Author Topic: Nippyish note from Rebecca Rockafellar (Read 78582 times)

cobalt · « **Reply #200 on:** December 10, 2012, 08:31 »

It´s not just about understanding how much work goes into image production.

By using the site themselves they become quality controlers for the upload process, ease of use of the lightboxing system, they do test searches with keywords relevant for their files, they get annoyed when they realize how many copycats there are and that showing visible downloads is hurting their sales etc..etc...

Hospitals are run by people who are doctors who work their way up the ladder, IT companies are run by IT people, Biochemical cooperations by Chemists or Biochemists. They might have additional high ranking team members for accouting and legal stuff, but the vision of the company comes from people who truly understand what the company is about. How else will they spot trends and innovate.

Does Getty even have a history of innovating? From what I understand they are just 10 years older then istock, where founded with the money of a billionaire and just keep buying innovative companies. If I look at their Alexa traffic, it is essentially flat (compared to istock).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasminawad/8261426272/#in/photostream

Obviously their traffic is lower in volume because they are a luxury site. So they are still making a lot of money inspite of the lower volume. But I don´t find it encouraging that the site itself has not been able to attract more customers, or at least more customers who fill their project needs with material from getty. Obviously if the traffic is flat but they doubled their prices, they would have still increased revenue. But somehow I would still expect the site traffic itself to grow if they were expanding aggressively.

They also had to be taken of the stock market and were sold several times, every time increasing their load of debt.

Maybe the news and editorial sector is where they have brilliant, industry leading innovation??

Anyway, I am sure if their team had portfolios, no matter how small, the site would be in a completly different shape.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #201 on:** December 10, 2012, 09:09 »

Quote from: cobalt on December 10, 2012, 08:11

I´m wondering if part of the problem is that all the getty employees don´t have portfolios themselves.

Even if you have a small portfolio, you become much more invested in the success of the site, it stops being "just a job".

I doubt that a "search fairy" with her own portfolio would ever have allowed best match to deteriorate to the state it is in. You are simply more connected to your job if you are truly involved.

Same goes for Rebecca and the others.

The old istock had a lot of people, and certainly the executives, that had portfolios so they would always be "in tune" with the site.

istock had a culture with a strong entrepreneurial flair, with very dedicated passionate people that live and breathe the site.

I really don´t think people who approach their job from a distance, or one day work on this getty agency, the next day on another one can ever have the passion that drives excellence. The emotional connection just isn´t there.

They probably don´t have friends or family with portfolios either, so their work does not influence the monthly income of their friends.

I was kind of thinking the same but then again lots of employees with own ports, this and that could lend itself to a bit of skullduggery, not saying it would but could?
Its surely no coincidence that the most successful trad-agencies were actually launced and started by creatives even photographers in fact. They sort of knew the game from a creative point and that creatives in any form need an income.

Most if not all owners of micro agencies are computer and software/programming geeks that stumbles over an idea, thats all. There is absoloutely no fundamental business knowledge there but with time they buy themselves expertice, pay big money for know-how, technology and expertice.
Never forget John-Paul Gettys famous words " I dont know a * thing about geology, just kept drilling and bought the best expers there was.
The internet is also a paradise for these guys, they can do whatever they want change sorts for short term profits, change this, that, kill off almost anbodys ports, etc, just by the flick of a switch. Brillant! never had it so good.

cobalt · « **Reply #202 on:** December 10, 2012, 09:19 »

He may have said that, but I am pretty sure he taught himself enough to be able to choose the right people for the job.

ShadySue · « **Reply #203 on:** December 10, 2012, 09:45 »

Quote from: cobalt on December 10, 2012, 08:11

I´m wondering if part of the problem is that all the getty employees don´t have portfolios themselves.

Even if you have a small portfolio, you become much more invested in the success of the site, it stops being "just a job".

I doubt that a "search fairy" with her own portfolio would ever have allowed best match to deteriorate to the state it is in. You are simply more connected to your job if you are truly involved.

Same goes for Rebecca and the others.

Same goes for Lobo. Bet he wouldn't be as quick to ban the dissenters who wouldn't let it 'just blow over' if his income had been cut.

Microbius · « **Reply #204 on:** December 10, 2012, 11:13 »

"I'm taking heart in all this. The truth has come down in the form of an avalanche and this has become an old fashioned intervention. I truly believe that we will look back at this moment as the tipping point, either for the better or for the worse. Things will never be the same after this and the potential for good is as strong as the potential for bad. "

This post made me want to laugh and cry at the same time. Poor guy, he's going to be soooo disappointed.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #205 on:** December 10, 2012, 11:15 »

In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStock
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)

luissantos84 · « **Reply #206 on:** December 10, 2012, 11:27 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 10, 2012, 11:15

In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStock
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)

thats why Rebecca is lying when saying iStock is doing well, its impossible, its Sean its Manuel its António its everybody, the overall cannot be higher

Microbius · « **Reply #207 on:** December 10, 2012, 11:34 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 10, 2012, 11:27

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 10, 2012, 11:15
In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStock
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)

thats why Rebecca is lying when saying iStock is doing well, its impossible, its Sean its Manuel its António its everybody, the overall cannot be higher

Well they are paying out a lot less in commissions to IStock contributors, and also dumping stuff from other collections on the site. Also the search algorithm could be set up to spread sales in a way to minimize sales to people on higher levels for the year or those about to hit targets, meaning all the people who sell regularly are seeing falls while some new guys are seeing more sales, but they are spread so thinly everyone is unhappy.
All I am saying is that they could be doing just fine, by screwing us as much as possible.

hiddenstock · « **Reply #208 on:** December 10, 2012, 11:42 »

I really wanted to post this on iStock

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #209 on:** December 10, 2012, 11:45 »

There was a massive new ingestion of Getty Agency images over the last few days and the first page (200) of searches supposedly by Best Match are larded with those. Clearly new images and Getty transfers - or both - are currently considered "best" to the exclusion of just about anything else but a pink flame

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #210 on:** December 10, 2012, 11:49 »

I haven't seen so many contributors all voicing the same anger at once, at least not in the IS forums. They should just take the company over. ( and don't ask me for details of how that might happen)

cmannphoto · « **Reply #211 on:** December 10, 2012, 11:50 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 10, 2012, 11:45

There was a massive new ingestion of Getty Agency images over the last few days and the first page (200) of searches supposedly by Best Match are larded with those. Clearly new images and Getty transfers - or both - are currently considered "best" to the exclusion of just about anything else but a pink flame

yep over 3200 Vetta illustrations from CSA_Images in 2 days last week

Equus · « **Reply #212 on:** December 10, 2012, 12:04 »

IS is OVER for most contributors.

It's time to stop looking back, and move on.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #213 on:** December 10, 2012, 12:07 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 10, 2012, 11:15

In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStock
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)

'Its frightening, terrible is the word but you know what, without mentioning any names, I can see a few other agencies during 2013, who also have become too big for their boots, go exactly the same way. Once they start thinking they are irreplacable the downslide starts. In fact its already started in a small way.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #214 on:** December 10, 2012, 12:12 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 10, 2012, 11:27

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 10, 2012, 11:15
In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStock
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)

thats why Rebecca is lying when saying iStock is doing well, its impossible, its Sean its Manuel its António its everybody, the overall cannot be higher

If you read what she said carefully I think you will find that a claim that it was doing well was stunningly absent. She said "any rumors of iStock's impending demise are incorrect. We are still, by far, the number 1 microstock site revenue-wise".

It would be a surprise if that wasn't still true. Shutterstock had $120million in revenue last year whereas KT in 2010 was boasting about $1.7million a week being paid out to contributors = $85million a year and if that was 25% of the take, iStock would have been turning over about $350million a year = nearly three times what Shutterstock did last year.

If iStock revenues have fallen 50% over the last two years, it would probably have around $200million this year, which is still "number one, revenue-wise" even though it is an awful performance.

Next year might be a different story.

And you can see why they might be panicking.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #215 on:** December 10, 2012, 12:19 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 10, 2012, 12:12

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 10, 2012, 11:27
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 10, 2012, 11:15
In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStock
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)

thats why Rebecca is lying when saying iStock is doing well, its impossible, its Sean its Manuel its António its everybody, the overall cannot be higher

If you read what she said carefully I think you will find that a claim that it was doing well was stunningly absent. She said "any rumors of iStock's impending demise are incorrect. We are still, by far, the number 1 microstock site revenue-wise".

It would be a surprise if that wasn't still true. Shutterstock had $120million in revenue last year whereas KT in 2010 was boasting about $1.7million a week being paid out to contributors = $85million a year and if that was 25% of the take, iStock would have been turning over about $350million a year = nearly three times what Shutterstock did last year.

If iStock revenues have fallen 50% over the last two years, it would probably have around $200million this year, which is still "number one, revenue-wise" even though it is an awful performance.

Next year might be a different story.

And you can see why they might be panicking.

exactly, well put BT, which means they aren't doing well, they are decreasing even if it still number 1, they are actually doing very bad, I would say that because the important is really tomorrow

Equus · « **Reply #216 on:** December 10, 2012, 12:33 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 10, 2012, 12:12

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 10, 2012, 11:27
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 10, 2012, 11:15
In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStock
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)

thats why Rebecca is lying when saying iStock is doing well, its impossible, its Sean its Manuel its António its everybody, the overall cannot be higher

If you read what she said carefully I think you will find that a claim that it was doing well was stunningly absent. She said "any rumors of iStock's impending demise are incorrect. We are still, by far, the number 1 microstock site revenue-wise".

It would be a surprise if that wasn't still true. Shutterstock had $120million in revenue last year whereas KT in 2010 was boasting about $1.7million a week being paid out to contributors = $85million a year and if that was 25% of the take, iStock would have been turning over about $350million a year = nearly three times what Shutterstock did last year.

If iStock revenues have fallen 50% over the last two years, it would probably have around $200million this year, which is still "number one, revenue-wise" even though it is an awful performance.

Next year might be a different story.

And you can see why they might be panicking.

IS may have overdone the price rises, but the other sites are leaving a lot of money on the table.

aspp · « **Reply #217 on:** December 10, 2012, 12:42 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 10, 2012, 09:45

Same goes for Lobo. Bet he wouldn't be as quick to ban the dissenters who wouldn't let it 'just blow over' if his income had been cut.

She could signal their fresh start to communications by inviting the banned back on board and refreshing the moderation team. Maybe bringing to the front some people with a different style and approach.

It was much better there when more of the contributing Admins and Inspectors were involved at the forum. They messed up when they tried to kill the community side of things.

aspp · « **Reply #218 on:** December 10, 2012, 12:43 »

This is all pipe dreams of course. Nothing significant is going to change. Even if they call it change and paint a smile on it.

click_click · « **Reply #219 on:** December 10, 2012, 12:44 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 09, 2012, 16:16

As a former software developer for big companies - I can tell you that questions lke "how hard could it be?" are typically not well received.

The honest answer is often "very hard and I couldn't possibly explain why, in non-technical terms". ...

It's not about the question how hard can it be to fix the broken site.

It's about whether they finally accept the fact that the original platform is bound to cause issues as we all can see now.

Don't you agree that if IS invested $30,000,000 some really capable company could actually design a functioning web site? They would recoup that money within months of increasing revenue because buyers would come back...

P.S. In fact who the heck designed Getty Images? Maybe those programmers would be able to provide a starting point...

Poncke · « **Reply #220 on:** December 10, 2012, 12:51 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 10, 2012, 11:15

In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStock
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)

Holy crap, thats freakin ridiculous. I am shocked to see the downward trend that steep

ShadySue · « **Reply #221 on:** December 10, 2012, 12:55 »

Quote from: aspp on December 10, 2012, 12:42

Quote from: ShadySue on December 10, 2012, 09:45
Same goes for Lobo. Bet he wouldn't be as quick to ban the dissenters who wouldn't let it 'just blow over' if his income had been cut.

She could signal their fresh start to communications by inviting the banned back on board and refreshing the moderation team. Maybe bringing to the front some people with a different style and approach.

It was much better there when more of the contributing Admins and Inspectors were involved at the forum. They messed up when they tried to kill the community side of things.

It was very significant when former forum moderator and contributor Rob Sylvan left iStock. Probably, he had some inside knowledge about their planned shenanigans.

aspp · « **Reply #222 on:** December 10, 2012, 13:02 »

We cannot make any assumptions or draw any definite conclusions about Rob's leaving.

All we know is that he was not replaced by someone with a similarly friendly and warm approach to people.

rubyroo · « **Reply #223 on:** December 10, 2012, 13:16 »

Quote from: Poncke on December 10, 2012, 12:51

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 10, 2012, 11:15
In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStock
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)
Holy crap, thats freakin ridiculous. I am shocked to see the downward trend that steep

Me too. So sorry Sean. I'm really stunned that someone with such a high-quality and high-profile port should see such huge drops. Really atonishing.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #224 on:** December 10, 2012, 13:18 »

Futile! no matter what we say or wish. Our voices wont be heard. Wont even be read. Their 100% top priority are all their exclusives. Thats their life-blood and frankly quite rightly so.

As independants we keep uploading to a heap of agencies who gradually cut our percentages in the same sly way, the IS exclusive gets cut by only one agency.

Really, whats the differance?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Nippyish note from Rebecca Rockafellar (Read 78582 times)

cobalt

ClaridgeJ

cobalt

ShadySue

Microbius

BaldricksTrousers

luissantos84

Microbius

hiddenstock

Jo Ann Snover

vlad_the_imp

cmannphoto

Equus

ClaridgeJ

BaldricksTrousers

luissantos84

Equus

aspp

aspp

click_click

Poncke

ShadySue

aspp

rubyroo

ClaridgeJ

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors