|
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 - jamirae
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 33
76
« on: January 26, 2012, 10:46 »
"Dont worry. When first words become common enough, they become meaningless..."
Yes, like 'utilize'. As in "There are many programs in the works utilizing the brainpower and reach of our newly combined Getty Images and iStock teams to achieve this goal exactly." iStock 1-24-12
I do not like that word - 'utilize' - it always sounds to me like someone trying to talk like a 'grown up' by using a big word when a smaller, more common word will do - I prefer to 'use' things rather than 'utilize' them. 
77
« on: January 25, 2012, 16:01 »
right now the site okay until you go to log in. The cover panel for the log in is white. something is screwy. Can't pick up stats from iStockcharts app. on my phone either, so it's not my browser.
[conspiracy theory] this is a great way to build up fake stats. slow down the site so users keep hitting f5 to reload the page and then each reload is a hit... though not a new visitor, most people don't really understand the difference between a 'page hit' and a 'unique visitor' hit anyway. [/conspiracy theory]
78
« on: January 25, 2012, 15:42 »
It almost feels like gettin a lap dance from Beyonce 
Wow, you type really well for only using one hand.... 
uh... that's bordering on TMI for me... (my mind slips to gutterland really fast!)
79
« on: January 25, 2012, 10:54 »
I realized this morning what the "We highly value exclusive artists and their content ..." reminded me of: Your call is very important to us . . .
a bought that BS line ONCE from KKT and then the RC system came in and I saw how much the really valued me when, as an artist with both photos and vectors, I was screwed and my Diamond-level percentage that I had worked so hard for dropped to the RC system of 25%. I dropped the crown then like a hot potato and haven't looked back. How anyone can continue to follow their dangling carrots is beyond me. the carrot is on a string, just beyond your reach - you will NEVER reach it because that's how it is rigged.
80
« on: January 24, 2012, 22:03 »
want!
81
« on: January 24, 2012, 12:10 »
Looks like we're going to be getting another update today and hopefully some answers to some burning questions.
answers? you are kidding right? :-)
I have gotten to the point where the prospect of upcoming announcements from Istock brass fills me with dread.
me too. all I can think of is "oh Lord, what now?!"
82
« on: January 23, 2012, 13:42 »
On top of the redundancies it's not encouraging to see that - far as I can tell from www.istockphoto.com/istock_careers - there are no open positions at any level or skillset at the company.
That's because you are looking in the wrong place. This is now Getty, not iStock. Check here and you'll see a boatload of job openings for Seattle along with many others sprinkled around the world.
http://www.gettyimagesjobs.com/
Good point Jami. But wouldn't you think they'd offer some of those Getty jobs to Istock people rather than just laying them off? Seems odd, but then I don't claim to understand the workings of the corporate mindset... 
right.. The ethical and moral thing to do would be to offer them to istock staff first. Although maybe they did and no one wanted to move, we don't really know for sure. However, I'm betting on the corporate mindset that they just cleaned out from the place they are taking over so that they could begin filling it with their own hand-picked staff. Sadly, that's the way it usually works - nothing fair about it.
83
« on: January 23, 2012, 09:30 »
On top of the redundancies it's not encouraging to see that - far as I can tell from www.istockphoto.com/istock_careers - there are no open positions at any level or skillset at the company.
That's because you are looking in the wrong place. This is now Getty, not iStock. Check here and you'll see a boatload of job openings for Seattle along with many others sprinkled around the world. http://www.gettyimagesjobs.com/
84
« on: January 22, 2012, 16:20 »
In all fairness, I wouldn't begrudge anyone the opportunity to say goodbye to JJ or anyone else who has gotten the boot from Getty. We've all been treated shabbily by them, and now it appears that long-time Istock administrators are no longer exempt. I never met any of these folks, and as a non-exclusive, seldom had any personal dealings with them. If I had I would probably be joining the chorus of well-wishers though.
Also, these latest developments have got to be a massive blow to Istock exclusives. I doubt any of us who are non-exclusive can understand the degree to which these changes are going to affect many exclusives on a personal and emotional level. I know the comment about Kim Jung Il's funeral was a joke, but this really is a grieving process for a lot of people.
I have to agree with Lisa here. If you don't like the posts to JJRD, then just stay out of that thread. There's always some posturing and nonsense in those types of threads but many sincere posts as well. Besides, he's going to be around as an admin for a few more months and staying on as a contributor. So just let the thread die out on its own.
85
« on: January 20, 2012, 17:35 »
Do these people need to be hit upside the head with a wrecking ball? Has the company's behavior the last five years not told them anything?
Speaking of people that "need to be hit upside the head with a wrecking ball" have you dared venture onto the "Thanks" thread yet? There appears to be some kind of mass-hysteria thing going on in there, not dissimilar to the 'official media' portrayal of Kim Jong-Il's death. I didn't think anyone has actually died at Istock recently but now I'm not sure. Maybe.
Not to be read on a full stomach unless you want to ruin your keyboard;
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=339825
I just had to click the link. oh brother. why do I read these things? It's like standing in the check-out line at the grocery store and reading the headlines on the latest gossip-magazines and trash-tabloids.
86
« on: January 20, 2012, 16:18 »
perhaps as an exclusive you get additional forums to access when you log in. I don't see it when I log in and I'm not an exclusive.
87
« on: January 19, 2012, 22:05 »
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.
You can stick your faux sympathy where the sun doesn't shine. Thompson's 'beliefs and reputation' as well as his actions led to millions of dollars of commissions being diverted from contributors to Istock during his watch. He was in charge of Istock when they offered to 'grandfather' canister levels and then essentially went back on that a few months later. If he'd had genuinely 'fought for us' and not got his way then he should have resigned at the time. To not have done so, as the man in charge, meant he endorsed the changes (far more than his 'beliefs and reputation').
Under Thompson's watch the most damaging series of actions in Istock's history occurred and have resulted in the downfall of the immensely strong business he inherited. If he wasn't responsible for that then at very best he was a weak and ineffective COO promoted way beyond his capability and his level of courage. He's lost us all a lot of money. F*ck him.
Agreed. Kelly was one of most ineffective leaders I've ever seen. Sure, he was a nice guy, as Stacey pointed out. But just because you're nice doesn't mean you can run a company.
ain't that the truth. My ex-husband is a really nice guy (and pretty good dad to my kids), too, but he can't handle a marriage (just ask his 1st, 2nd and 3rd x-wives!)
88
« on: January 19, 2012, 21:57 »
oh brother.
89
« on: January 19, 2012, 18:54 »
No, sorry, but this really is the beginning of the end of Istock as a major player n microstock. Even Getty doesn't really believe in them anymore. Istock are being squeezed of staff and it follows that they are likely to be squeezed of future investment too. Therefore they will not be able to compete in the longer term. As sales dwindle more exclusives will give up their crowns and eventually fresh content will dry up too. They'll still be around but not as we once knew them.
Sadly, I have to agree with this assessment. Except that I would say this is the middle of the end. The beginning was Sept 2010 IMO.
that's exactly what I was about to say! So I guess I'll just +1 your post!
90
« on: January 19, 2012, 15:23 »
Anyone remember JJRD proclaiming that he believed in all the changes and that if iStock every did anything wrong they'd have his resignation in an instant? And finally, his departure looks suspiciously like Getty stamping on his fingers as he's desperately trying to cling on the to window-ledge.
"Will not be replaced" means they've just axed his post. I bet if they hadn't he'd be proclaiming the wisdom of streamlining and rooting out the dead wood.
it's in the other thread about layoffs.. probably this discussion should move there as it's pretty much already is
91
« on: January 19, 2012, 14:41 »
I'll never forget the day when I saw people in the Istock forums cheering that StockXpert was killed.
I wonder who's cheering now.
92
« on: January 19, 2012, 14:18 »
September 2010:
if 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.
well could be although he isn't leaving "in a snap. Faster than a speeding bullet." From what I recall reading in the IS thread he's going to stick around a few months to help transition.
93
« on: January 19, 2012, 14:17 »
94
« on: January 19, 2012, 13:58 »
Interesting how the official statement only mentions JJRD, while Kelly is left out. That tells me only one thing...Kelly was fired.
Did Kelly have anything to do with iStock latterly?
The goodbyes to him from iStock were already said, IIRC.
right he was already out as iStock COO and "promoted" to NY with Getty. So he's leaving Getty now, already cut the strings from iStock
95
« on: January 19, 2012, 13:38 »
In particular, it suggests to me that decisions about content - what's accepted, where it goes, etc. - are all moving to Getty. If I had to make a guess, I'd say that iStock will become an input portal for Getty Images "crowdsourced" content. Down to Thinkstock/photos.com or up to Getty (Vetta/Agency).
Agreed. What amazes me about that is why they're pushing Thinkstock as the place for the crowdsourced content. When they bought that dog the istockphoto brand was about 10,000 times stronger than Thinkstock, yet it seems they want istockphoto to become Thinkstock. You don't kill off your best brands and replace them with lesser ones.
and with the ingestion of all the Getty content to istock it looks like they want iStock to become Getty.
96
« on: January 19, 2012, 13:37 »
Wow, now JJRD. Wasn't he the one that said something in the past year like... Things are good and I'll be one of the first ones gone if that changes
right.. I was just trying to find that thread!
97
« on: January 19, 2012, 13:26 »
iStock offers a brand, an exclusive product, and higher prices for a (generally) better standard of image. at least that is what they used to do, very well.
Exclusive to the agency but not the buyer. I've never understood why an image being exclusive to iStock would matter to a buyer when that image may be found in use all over the globe by the many who purchased it before. Would love to hear from a buyer as to why/if iStock image exclusivity really matters to them.
A (generally) better standard of image?.....not sure I agree with this statement. Being independent I pay close attention to the quality of the images around me and why there is what I would consider "substandard" work everywhere there is also outstanding work everywhere....iStock is no exception.
Personally I hope iStock does well for you exclusives now and well into the future so you'll stay there and not flood the other agencies with your work.
You're missing the point. It's not supposed to be exclusive to the buyer, it's just exclusive to the site. So if a buyer wants that particular image the only place they can get it is at istockphoto. Having a different set of images is one way for agencies to differentiate themselves from one another.
for a buyer the advantage of an exclusive image on istock would also be that they can see if it has been downloaded a gazillion times and decide if they want the same thing every other buyer has downloaded or not. If it has low downloads they may have a better position in having a unique image. That's about it.
You can view downloads whether an image is exclusive or not.
I know that. the deal is that if it is not an exclusive image then you really don't know how many times the image has been downloaded from all the other sites, so the download number then only becomes significant (for a buyer) on exclusive images.
98
« on: January 19, 2012, 13:05 »
JJRD is leaving iStock. We are in the midst of MAJOR changes!
and the walls come tumbling down...
99
« on: January 19, 2012, 12:36 »
iStock offers a brand, an exclusive product, and higher prices for a (generally) better standard of image. at least that is what they used to do, very well.
Exclusive to the agency but not the buyer. I've never understood why an image being exclusive to iStock would matter to a buyer when that image may be found in use all over the globe by the many who purchased it before. Would love to hear from a buyer as to why/if iStock image exclusivity really matters to them.
A (generally) better standard of image?.....not sure I agree with this statement. Being independent I pay close attention to the quality of the images around me and why there is what I would consider "substandard" work everywhere there is also outstanding work everywhere....iStock is no exception.
Personally I hope iStock does well for you exclusives now and well into the future so you'll stay there and not flood the other agencies with your work.
You're missing the point. It's not supposed to be exclusive to the buyer, it's just exclusive to the site. So if a buyer wants that particular image the only place they can get it is at istockphoto. Having a different set of images is one way for agencies to differentiate themselves from one another.
for a buyer the advantage of an exclusive image on istock would also be that they can see if it has been downloaded a gazillion times and decide if they want the same thing every other buyer has downloaded or not. If it has low downloads they may have a better position in having a unique image. That's about it.
100
« on: January 19, 2012, 11:29 »
From the article:
Kelly has now decided that the time is right for him to leave the business to pursue other interests...
Sounds like it was his decision, although who knows what transpired to lead him to that.
I don't think so. This is the common way to say he was fired.
my thoughts exactly.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
