|
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 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 41
76
« on: August 25, 2011, 17:33 »
an attempt to draw designers/buyers back to the brand.
I hate the whole "we're hip and cool" phoniness. Thanks, but no thanks. Incidentally, also ironic, their "Create a better world" theme BS.
77
« on: August 20, 2011, 17:32 »
This survey seems kind of dumb and pointless from where I sit. I mean, do they really need a survey to tell them what people don't like? Do they just ignore their forums or what? Also, did everyone see this from Joyze: There will be a number of us reviewing the responses which will help us understand what you like, don't like, what can be improved etc. We're not making any promises to implement every suggestion we get, but we're building a plan that will allow us to communicate more effectively with all of our contributors. So basically, that's letting them off the hook from doing anything, except "communicating" more "effectively.
78
« on: August 09, 2011, 13:00 »
I love to iron. I find it relaxing. I do it while watching TV.
How weird does that make me?
It's only weird if you are doing it naked too. 
79
« on: August 08, 2011, 01:46 »
on iStock JJRD said:
And the response from contributors is "Thanks for allaying our fears JJRD!". It's like people live in a reality distortion field. Mystifying ...
They don't think. At all. It's like a programmed response. He could say "We're cutting your commissions to 5%, but never fear, members, big things are in the works at this sexxxxy webste!" and people would be chasing after him to lick his butt. It's a sickness, I think.
80
« on: August 07, 2011, 21:01 »
There seems to be a strong opinion that Lobo acts with the blessing and approval of his masters, in which case, what might be Getty's "master plan" diminish iSP to a state where it is defunct and remove a credible 'competitor' from the market. They've done it before with 'other acquisitions'. Maybe Lobo is employed by Getty and is simply a plant inside iSP to achieve one of their aims -piss everyone (including exclusives) off to a point they all abandon the site. Makes sense if you think about it.
Possibly, but most big businesses do tend to act like your friend to your face while they (knowingly or unknowingly to you) rob you blind. Few act like it's *your* fault when you are dissatisfied. With as polite and cordial as everyone else is, his "Jerk at iStockphoto" persona (as listed on his Facebook profile) seems really out of step.
81
« on: August 07, 2011, 18:53 »
... incredibly ironic how rude, sarcastic, belittling and uninformed people are with one another here -and yet many some of those same people are claiming to be hurt or affronted by Lobo's sarcasm.
I just hate the fact that we have to pay his wages via our sales. However little it costs ... it's not worth it.
lol, well I hate that my taxes as being used by a majority conservative federal government with their heads up their arses...but what are you going to do?  once in a while I cringe when Lobo drops a more extreme snarky comment towards the more "innocent" posters who happened to post at the wrong place/wrong time when he is pissed at someone else or just especially gritty. but he isn't the first 'bad cop' persona in a situation like the iStock forum. it has its purpose, but is undoubtedly a completely thankless job.
I'm so tired of hearing these excuses that are made for him. The other forum moderators do not adopt his snarky attitude. Rob, Kelvin, MichaelJay Dawn, Jasmine (when she was a moderator) and a host of others all comport themselves with dignity, help contributors and buyers when they can, and show some respect. Lobo is the *only* one who has that snarky piss poor attitude. And I'm really tired of this "thankless job" crap. If he gets frustrated and pissed that easily, he should FIND ANOTHER JOB. Imagine walking into a store as a customer and being treated that poorly. You'd get fired in a heartbeat for a crappy attitude like that.
82
« on: August 07, 2011, 17:14 »
incredibly ironic how rude, sarcastic, belittling and uninformed people are with one another here -and yet many some of those same people are claiming to be hurt or affronted by Lobo's sarcasm.
Well, difference being that nobody here is being paid to be a moderator in the forum of a billion dollar company where the contributors and buyers of whom he is so fond of being rude to and belittling are paying his salary. You'd think there should be at least a little respect shown for that, if nothing else.
83
« on: August 07, 2011, 15:28 »
... We didn't end up making the offer. Missing out on a great house, selling at 1/3 off market value. But even that is too rich an investment right now. Especially with "Black Monday" potentially looming when the markets open tomorrow. 
Maybe follow Sean's lead and do some remodeling instead...
There could be a silver lining in that if you're going to put money into remodeling/redecorating (a) you can have stock pictures of the remodel, always a popular subject, (b) you can put your hunky chameleon husband to work two ways - modeling and doing at the same time, and (c) you get to design things with your lifestyle shots in mind.
Haha! She can do more plumber's crack photos. LOLOLOL
84
« on: August 07, 2011, 15:27 »
Its funny because Lobo was the one who ousted Peebert for being unprofessional. There was a very short lived thread in September of 06 in which Lobo and Peebert went at it. Lobo called Peebert and Upsidedowndog trolls for the way they treated posters to the forums, particularly newbies. Peebert's role in the forums was diminished and he left shortly after. UDD stopped posting and left a note on his istock blog saying he'd been told by some that his posts were no longer wanted so he would stop. http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=261505 see the September 06 post.
The thread's lifespan was something like 7 minutes before it disappeared. I just happened to read it while it was going on.
Funny how its Lobo who is the unprofessional one now...
Wow, I did not know any of that, but I do remember the bewilderment after all that went down and some of those members of the community disappeared. Oh the irony of Lobo calling anyone a troll. But there was once a day where he was not nearly the prick he is now. He really should probably find another job. He is so clearly not happy in that one.
85
« on: August 07, 2011, 08:28 »
I hear Peebert was even worse.
No, he wasn't worse. Also, they were different times back then. Peebert was edgy, but funny. And he didn't belittle people's concerns like Lobo does. And as far as I know, Peebert did not send nasty childish sitemails to people and you never heard of people being banned en masse, like what Lobo does. Of course, there were far less concerns back then because everyone was in love with iStock. Ah, the good old days...
86
« on: August 06, 2011, 18:26 »
so i hope that rebecca brings the customers back. after all that is the service that the contributors are paying for.
At what cost to you though? What if they say they need to cut commissions again in order to advertise more or fix the site and need more money from the contributors to do it?
87
« on: August 06, 2011, 18:23 »
Getting? He's "been" for a while now. This user has the power to wield the BanHammer, a weapon forged in the fires of hell for that get-off-my-planet quality you can't get anywhere else. That used to be kind of funny when iStock was a rebel, upstart, raw and edgy company where anything goes and we all knew they didn't really mean it. Heck, people used to post photos of purple dildos in the forums. Now it just looks childish and offensive.
88
« on: August 06, 2011, 18:18 »
The people I listen to see it as a great brand. I do not believe that the anti iStockphoto attitudes often expressed here are especially indicative or typical. I
I don't think it's a great brand. But obviously you are not listening to people who say things contrary to what you believe. There's also a thread on here of about 50 pages or so of others who don't think it's a great brand. You might have seen it, "Buyers bailing on iStock". Might want to check it out for an educational read.
89
« on: August 06, 2011, 09:49 »
I wanted to give your post a heart, Lisa, but MSG is telling me that I give you too much love. LOL
Great post!
90
« on: August 06, 2011, 08:41 »
I am not looking for warm fuzzies, just good economics.
You're probably not going to get either.
91
« on: August 06, 2011, 00:01 »
92
« on: August 05, 2011, 17:34 »
I voted "Strongly dislike" but if "Despise" was an option, that would have been my choice.
93
« on: August 05, 2011, 17:03 »
And every buyer I have ever talked too thinks that iStockphoto is a fantastic resource.
Just because a buyer thinks it's a fantastic resource doesn't mean they are still buying from there. 
94
« on: August 04, 2011, 20:48 »
It'll be interesting to see if Rebecca tries to rebuild the destroyed contributor trust or do more of the same hacking away at contributors to boost profits. It's amazing how much has changed in a year.
This doesn't bode well: In December 2005, Ms. Rockafellar served as Senior Director Of Business Development where she was responsible for various mergers and acquisitions, strategic partnerships and management of company-wide business initiatives. She served as the vice president of platform and product management, leading teams to leverage technology to Getty Images.
95
« on: August 04, 2011, 20:20 »
Wow, he got a promotion ...
... is the wrong answer. He's basically been sacked. He's been moved sideways and downwards both in the corporate sense and also geographically.
He was the boss of a $1B-worth company with full responsibility for P&L ... until he screwed up and probably halved it's value (at best). Two years ago IS were comfortably the #1 microstock site. Nowadays that's just history. KT's going to be the VP, note VP, of a department without any responsibility for P&L. They've finally realised he can't be trusted with P&L and that will be the ultimate humiliation for him.
It sounds like they sold the deal to him just like they sold the deal to Bruce when they offered to "improve" iStock, LOL. Thing is, I don't think any of what happened at iStock came from him. I think it all came from Getty. So now they've no use for their whipping boy and who even knows what they are going to do with the company now. I wonder what new title and position they are going to come up with for member JJRD. iStock slowly is being assimilated. Will Getty ultimately replace all the iStockers who were there pre-Getty with their own corporate shills. Boy am I glad I'm not a contributor there. Scary times for you all.
96
« on: August 04, 2011, 18:21 »
Another mind-boggling post from the IS forum: "Congrats Kelly and thanks for doing such a great job." I think they forgot this though: "of screwing contributors and buyers alike."
97
« on: August 04, 2011, 18:00 »
From the istock forum:
Huge Thanx Kelly for all things what you've done for us...
...more than the money and downloads stats, his achievement is the many lives he changed. I am very thankful.
Rock on Kelly! I hope this means less travel time for you. And more delicious restaurants...
Kelly you truly are a rockstar...
Can't wait to see what happens next
Are we that quick to forget that this is the same guy who delivered that whole "unsustainable" speech last fall?
What a horrible message this sends. The guy hands down a nearly across-the-board royalty cut and less than a year later we're singing his praises. The execs at Getty must read this stuff and think, "Look, we screwed them over and they love us for it!"
I have no doubt that ThinkStock and some of the other collections will not remain optional forever. It's no wonder Getty/istock feel inclined to always act in their own interests before those of the contributors. We pretty much give them license to do it. All the woo-yaying at every turn sends a dangerous message.
I'm so glad someone pointed all that out. Almost four and counting pages of that brown-nosing. "Thank you sir, may I have another!!!! Woo-yay!!"
98
« on: August 04, 2011, 17:00 »
Wow, he got a promotion. I wonder if he gets a nice fat salary increase too. It looks like the assimilation is complete. He's 100% Borg company suit now. I think I'll got take a shower. I feel dirty after reading that.
99
« on: August 02, 2011, 09:27 »
People put photos of flowers, sunsets, their dog, their cat, their horse, their car, their motorcycle, and on and on, for their profile picture. Does that mean they are saying any of those are self-portraits? I once declined the friendship request of someone who had a dog's a-hole as their profile picture. I don't think there's any rule on FB that says your profile photo has to be of YOU. Unless the person puts a caption on the photo that says "This is me" I don't think you can claim unfair usage.
100
« on: July 28, 2011, 08:58 »
If you are a photographer, you should also know that a razor sharp unretouched portrait printed in some larger format (or viewed in larger size on screen with decent resolution) is NOT a fair representation of a person at all. You are going to see unfavorable details accented and poking at your eye that you would never-ever even notice IRL unless you are dermatologist.
That is a good point.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 41
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
