Quote from: Xanox on August 20, 2013, 23:10

istock is in full retreat mode, slashing prices, unlimited uploads, what's next?...

They should restaff. Really, I hate to make the suggestion knowing that if it ever happens it will mean a lot of people lose their jobs, but let's face it, the current istock staff aren't capable of keeping the company competitive. They react to things long after they should, following other companies and trends instead of innovating and trying to stay ahead of the curve. Their IT staff is purely reactionary at this point, not improving anything and just sluggishly responding to problems as they arise.

The istock staff has been this way for years. They said for so long that they'd never allow EPS10 files, or they'd never allow text in files. Meanwhile other companies expanded into these areas and beat istock to the punch. Then years later, istock finally gets on board with these things that buyers clearly want (the top-selling image at SS last year was a vector file that contained lots of text, something that istock would have rejected).

They need new people, folks who are forward-thinkers and can get ahead of their problems, and not just react to them. They need people who can predict what new product buyers will want and delivering those products before (or at least along with) the rest of the market.

They can start on the vector side of things by mandating that files with text include an editable version (no outlined text). Buyers want this. SS doesn't allow it, even though I just got another email Monday from an annoyed buyer who wanted an easily editable file with the fonts/text intact. istock could get ahead of SS with a policy about these files, but they don't have people at HQ right now who can think of this stuff.

That tip is free, istock. Want more, you can hire me as a consultant.

In most cases those decisions are made by management.  I have been a site developer, I can't tell you how many times our team recommended needed upgrades and improvements only to have management shoot those down.

You can have a company full of innovators and forward thinkers but if management will not act on their suggestions those resources are wasted. If that is the case should developers and employees lose their jobs because management is too greedy and short sighted to implement their suggestions?

Bruce said in a interview not long ago that the IS site needed to be rebuilt long ago, that it was never meant to handle so many images. IS management does not rebuild the infrastructure because they do not want to spend the money.

We have constant site bugs at SS for the same reason. They are willing to spend money on a ranking algorithms that will bring in $$,$$$,$$$, but they are not willing to spend money to make the site scalable and stable for submitters.  That is why we have images that go missing day after day year after year and more.

Totally agree on the staffing thing - it's not their fault that the muppets have taken over. 

If revenue = price * volume it's acceptable to have lower volumes with higher prices.  Non-exclusive content was not exorbitant so they cut prices along with some of the overpriced stuff.  Is anyone seeing a compensating increase in volumes cos I sure ain't?  I'm seeing similar or lower volumes for less $$ and for every buck I'm down, IS is down 7.  Extrapolate this to thousands of contributors who are actually making money and they must be down a fortune.

These price changes at iStock also affect how many RC credits we get per sale right? So not only are we getting paid WAY less per download, but we have WAY less chance at reaching the next (huge) 1% bracket. Am I getting that right?

Quote from: Microstock Man on August 22, 2013, 00:35

These price changes at iStock also affect how many RC credits we get per sale right? So not only are we getting paid WAY less per download, but we have WAY less chance at reaching the next (huge) 1% bracket. Am I getting that right?

Yes

Yikes. This deal just keeps getting better... 

I see some people have this naive 6yearold's concept of business, thinking if they sell something for twice as much, they will earn double. In reality of course they usually can hardly sell anything at all To turn this around for better understanding by the mentally impaired: in a digital economy it doesn't matter how low the price is as long as it pumps up the volume. SS has low prices and large volume. IS is converging towards low prices WITH decreasing volume = that is destructive for the business... and threy top it all off by giving the lowest of low commission anywhere - 8 - 9 cents (!!!). They suck and should be wiped into the trash as soon as possible.

Is it absolutely necessary in the year 2013 to deride someone's opinion in a public forum by using descriptors such as "naive" and "mentally impaired"?

Wow.  I'm starting to remember why I usually steer clear of MSG these days.

Quote from: EmberMike on August 21, 2013, 12:25

They should restaff. Really, I hate to make the suggestion knowing that if it ever happens it will mean a lot of people lose their jobs, but let's face it, the current istock staff aren't capable of keeping the company competitive. They react to things long after they should, following other companies and trends instead of innovating and trying to stay ahead of the curve. Their IT staff is purely reactionary at this point, not improving anything and just sluggishly responding to problems as they arise.

I really don't think their staff are the problem.  Staff can only carry out whatever plans the folks at the top tell them to...

Then they should replace management. If the top folks in Calgary can't get the job done, can't innovate, can't adequately compete with other companies that are getting way ahead of the former #1 microstock company, Getty should be bringing in folks who can.

Even CEOs can be replaced. If they don't perform, in most companies they're out. Seems like repeated failures and missteps at istock aren't fireable offenses.

Quote from: EmberMike on August 22, 2013, 10:46

Quote from: lisafx on August 21, 2013, 13:36

Quote from: EmberMike on August 21, 2013, 12:25

They should restaff. Really, I hate to make the suggestion knowing that if it ever happens it will mean a lot of people lose their jobs, but let's face it, the current istock staff aren't capable of keeping the company competitive. They react to things long after they should, following other companies and trends instead of innovating and trying to stay ahead of the curve. Their IT staff is purely reactionary at this point, not improving anything and just sluggishly responding to problems as they arise.

I really don't think their staff are the problem.  Staff can only carry out whatever plans the folks at the top tell them to...

Then they should replace management. If the top folks in Calgary can't get the job done, can't innovate, can't adequately compete with other companies that are getting way ahead of the former #1 microstock company, Getty should be bringing in folks who can.

Even CEOs can be replaced. If they don't perform, in most companies they're out. Seems like repeated failures and missteps at istock aren't fireable offenses.

I thought Istock's biggest problem for buyers was that their prices were too high, innovation doesn't seem like the solution to that, lowered prices is what buyers wanted and what they've got in this change.

They got lower prices, but its the way it is handled, the placement of image, the changing of collections, moving images to different price categories, pushing certain contributors up the search and accepting utter crapstock, that gets in the way of the lower pricing to be successful.

There is a lot more to the success of SS than just the fact that they have lower prices than istock. istock had higher prices than many agencies for a long time and was growing well.

If the current managers,whoever they are, don�t even understand these simple things, how will they ever catch up?

I know istock has many hard working people, but without leadership their work will be in vain. I really don�t see anything that has been implemented this year that would give me confidence that the company will grow again. And the lack of personal involvement from the invisible managers is a major factor. If you are not personally involved and try to run everything from a distance, how will you be able to survive in an environment when all your competitors have people who encourage a hands on approach?

I mean, it is amazing that finally some attention is being placed on istock after years of promoting thinkstock, but it all looks very half hearted and the attention to detail is missing. Or they really are horribly understaffed.

Reliability and trust is important for a brand and SS has been very good at building that over the years. istock keeps flip flopping from one extreme to the next and takes very drastic, over emotional decisions.

It would be great if they brought in leadership that rebuilds something as powerful as the old istock. But if the current changes is all the ideas they have, SS has nothing to worry about. And I think that is unfortunate, I would welcome more competition, but there doesn�t seem to be anyone out there who has their level of experience.

Quote from: BoBoBolinski on August 21, 2013, 01:23

Take a look at the earnings ratings, there are plenty of people happy to still be exclusive and earning considerably more than the 25 cents a pop that SS pay.

The lowest royalty I've ever received at SS was 20c and that was back in 2004/5.

In contrast the lowest royalty that I've had on Istock (that I'm aware of) was just 6c and that was just a couple of years ago. Even if I had been exclusive on 40% it would only have been about 13c. I still regularly have 'sales' on IS for much less than 25c.

So far this week on SS I've had 2 SOD's each paying $114.92 and an EL for $28.

That's awesome.  Congrats.

Then they should replace management. If the top folks in Calgary can't get the job done, can't innovate, can't adequately compete with other companies that are getting way ahead of the former #1 microstock company, Getty should be bringing in folks who can.

Even CEOs can be replaced. If they don't perform, in most companies they're out. Seems like repeated failures and missteps at istock aren't fireable offenses.

No argument from me.  Getty seems to be trying out your theory of changing COO of Istock every year or so.  Kelly, then Rebecca and now somebody else (can't be bothered to remember who). 

They all seem to be operating under the same short term, scorched earth policies though.  Unless somebody starts thinking long term and big picture, this slow march to obscurity will continue, I fear....