so not that I want to drag you all off the topic of Lobo - but going back to the original post - has anyone read anything more about the "Irregularity" issue?  I briefly looked around the IS forums but didn't really see anything or the original post. 

I know.. I probably could have spent more than 5 minutes poking around there but that was my limit before I really just wanted to get out of there. 

I thought GI was that purple color on the graph?  so Getty360 is different from "GI Sales" and "GI Connect"? 

sorry if these are something I should already know, but I have been away from here (and the iStock forums) for far too long!  I have a lot of catching up to do.

Quote from: Pinocchio on March 12, 2013, 22:50
An outraged buyer started this thread http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352131&page=1 and after a couple of posts Lobo confirmed that iStock/Getty has hired one of the top strategy consulting firms.  Firms like this are usually hired by senior management; they are not hired to conduct "surveys" - they will do a lot with the input gathered in the course of the survey.

Having worked for other consultancies who operate at this level of seniority in client companies, it seems to me this effort may be getting off to a troubled start.  But it does indicate that someone very senior is asking questions and hoping BCG can deliver answers, so it's a significant development.  It is very probable that BCG was hired by Getty, or, at the very least, with Getty's approval.

Regards

Slightly off topic, but I just read the thread over at istock and, well, I admit I haven't been on the iStock forums in ages but the tone of Lobo's responses sure don't sound like the snarky Lobo responses that I remember.   They read very polite and professional in that thread, it sort of scared me. 

I waited about two weeks before I replied to the email with a link to my portfolio because I wanted to put a sample of my variety of work in one spot.  So I got some of my favorite images and put them up in my Zenfolio page then sent that link along with links to my istock and SS ports.  Sent the reply on March 2nd.. haven't heard anything yet.

Quote from: gostwyck on February 21, 2013, 15:10

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on February 21, 2013, 14:32
A bad move from Stocksy would be to refuse too much contributors. They don't want a bunch of frustated photographers to talk against them, specially in the beginning.
Being picky on images selection is something acceptable, but being picky on photographers is a no-no ...
The more photographers they will have, the bigger the social network and free publicity that goes with it will be...

Couldn't agree more. Istock's success was built on a platform of 'crowd-sourcing' and accepting everyone who could pass the entry test. A huge number of contributors are also image buyers and/or highly influential in which agencies that those lucrative corporate accounts are opened.

Until the details of what Stocksy is (or isn't) are made public, this is all conjecture.  Bruce is known for coming up with great ideas that are not the same as the 'status quo.'  How you become a part of Stocksy may have to do with your image style, your time in the industry, your acceptance rate or the amount of money in your bank account.  No one knows right now (except the Stocksy founders doing the planning).  To start jumping in and saying what they are doing right or wrong is just silly given that none of their business plan has been made public.

Quote from: djpadavona on February 18, 2013, 23:36

Quote from: meldayus on February 18, 2013, 23:24

Quote from: djpadavona on February 18, 2013, 22:17
I was actually rejected. Sounds like I am the only one who heard back? 

Oh, that's a shame.  How did you hear?  Did they email you?  Do you know if they had viewed any of your photos anywhere? 

They emailed me. I had actually submitted 10 photos to them per their invitation. It was a standard application, like with SS or IS. I gave them several best sellers and a few colorful images which I liked, but they apparently fell flat. That's the way the cookie crumbles.   

that sounds a little odd, actually.

are you sure it was Stocksy?  sounds like they are only having beta testers and not evaluating portfolios.

Quote from: cardmaverick on February 19, 2013, 22:02
Were you relying on google alone for the marketing?

I"m sure Dan will answer this more directly, but the answer, I believe, is no - - although Google is a big part of any marketing since a majority of traffic comes from there - and that is where WarmPicture got most of its sales - from direct links through from a google search.  We tried blogs, guest blog posts, Facebook and Twitter.  I believe Dan even had ads up on a few websites as well for a short time. 

I keep hoping this won't have to happen but I know there's only so much that one person can do and Dan - you've done a lot for WarmPicture.  It's not an easy challenge when fighting to be seen among the big microstock houses and the Google machine.  You've really done so much that I can't express how honored I am to have been a part of WarmPicture.  In my heart I keep hoping it will have a big turn around and stay alive but I know that you can't go on forever with so little to show for your hard efforts. 

Thank you Dan!

-jami

As crappy as this was handled, I believe it will end up a true "blessing in disguise" for you, Sean.  You will definitely be back up and running with other agencies in no time!

It is a shame they stooped to such lows but Getty seems to think they are "too big to fail."  I believe they will find they are sorely mistaken. 

in that Google thread about the new imagery someone mentioned that Microsoft Bing has the same image search feature.  Is this true?  Or is the Bing image search set up so that images (and traffic) are not able to be stolen?

this is the best stock industry news I have heard in years!   Gives me faith that the industry won't be imploding anytime soon!

Quote from: cthoman on February 06, 2013, 16:54
I always just assumed it was because I stopped uploading. Buyers just didn't have a reason to show up anymore. 

actually I think you wrote this sort of jokingly, but a lot of regular istockers got burned with the RC scheme.  though not a huge contributor myself, this is when I dropped exclusivity and stopped visiting the IS forums every minute/hour/day.  It was my regular hangout and the complete lack of respect we all got with the Sept 2010 announcements ("money won't make you happy") stuff I think caused a lot of regular visitors (contributors) to stop visiting the site so much.  It was just too depressing. 

Since Alexa is on traffic only it makes sense that if contributors who spend their days hanging out in the IS forums suddenly stop or visit a lot less frequently, that will have an impact on the visits.  Not to mention the fact that we also stopped buying from IS and started directing other buyers to other sites. 

just my guess, anyhow.  I have no actual data to back that up. 

Quote from: cclapper on February 04, 2013, 22:01

Quote from: jsnover on February 04, 2013, 21:31

Quote from: jamirae on February 04, 2013, 16:44
I haven't had a chance to deactivate my images.  However, I have a lot of images that were taken at iStock minilypse events so they can only be sold on istock. I'm thinking of leaving those there and just removing all the other items. Any one else with this situation?  Do you plan to remove images taken at istock events (minilypse/istockalypse) and just let them languish on your hard drive?

@cathy That was probably me. I left 153 iStockalypse and editorial images on the site (deactivated 2,496 others). Jami, I didn't see any reason to pull the editorial images as I'm not selling them anywhere else (I'm not selling much of them at iStock either!). Likewise, the iStockalypse images I left as I can't sell them anywhere else anyway

Yep, it was you. Glad you jumped in. The old memory ain't what it used to be. I remember that I saw it, just not who said it. 

thank you to both of you!  I now need to find some time to remove images from IS and get more on my other sites. 

I haven't had a chance to deactivate my images.  However, I have a lot of images that were taken at iStock minilypse events so they can only be sold on istock. I'm thinking of leaving those there and just removing all the other items. Any one else with this situation?  Do you plan to remove images taken at istock events (minilypse/istockalypse) and just let them languish on your hard drive?

I feel like I'm super late to this party, so I'm sorry if this has been answered.  I attempted to read as much as I could here, but I'm still catching up.  I haven't checked in here for a bit, been sick and busy with life... anyhow and thanks to Jo Ann I found out something was up and I needed to get back on here to catch up.  so...

Groundhog day is still a few weeks out.  is everyone deactivating now or on that day?  seems like people are doing it now or is everyone prepping for that?

Quote from: uvox4 on January 11, 2013, 18:41
I have just seen this on IS forum. Will help searching if your image has been used.

Posted By sjlocke:
I've downloaded all 6923 images available on Google, and should have a page tomorrow, possibly with all the images and exif.

In the meantime, here is a text list so you can search in your browser and see if you find yourself: http://seanlockephotography.com/data.html

I noticed that there are a lot listed as "n/a" 

Quote from: jsnover on December 24, 2012, 01:18
theprint is his iStock user name, in case you can't match real world name with member name. He is apparently not in any hurry to get his portfolio up on other sites.

MichaelJay, formerly of the former Berlin office, has also dropped his crown. To be precise, both of them have started their 30 day clock although the crown isn't yet gonzo.

wow.  This is really sad.  I realize they may be moving on to other interests, but if it was really just that then why would they be bothering to drop the crown and spread their portfolios to other sites?  it seems the house of cards at iStock is really starting to gather momentum in its collapse or loss of talent.

Quote from: traveler1116 on December 17, 2012, 19:53

Quote from: jamirae on December 17, 2012, 19:47

Quote from: jsnover on December 17, 2012, 04:25
Not sure why they just stopped this morning - they could have finished the rest of the month today if they'd kept going. They really aren't in any hurry at all when it comes to paying contributors the money we are owed...

no and I've been waiting almost 3 months for an explanation on a refund that was given on one of my files - for an amount that was more than the file has ever even made me in royalties!  They're quick to take the money from us and always sloooooww to give it up to us.

Are you sure it was more than it's ever sold, once it's refunded the sale gets erased.  Don't expect anything specific about why your file was refunded, they always tell me customer changed their mind.  At least that's what they said on the 5 or so I asked about.

not to drag this completely off topic, but yes I'm sure.  The file is nothing too special - a lizard on a rock.  and it's sold 2x and I got 75cents each back in 2005 (I was exclusive then.  The refund stated this:

We regret to inform you that a refund of $1.05 has been issued for the purchase of
your file #536437. This file was purchased from the Vetta or Agency Collection on
Getty Images. This transaction has now been voided from your GI sales.

I'm not exclusive (for 2 years now) so it could not have been a vetta or agency image.  And even when I was exclusive, this file was never in either of those collections - I had very few that ever made it to Getty.  I think I had a dozen on Getty through the original "quit your day job" program that never worked and had maybe a handful of images moved to Vetta but definitely not this one.  And I never, ever had anything in the Agency collection.

Anyhow, they are still investigating this issued apparently. 

Quote from: jsnover on December 17, 2012, 04:25
Not sure why they just stopped this morning - they could have finished the rest of the month today if they'd kept going. They really aren't in any hurry at all when it comes to paying contributors the money we are owed...

no and I've been waiting almost 3 months for an explanation on a refund that was given on one of my files - for an amount that was more than the file has ever even made me in royalties!  They're quick to take the money from us and always sloooooww to give it up to us. 

Quote from: qwerty on December 16, 2012, 00:00
Mine shows up till the 12th, sales are down

mine seems to be at the 12th also. 

so.. I suppose this question has been asked before - but for the monthly poll here do you wait until the previous month's thinkstock earnings are added before you complete the poll here or do you just complete it without the additional earnings for iStock? 

Quote from: Poncke on December 10, 2012, 22:44

Quote from: jamirae on December 10, 2012, 22:34
istock needs to stop running the business like Walmart and instead be more like Costco. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/business/yourmoney/17costco.html?pagewanted=all

I get your point, but lowering the prices is not beneficial to us either. Giving away images also makes 0 dollar

My point is not about lowering prices - I was more thinking on the ways that Costco pays its employees better, treats them better and thus has less turn-over and higher profit per employee.  Tho possibly not higher in all aspects - but my point is more that if a big company like istock took better care of its employees and contributors, they could potentially see better review in the long run as more contributors would be (or go back to) also customers and (once again) provide the kind of social-network marketing ("word of mouth") that a company cannot do all on its own.

here's a more recent article which is what actually got me thinking about the comparison:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/26/why-can-t-walmart-be-more-like-costco.html

istock needs to stop running the business like Walmart and instead be more like Costco. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/business/yourmoney/17costco.html?pagewanted=all

Quote from: lisafx on December 10, 2012, 22:08

Quote from: fotoVoyager on December 10, 2012, 21:22

Quote from: MetaStocker on December 10, 2012, 20:40
"That said, the #1 priority for today, as it has been all weekend, is Best Match, which Mary and the engineers are looking at and working on as we speak.  Please stay tuned."

What a farce.
An IT/ICT illiterate female announcing that another female (Mary) will take over the Best Match issue aided by their eunuch engineers.

I've seen first hand what kind of disasters females in management can do, you better leave the ship before it sinks like the Titanic.

And she must be really desperate to ask for help in the forum as it's backfiring big time.

What has this got to do with anything you nitwit. As a father of two daughters this kind of casual sexism really gets my goat.

Exactly what it was intended to do. 

Read over this guy's posting history.  He's just a troll.  He's not even amusing anymore. 

Once again, Thanks to Tyler for the ignore feature .

thanks.. i was going to add my irate at that sexist post as well, but I'll just leave it to the ignore feature. 

Quote from: ShadySue on December 05, 2012, 21:46

Quote from: michaeldb on December 05, 2012, 20:36

Quote from: jamirae on December 05, 2012, 18:58
I wonder.. I haven't uploaded any images in a few months and vectors I haven't uploaded in a few years - and I didn't get any email telling me how much they miss me.

I haven't submitted anything to IS for a long time either, but have received no email. For those who have gotten one, I'm curious, was it sent by Peebert, or Lobo?

Unless this is an in-joke, it must have been an incredibly long time. Peebert was  MIA and of legendary status only at iStock when I started in Dec 2006.

haha.. yeah, I was going to ask "IS Peebert back?!"   

Quote from: kobajagrande on December 05, 2012, 07:10
The upload limit was increased recently.

Non-Exclusive Upload Limits
Default now 28/week (was 18)
Bronze now 30/week (was 20)
Silver now 40/week (was 24)
Gold now 50/week (was 30)
Diamond now 60/week (was 38)
Black Diamond now 70/week (was 40)

is that just for illustrations?  I notice that my vector limit is 50/week and my images is at 30/week.  I'm Gold for both.