then it's really a mute point. I myself have been on both sides of the fence. And without any doubt I make much more there, being exclusive, than I did in 5 other sites combined. So to each thier own.

Quote from: jsnover on May 06, 2009, 20:53

Quote from: tan510jomast on May 06, 2009, 18:40

Quote from: lisafx on May 06, 2009, 18:35
The idea that this is all speculation sounds reasonable.  For istock exclusives it may be true. 

But for those of us who have been through the same situation with Stockxpert as it was taken over my Getty, this is not speculation.  It is a very familiar scenario indeed.

Only difference is that the deal being offered istock exclusives is considerably worse than the one offered StockXpert contributors.  I think they are assuming that the loyalty of istock exclusives to the company and their inexperience with the rest of the industry will cause them to take a deal that is very much against their self interests. 

From some of the comments in this thread and the one on istock they may be right.

it's probably more conditioning than anything else, lisafx. if you've been exclusive for so long, it must be hell trying to unravel a global mentality. it will take time for that, which again I think Getty is betting on this cooling down period to their advantage.
just my tuppence thought.

Not all the exclusives have been so a long time - me for example. I was in the conference call with the Jupiter folks trying to improve the horrible proposals they had for StockXpert - and a number of prior dust-ups with sites trying to impose new terms that were not in contributors' best interests. I have kept roughly abreast of what's been going on at the various sites in the last year as like it or not, there are some things that affect all of us as a group.

Even earlier I've been around software companies that were acquired and I've seen a number of these stories unfold. It's this collection of experiences that informs my best guesses about what is likely to happen. Clearly we don't know what will happen, but waiting until the stuff hits the fan instead of trying to alter the course of events where we can just makes no sense to me.

It's a real shame that some at IS will give this scheme the benefit of the doubt, because the only power we have is to withhold the content from  the Jupiter sites. Getty doesn't care if anyone's upset, but they would take notice if they had no new content to provide to their subscription properties. Once the dribble of stuff starts because some people believe that something is better than nothing, it'll be very very hard to stop the momentum.

I agree. But regardless of how many of us there are, there will always be more who are afraid to go against the grain. And settle for nothing. Particularly those who do not understand the business.

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 06, 2009, 20:17

at least I'm not hiding behind an anonymous username.

You may want to think about it. You may be better off if you were.

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 06, 2009, 19:26
^ Lisa, you know you are one of these people whose advice I always trust and take to heart. I am listening to everything you, Jo Ann and Sean are saying (and a couple of others). I already said that if the collective is large enough and its motives based on sound numbers, I will opt out with the collective. but I'm not making a decision based on the opinions of a handful of upset contributors and so far it has not grown into anything larger.

gostwyck, if you're accusing me of being arrogant, you're definitely the pot calling the kettle black. you don't have to drag this down to a personal level all the time. I agree that in a forum I sound direct in the way that I write, tone is often misconstrued, but I'm not an egomaniac in real life, just someone who cares about my work and who has seen office politics spin non-issues into major issues based on rumour. I don't want to be a part of that.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I'm saying nothing on either side has convinced me that this is either something to worry about or nothing to worry about. is it really that offensive for someone to wait and see what happens?

Both here and iStock you sound like a split personality. One time you post one thing and in the next minute your contradicting even your own post. I think if you had any sense of how you sounded you would be quite embarrassed. You have every right to express an opinion. No one argues that. But at least have it one way or the other. Stop being so wishy washy. Who are you try to appease ? I think the damage has already been done. Now just stick to your guns.

The silence there is deafening . The place is like a morgue today.

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 06, 2009, 17:53
I am not taking a stand based on nothing but speculation. ironically, it was the devolution of that thread yesterday that made me question the wisdom of this movement. this is an individual choice. I'm not trying to convince anyone either way. everyone can do what they like. bet there are a bunch of traditional stock photographers who wish they had gotten in on the ground floor of microstock.

my main concern is the far lesser quality of work available on photos.com. I am asking questions directly instead of relying on speculation because there is nothing informative in the forum.

Because you refuse to listen to those who have been through it before. Why on earth do you think this will play out any different than the JUI Photo.com fiasco ?

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 06, 2009, 17:28
I have to be devil's advocate here again. the logic for the reaction to this plan still escapes me. (that is not an invitation for anyone to convince me, I have read all the points made in these threads. repeating those points louder and louder doesn't make them anymore factual for me.)

I believe the truth is far more innocuous than the scenario you have all created with the speculation and surmising. I believe this was simply a marketing initiative and that they are probably in Calgary wondering what the big deal is.

iStock is doing very well in the market in terms of sales and revenue. we now have the best search in microstock. I also don't think that many of the contributors being led by this mini-revolution really understand that the acquisition of Getty in 2008 by Hellman and Friedman is actually a very positive sign. Private equity firms buy companies like Getty in their prime. The only purpose of an acquisition like that is to continue the exponential growth of a company with momentum. Hellman and Friedman is not in the stock photo business. These types of companies don't manage the operations of the firms they acquire. That isn't how it works. Getty is in charge, they have not absorbed iStock's administration into their operations. I don't believe they will. it would be a stupid move and I'm certain they know that.

Big companies have a bottom line to maintain. We are the engine at iStock and we ultimately own the copyright to our work. So nothing is being hijacked here, and the market is by no means dwindling.

I believe this whole thing has been made into a monster when in reality is is just a marketing initiative in order to sell latent files. if you look at contributor charts....there are not that many opt out avatars. that tells me something.

though I do appreciate the advice of a couple of respected veterans (and that advice is what is keeping me on the fence), I also think this reaction has taken on a life of its own. people love to get their knickers in a twist. they smell excitement, but I don't see any solid evidence for this reaction.

I will do what I think is best. right now I am opting out, but only until I see some questions answered that I most concerned with about photos.com and JI.

Just want to keep this one for an I told you so when the sh** hits the fan.

Quote from: MichaelJay on May 06, 2009, 16:08

Quote from: CraigSwatton on May 06, 2009, 15:52
You've hit the nail on the head. Why would a buyer pay $200-$400 for "exclusive" images at istock when they can get those not so exclusive after all files for $100-$200? Just to make things worse, the up to 40% commission on the $200-$400 is being replaced by 22.5% on the $100-$200. Good for buyers, good for the "Getty Family" but terrible for istock and its contributors, especially the exclusives.

Both are valid questions and should and can be asked.

My personal assumption to question 1 would be:
1) Most customers will need much less than 50 images a month, they will need 1, 2 or 5. For them paying $100 a month is not an option.
2) Many customers don't care if one image costs $1, $5 or $20. It's still much less than they had to pay in the past. But they want access to the best library for their projects.
3) Quite a few customers think like the one above. They don't buy at iStock nowadays. So currently your share of that market is $0.00

Yes, it might be possible that some customers will switch from model A to model B. But did it ever occur to you it also might happen that some customers will switch from model B to model A once they find "hey, that's great content but I want to have access to it all"? It could be working in both ways. I don't say it will but it could.

Don't assume that ALL customers will buy an ANNUAL subscription and download ALL images they are allowed to. Because that's not business sense.

And what I also would consider a bit more respect is if people don't always state that Getty makes all the calls. I don't know if this is the case or not but neither do you. Maybe you could consider that each time you are stating "this must be an order of Getty" you are at the same time saying "I don't trust the people having led iStock to where it is now to have a opinion, standing or strength at all." I'd expect everybody to have a bit more respect for those people and at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they actually believe this is a right step for all of us. At the end, they are humans even if that gets lost sometimes in our virtual environments.

This is something that somehow got a bit lost these days and makes me more than just a bit sad. Sorry to share that if you don't care.

Michael you are being really naive, and you sound no more than a sounding board for the company.

Let me just say this has to be the most stupid decision IStock and Getty have ever made. And now they are shutting down or at least trying to quite down any type of comments concerning the issue. But they sure have time to talk up there field trip. The need to get something posted soon or there is going to be a lot of people starting to bail on them. I would be surprised that isn't already happening.