Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 12, 2013, 06:45
Cost of sacking Locke? Probably several million dollars a year in lost sales, bad publicity and transfer of business to rivals. Cost of keeping him? Continued meddling in the company's business, attacks on our policies and general troublemaking.

Great analysis as usual, Trousers.

My hope for Stocksy is that it's something truly different: a game-changer in the way that iStock once was. Bruce shook the industry up once. If anyone can do it again, it's him. #hopespringseternal

Quote from: SNP on January 14, 2013, 22:15
I'll speak for myself thanks.

Say something new then. Please, and thanks.

ETA: P.S. I hate to say I told you so. I told you so. That is all.

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 17, 2013, 22:05
Marisa I know your story and we actually talked in a few emails, maybe you have forgotten, anyway that wasn't the point here

it was about you telling that we haven't give a ___ back in 2011 but still leaving your portfolio online, sure you have all the reasons in the world and I respect that, next time just don't say we don't give a ___ because we actually did and do everyday, I have stopped uploading back in March 2012

I didn't say that you (or anyone still active on iStock, in any capacity, or on this thread) don't give a *. What I said was, "It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ . Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ ."

Translated (didn't realize it needed translating): it's good to see people angry enough to band together and take action in a bigger way (which may actually make a difference) than in earlier years over kerfuffles past. It seems in the past, while people cared and were angry (to varying degrees), there wasn't a willingness to really do something big and meaningful in protest, en masse.

Further, look at how quickly Instagram retreated from its proposed TOS changes when users took to the web and started voicing their displeasure, deleting images, or whole accounts. Imagine that every single exclusive photog on iStock/Getty would commit to and actually drop exclusivity on a particular day, unless the changes they wanted to see from corporate were enacted? Wow. That would get press and probably get results. Or what if all iStock/Getty photogs committed to deleting 5 of their top-selling images each day, every day, until the changes desired by the community were heard and instituted. Stuff like that. So that if you want to continue on with the company, which I'm sure most do, you don't create a mountain of reloading work for yourself. You make a big difference, but hopefully one that you can easily manage the consequences of if/when you get what you want from corporate.

Anyway. That's my two cents.

Quote from: ShadySue on January 17, 2013, 21:58

Quote from: Risamay on January 17, 2013, 21:48
So ... and asked that Lobo ban me on the backend to ensure I couldn't be tempted to get involved again.

That's probably illegal in several States.  (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I was hoping someone fun would pick up on the double entendre. That I do miss about the iStock forums. We had some good times, y'all. #memories

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 17, 2013, 21:09

Quote from: Poncke on January 17, 2013, 20:34

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 17, 2013, 20:06

Quote from: Risamay on January 17, 2013, 19:47
It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .

Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .

that's curious having 2488 pictures at iStock

Whats curious?

the fact that she gave a ______ about iStock and said we haven't but still left her portfolio online which means she haven´t gave a ______ just like we haven't

I was exclusive from jump and dropped my crown in protest. That was my protest, at the end of 2011. I wanted to go independent and spread my work around, rather than keep it exclusively with iStockphoto; because I wasn't keen on how they were treating contributors. That's when I checked out of caring about trying to make a difference at iStockphoto.

Dig?

Quote from: lisafx on January 17, 2013, 21:04

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 17, 2013, 20:06

Quote from: Risamay on January 17, 2013, 19:47
It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .

Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .

that's curious having 2488 pictures at iStock

Marisa, hopefully you will join in the protest and delete some of your photos?

That requires time and energy that I can't promise. My latest protest-deleting project on Instagram is taking ages. I just can't be bothered with all these jokers right now. New job and joys, little free time. And that time is too valuable. The last thing I want to do when I get home is spend time on iStockphoto or Instagram. But maybe, Lisa. We'll see.

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 17, 2013, 20:06

Quote from: Risamay on January 17, 2013, 19:47
It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .

Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .

that's curious having 2488 pictures at iStock

What's curious?

I dropped exclusivity with iStockphoto at the end of 2011 and have since been independent. I rarely check in on my files or make $ withdrawals, and never really got around to uploading much on other sites. Microstock is back to being a super-back-burning side thing for me. When I saw how things were going at iStockphoto and that contributors weren't willing to come together en masse to make a difference with HQ/Getty, I stopped giving a *. What was the point anymore? So I self-banned from the iStockphoto forums, and asked that Lobo ban me on the backend to ensure I couldn't be tempted to get involved again. And that's that. That's why you rarely, if ever, see me here talking microstock. I've even unsubscribed from public and private iStockphoto groups on Facebook. I really don't give a hoot anymore. It's way too late. No more stock steam. I focus now, instead, on selling the odd print via Etsy and contributing to the one agency I love that's by invite-only and that I feel cares about its contributors. It's not that I won't contribute to others or to iStockphoto even. It's just that I'm interested in other things now and use my extra energy for these things rather than trying to make a difference in iStockphoto forums. Microstock is not my day job, or even a hobby anymore, really. I quit that dream for reality, and am much happier for it.

It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .

Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 09, 2012, 20:32

Quote from: sjlocke on May 09, 2012, 19:25

Quote from: cthoman on May 09, 2012, 17:46when they find the image that they think is perfect, they buy it. If that image is only in limited places, they can only buy it there.

Ding, ding!

And if they don't go to that place, because price rises persuaded them to go elsewhere, then they will never know the perfect image exists so they'll just buy something else.

This whole idea of buyers searching incessantly for the perfect image is just nonsense. Anyone on Alamy can check the buyer searches there and see how many pages deep they went. Generally, if something doesn't turn up on the first page or two of a search they lose interest. So if your super-perfect image is on page 57 they'll never find it and they won't care.

How can anybody believe that buyers will trawl the entire internet for the perfect image while knowing at the same time that they can't be bothered to hunt through half-a-dozen pages on iStock to find it (we all know how well images on page 10 of a search sell).

Ding, ding!

By gum, can anyone say 'far too little, far too late'? And 'gum awful writing'?

I'll keep submitting to Photocase for the time being, but not take the rejections personally. Knowing now that my experience is the norm.

LOL I don't know quite what to make of their current library. It's definitely not Vetta I thought my work would help kick them up a notch, but seems (so far) they disagree ...

Thanks for the additional comments and tips! Very helpful.

Hmmm ... Perhaps it's a problem that my images were pre-keyworded in Lightroom? Could that be why some/all of them were rejected?

Oh, good! So glad to hear others with similar experiences. I posted a few of my rejections to their forum for that, and suffice it to say the one person who commented was not helpful. Perhaps it's not the agency for me.

Hi there! Do any of you contribute to Photocase? I just joined and can't get an image accepted, and haven't a clue as to why. Just wondering what your experience there has been and if you have any insight into their process. My images meet all their tech criteria, so don't know what it could be. Thanks for any thoughts you care to share.

Occupy iStockphoto!

We need a full accounting audit. Yesterday.

I love David Mitchell. Even 'Peep Show'. You've really got to dig David Mitchell to stream your through 'Peep Show'. It's no 'Mitchell and Webb' (:

Quote from: jsnover on January 20, 2012, 19:14
Agree with gostwyck that today's announcement is corporate blah blah with no real meaning.

It certainly seems clear that the new regime doesn't plan to have a visible presence - and a name - in the iStock forums. They won't even put a name out there - I'd love to see a post from this he/she who will not be named HQ account on the importance of the iStock community

All that today's announcement means is that they plan to pump us with fluff to keep things as quiet as possible. And very smooth corporate move to hide behind a moniker. Much harder to rage against iStockHQ than it was to lambast JJ, KK, etc.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 20, 2012, 05:14

Quote from: Risamay on January 19, 2012, 23:48

Quote from: jamesbenet on January 19, 2012, 23:45
His beliefs and reputation will follow him, not related to iStock.  At least I think he fought for us all the way as long as he could. That is why he got the axe.

More likely just a matter of business vs. politics. I think he (and Kelly) got the axe because iStock is being absorbed into Getty, and if Getty's running its own show for iStock now, there's no place for more managers. They've already got their own management team. So folks like JJ and KK become redundant.

Dead right. If he was axed for fighting for contributors they would have put someone else in his place. If he quit in fury over them sacking his mates he would not meekly stick around for a few months to help them out by training other to do bits of his job.

What's happened is that Ms Rockefeller has completed her report on Integration and Profit Maximization at iStockphoto.com, the top dogs have approved it and it has now been implemented (incidentally, not only making KT redundant but also making him look foolish, once more. for confidently saying a few months ago that plans for iStock's development were mapped out for years ahead).

At least Jamesbenet is right about JJ's reputation: he does seem to have an adoring fan club around the world and, no doubt, this will work in his favour in years to come. For myself, I find the hero worship on the iStock forum rather disturbing, particularly as I can't recall him ever saying anything inspirational - just some bizzarely stilted love-in exchanges between him and other officials. Did I miss something?

Well said, all. And no. I don't think you/we missed a thing where JJ's mystic musings were concerned.

Quote from: RapidEye on January 20, 2012, 06:53

Quote from: thesentinel on January 20, 2012, 06:49

I've never met the legend that is jjrd so have failed to fall under his gallic charms but found his impenetrable ramblings and his coterie of familiar faces in all the 'lypse reports as divisive and demotivating as the getty dictated changes.

You actually managed to get me chuckling in the midst of all this doom and gloom.

Ditto 

And great summary, Baldrick.

+2

Quote from: jamesbenet on January 19, 2012, 23:45
His beliefs and reputation will follow him, not related to iStock.  At least I think he fought for us all the way as long as he could. That is why he got the axe.

More likely just a matter of business vs. politics. I think he (and Kelly) got the axe because iStock is being absorbed into Getty, and if Getty's running its own show for iStock now, there's no place for more managers. They've already got their own management team. So folks like JJ and KK become redundant.

Quote from: caspixel on January 19, 2012, 21:25

Quote from: cclapper on January 19, 2012, 21:06

I think istock will be around this year, as they streamline what images go to Getty and what goes to stinkstock, but then BOOM!, one day an announcement will come and istock will be gone. You will be directed to either Getty or thinkstock directly. The "artist formerly known as istockphoto" will cease to exist.

I think it will become just another collection on Getty's main site, just like the other collections they absorbed. They will get rid of the iStock website. Why continue to maintain it and incur the cost when they already have one umbrella site.

That'd be my bet, as well.

Quote from: ShadySue on January 19, 2012, 21:56

Quote from: Risamay on January 19, 2012, 19:16

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 19, 2012, 19:03

Quote from: stockpuppet on January 19, 2012, 18:46
September 2010:

Quoteif one day I do not believe in iStockphoto anymore, I will be out of here in a snap. Faster than a speeding bullet.

- JJRD

Yep, that's the one I was thinking of.

Doesn't sound like it was a matter of his lack of faith. Sounds like he was asked/forced to leave. Downsizing, layoffs, etc.

I agree. He said he would be OUT OF HERE in a snap. In his goodbye post, he said he would be remaining as an iStock exclusive.

Great catch! That settles it then (:

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 19, 2012, 20:59

Quote from: jamesbenet on January 19, 2012, 20:35At least JJRD got out with his dignity and beliefs in place.

He got sacked. I should think his belief in the wisdom of iStock is a bit shaken.

Thank you! Why do people think he left of his own accord? That's not how the officious announcement over on the iStock forum reads. At all.