Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 11, 2012, 13:39

Quote from: lisafx on December 11, 2012, 13:29

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 10, 2012, 21:10

If IS went under I wonder how a massive flood of new images at SS and other sites would affect everyone elses sales.

Yes, EXACTLY.  Istock going under isn't good for anyone.  Any independents enjoying a bit of schadenfreude right now will not be so delighted when their sales drop due to an onslaught of new, formerly exclusive files at other sites. 

Not to mention, as JoAnn pointed out:

Quote from: jsnover on December 10, 2012, 21:42

I don't want IS to fail - I make good money from them each month. I would like them to fix their busted site, drop the RC system and scrap all the Getty zombie images on the site - with a decent, working site and 20% royalties things might look pretty decent as a #2 earner in the monthly sweepstakes.

Exactly!  IS crashing will leave a bad scar and tarnish the whole industry. No mater what one thinks of IS, in some ways they are the mentors, the rest are just followers, some good ones, some lousy.

Sometimes the protege out-skills the master, in this case SS is now the 'master'. No?

Ofcourse! right now they are producing and in everyones good books. Wait and see what happens when production is going down a bit or some changes are enforced?
I mean no one hear can seriously believe that one agency especially after an IPO, is going to prove history wrong, are they? lets say we have all been down this route before and it ALWAYS ends in the same way. Regardless of who or what they are.

Also this is not a matter or an issue of skill or master as such. This is pretty much normal common sense. Remember the ones that are happy wooyays, are the ones making money, ( Im one of them) but as soon as that decrease or stops. Love flies out the window, as quick as a rabbit gets f---ed.

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 11, 2012, 13:08

Cant be right?  last time I checked the original chart, I was like, 490 something and with 55K sales, now Im down to 1300 something.

above me are two guys with just 9K downloads?

maybe you are looking at the portfolio size

Hi!
How do you mean? are there differant ways of looking?  I thought it was the overall ranking?

best.

Quote from: cybernesco on December 11, 2012, 07:20

Quote from: ShadySue on December 11, 2012, 06:54

There has been a big change, but are we sure the change they indicated has started?
On every search I've tried, just having two words, not a search phrase, (e.g girl toy) brings all the new 0dl files to the top.
That particular search (girl toy) in my geographical, non-buyer profile has:
9 0dl Agency files, 7 of these from Images_Bazaar
1 video
1 vector
3 0dl Agency files, 2 from Images_bazaar
The next 34 after that are dominated by 0dl Vetta raster illustration images from CSA_Images, most of which are 'fashion dolls' (no girl, unless you count the doll as a girl).
(NB, that's a search I have no personal interest in, but it's more 'general' than my usual personal interest searches)
http://www.lizworld.com/BeM.jpg
That's exactly what people were reporting before.
Do other people's current results look like this?

Could it be because changes take a little while to propagate throughout the net?

Perhaps, but there has definitely been a change in my personal interest one-word/phrase best match.

Well it must have changed drastically. Ive just made 90 quid in the last two hours, the sales are pouring in!

So far, it looks like total disaster for independants. Blue and red flames are just fading into oblivioun. See this is what I cant understand? there are categories where the exclusives simply can not deliver the best possible files, yet others are pushed way back behind the crowns.

Im afraid if they really truly want to increase revenues for both company and contributors, FOR ONCE!  they simply have to mix the crowns with the indies. period!

This is about saving a company, not segregation between exclusives and non exclusives. having in mind that the non-excl, outnumbers the exclusives by 10-1.

Got a funny feeling though they will do the same mistake yet again?

Forget Auto!

Curves has to be calibrated, set the highlights for 248, shadows for 8 and neutral for 128. use the eyedroppers for the lightest and darkest places on the picture. If you are going to learn PS at all you might as well learn it the correct way, right. Using PS the way the Professionals do is a very steep learning curve and if you are not prepared to do it, get the Elements instead. Micro is one thing, but should you want to do business with lets say RM agencies, etc, then the learning is a must. They will check it!
What your eyes see is one thing, �getting the correct output values is totally differant but thats what counts.

Your entire PS has to be calibrated as well, going into the color-settings under Edit, etc.

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?

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.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 10, 2012, 01:46

Quote from: cidepix on December 09, 2012, 19:49

most of the contributors fell into the trap by believing they have good intentions now 

I don't see any sign of that. Almost all the posts in that thread seem to be heavily laced with scepticism. Giving a civil response to a question isn't the same as believing in good intentions.

As for why she posted, I'd run with the idea that the Carlyle group, having discovered what they have bought, want to try to undo some of the damage to the brand that H&F and Getty inflicted on it. It's significant that Rebecca admitted that "some" contributors think istock is incompetent, uncaring and greedy. I can almost hear the Chairman telling her "we've got to change that perception, Rebecca, it's bad for business. Win back their confidence and it will help stop the hemorrhaging on the bottom line".

So the whole thing is probably just a PR exercise. My guess is that the response has been exactly as expected. If there are any surprises in it, it will probably only be that so many diamonds and even black diamonds are openly talking about quitting exclusivity. That one may have caught them off balance, I doubt if anything else has.

ClaridgeJ - one reason they might want it is that it is still a cash cow.

Yes its a cash cow! as I said, still a good source of income. Dont know about you Paul but Im having a great month right now.
best.

Yes SS is still delivering and DT is constanly on the rise, level with IS actually. In my books FT is the dissapointing one. Ever since their change some 6 months back its downhill.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 08, 2012, 17:13

Quote from: Dan on December 08, 2012, 16:54

     Used  a  pseudonym  fo  my  accepted  test  batch.

You alway need at least one 'pseudonym', even if you only have one, and it's your own name.

Oh yes and one more thing. The Pseudonym is what goes on the Copyright credits. So if someone wants to play with three or four names, and those files get downloaded, the name when published is not the account name or your real name, but is the Pseudo name.

According to Alamy the rank of each Pseudo is independent of the others. I'm not so sure that's true, but maybe someone with more sales and more files can provide some research and evidence from their history? I don't know how someone would track that?

Istill dont understand it and still cant see how it can benefit, not in any single way. Just a weird feature to me.

Its getting ridiculous. They dont need any help with straightening things out. The Getty people have got tons of experience and have probably forgotten more then anybody else will ever learn.
How difficult can it be?

Just remove this RC nonsense. fix the bugs/glitches, etc. Make it worthwhile for independants to return and ofcourse, take care of the remaining exclusives.

jeez, you dont have to be a brain surgeon for this.

I have been reading up on this thread and the IS one with the message from that Rebecca woman. I think her OP is really poor communication. You dont talk like that to really upset people. Its like throwing oil on a fire. The message is even further frustrating the contributors and I find the tone very condescending. Its also a complete hit and miss when she comes back saying she is reading the thread, on her weekend that is. Are you for real, she must be making about 150k a year (correct me if I am wrong) and you are a GM. Your work never stops. Does she think the contributors don't work on a Saturday? What I consider utter fail is first say you have been watching the forum for a year and then you say I have been reading all your complaints and post a summary like its all new to you. What has she been reading for that year then? And the cherry on top is that the summary of the 4 problems misses the biggest frustration of them all, the commission!! I have never seen such amateur management, poor communication and display of completely missing the point by a general manager of any large company. Well the utter fail of BP's Tony "I'd like my life back" Hayward managing the Deep Horizon disaster is a classic. To me it seems Rebecca wants her life back back as well after she got ridden by Getty's/Carlyle's board for making a complete mess of iStockphoto.

Well I guess you will have to make an honest women of her. Can hear wedding bells coming on!

They should just set istock free.

Give it back to Bruce or find somebody from the community and come to a sensible agreement. They can then have a licensing agreement for the exclusive content and cherry pick whatever they want for their luxury brands that they can micromanage to their hearts content. Getty is the Hermes of the stock industry, they have the upper market locked in very well, where you can go wheeling and dealing for multimillion dollar contracts with large cooperations. Nothing wrong with that business model.

But istock doesn't fit in there.

They need a licensing agreement similar to the one  they have with flickr.

Istock can then go back to growing organically and becoming the marketplace of the industry.

Well. at least that scenario would give us a future. Sort of like Steve Jobs saved Apple when he came back in after John Scully nearly destroyed it. And look were Apple is now, even without him.

I don't see anyone from Getty having the necessary skills and vision to replace Bruce.

They have owned the place for 6 years and still don't get it.

Give it back to Bruce?  yeah right, he was the one that put us there from the very start, by selling it, knowing full well the Getty track history after take-overs.

Youre 100% right though, Getty has the upper end well and truly and IS as you say dont fit in there.

She is a manager and thats it, a go-between and ofcourse the Getty HQ is calling the shots, so no point in being angry with her.

In terms of annual turnover, yes IS, is the number 1 and has always been. There is no micro agency that can challenge that. That said, whoever is number one or two is from our point not even important.
The important thing is how they are treating independants. Ofcourse Exclusives should have an edge and perks etc or else there wouldnt be any exclusives. The total slaughter of independant ports so far is a fact and it gives a bad reputation, a bad image really.

I have been uploading steady and sure enough Im seeing a big increase in sales, not like it was but today Im just around 25% down instead of between 40-50%.

At this moment no agency is doing all that brillant and they have all got their differant problems. Right now IS have got the right timing to do something constructive here, try to capitalize on the situation. I hope they realize that.

I feel this letter is pretty sincere and I know for a big fact the Getty HQ is not too happy with the present situation but I for one will keep uploadning, plodding on and earn money.