ABDESIGN reports on the stats thread:

After buying thousands of images from this place over the years for the company I work for, we have finally moved on to other stock agencies and I think it shows that other buyers are moving on as well. Sad times here at istock.

Not surprising. I'm recommending the company I work for move stock shops, as well. After having to spend time on the site as a buyer, I found the experience so frustrating and unsavory that I think it's worth finding a new source for our images.

Time is money, and the way iStock's search works, they clearly don't value that of the buyer on either point. But on time in particular.

Wow. This is just crazy:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=3

Looks like Getty will need an audit too.

Just when you think these two companies couldn't be any less trustworthy, they demonstrate for you that they may well be! Gah.

and yet presumably your real name is going on the letter you've sent to H&F. or did you send that anonymously also? why would anyone, who takes their business seriously, consider mailing this?

I think we all take this seriously or we wouldn't be here. We'd be off doing other things. But thanks for letting me know you don't consider me to be someone who takes my stock photo side-business seriously

Personally, I'm happy for a form letter that I can now personalize as I like. Plus, seems to me it'd have a greater possibility of effecting change if we're all mailing in similar letters covering basic issues. Isn't that the way most letter-writing campaigns and such work?

I'm not holding my breath where results are concerned, but if we don't kick the issues up higher, how can we possibly hope for change? To keep complaining or raising issues to iStock - about iStock - is to continue banging our heads on a brick wall and (continue to) get nowhere fast. To say nothing of a continually worsening, raging migraine!

ETA: The bigger a company gets, the less its owners actually know what the heck is going on at ground-level. Management and oversight only gets more cumbersome to do well as a business grows and does better. So for all we know, H&F knows nothing of what's *really* going on at IS and might well be happy that someone brought the brouhaha(s) to its attention. You just never know. Long story short, I once had exceptionally disappointing service at a major chain restaurant in college. My friend and I asked to speak with the manager. The manager was even more rude and colorful than our waitress. As the manager was spewing madness, I opened my purse and started taking notes. The manager watched me do this, and kept going. I even went so far as to tell her I intended to contact her superiors and she was like, "Go right the eff ahead." And I did. And she was fired as a result, as was the waitress. The entire staff at that location received a week-long customer service training, and I was given my money back and several vouchers for meals on the house. But all of that happened *only* because I spoke up [for myself].

My understanding of the bug is that it wasn't for everyone. Which is why it should somehow be made fair, per my suggestions.

Quote from: jamirae on April 08, 2011, 12:54

I find it hard to believe the turorial thing is the issue.  I would guess that it is something else that istock considers more serious. But what that could be i dont know.

When I emailed him, he didn't mention the tutorial thing, but something else from the past.  He hasn't been in contact since.

That's too bad. Wonder what really happened.

Quote from: caspixel on April 15, 2011, 13:50

To answer my own question, here's the words straight from the horse's mouth (sort of - it's via that Canon article where KKT was interviewed), so we have to take it with a grain of salt, considering he thinks all the contributors only sell stock to buy a new lens cap:

"Thompson also clearly has an eye on the long-term benefits of the site's search engine � which has recently been overhauled. He describes it as �awesome� in delivering results based on a customer/client's location."

So it's supposed to be based on a client's location. So so stupid. Not all a designer's clients are local. Can they really be *that* dumb at iStock? (rhetorical question, of course)

totally... especially if I have a web developer working in Thailand but contracted to work on a site based out of the U.S.  Did they forget why the marketplace they sell in is called the WORLD WIDE Web?

Kelly needs to put the pipe down. Every time I'm tasked with shopping for photos, I see/feel the buyer's pain. Having spent all week now, several hours each day, searching for luxury travel-related images, I must say that iStock's search tool is the antithesis of awesome.

Why, for the love of god, for example, am I being shown THE SAME images every other page? Even when I dump best match sort in favor of sort by age? Not that it should matter how one is sorting. If you showed me an image once and I didn't buy it or add it to a lightbox, putting it in front of me two, three, five, fifteen times or more isn't going to do anything but piss me the eff off.

And the spam. By god the spam. It's so out of control. And it's not just random contributors. It's big names. Not cool. And clearly deliberate. And clearly they get away with it because of who they are. In speaking to another iStock contributor about this very issue, I was informed that when this person tried to fairly Wiki an inspector's file - someone who is just out of control with the spamming - the Wiki went away within hours. Nothing was done. Zap. Gone. File remains, spam and all. No favoritism, my arse. Spamming can seriously help . out of a file, as we all know.

There are others, but those would have to be my top two beefs with IS search. Those and I'd love to be able to nix all the Vetta and Agency files, of course. We don't have the budget for such lavish spending on photos, and coupled with the other two issues I mentioned, it's adding to a serious waste of my time. Which, for my company, is money.

Quote from: jamirae on April 13, 2011, 15:25

I am trying to find my surprised face but it is nowhere to be seen.

LOL!

 

There are loads of 1 image trolls with opinions...

That's a great statement, Cobalt. Thanks for the chuckle.

This gem would have gone on the old iStock Quotes thread, back in the day.

What you have said makes perfect sense to me BaldricksTrousers.

Ditto. FANTASTIC posts, Mr. Trousers.

Whoa, daddy. Go Cam[rocker]!

"On the one hand I'm happy to see that its not just me that is suffering so greatly, on the other it makes me sick that so many people are suffering so greatly. I've been canceliing or turning down stock shooting opportunities consistantly for the past three weeks. I have serious doubts about the survival of this business and am now becoming embarrassed to admit I'm exclusive. I used to be a F*cking cheerleader for this place, and now I'm having to figure out what to do to keep providing for my family. I remember the language that iStock used to make us feel secure when signing up for exclusivity, something "trust us we'll take care of you". Maybe I'm paraphrasing but thats how I remember it. But from where I sit it looks as though you guys aren't taking care of crap. I can't even tell if your making any money for yourselves.

You need serious reinvention for your Contributor/Customer relations and Marketing, that is if you ever figure out how to keep the store front working. If I walked into an Apple store and I was forced to look at the Mac Pro before I could get my hands on an iTouch I would never enter that store again. From what I can tell that is exactly how you guys are playing this game, and the competition is laughing at all of us."

Source - http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=323102&page=2

I'm not interested in being a cool kid Marisa, and I'm not the product, my work is. as someone who spent a lot of your time cultivating a cool-kid persona in the forums, you're being hypocritical to say the least.

*Sigh*

"Cultivating a cool-kid persona in the forums?" You are off your rocker (as usual), my dear. I am who I am. In the forums, in email, on the phone, in person. What you read/see is what you get. There is no cultivating of a persona. There is only me. Where iStock offers no transparency, that's all you get with me!

My point was that while our work *should* be the product, it's not. iStock operates largely on favoritism and so if you're not one of the "cool kids" your work doesn't get promoted or favored as well. And therefore doesn't likely perform as it could/should/would if you (and therefore, your work) were in "the club".

Capito?

I want only what is fair, and I believe fair means equal representation for all contributors whose work is of the quality prescribed for the showcase lightboxes. in the editorial lightbox instance, I feel my work definitely qualifies.

We agree there, completely. Which is why I suggested you go the BBB Canada route, as others have suggested. I think it's a brilliant idea. Much of what IS is doing is shady, and possibly illegal. So our concerns should likely be reported. Officially.

I'm running my business the way I feel works best for me. that includes the relationship I have with iStock, which I value the way I would any long-term business relationship I have built.

Hello! Again. We concur. If I thought a relationship with iStock were completely useless and a waste of my time business-wise, in either the short or the long term, I would terminate said relationship. But since I do think it's a relationship worth continuing, I think it's a relationship worth straightening out. If that means reporting the company to the BBB or taking other measures to ensure that I and my fellow contributors are being treated fairly and equally under the law, then so be it. THAT was my point. Which you seem to have missed, entirely.

What about the rounding down of commissions that I read about on another thread?  We could all put in a complaint about that.

Oh, yes. That, too. For sure.

GREAT idea. Circulating!