MicrostockGroup

I love this part

The concerns of professional photographers may come from fears about a “commoditisation of the market”, about iStock driving down the price of an image, and its impact on commission rates. But Thompson rebuts this idea, and suggests that rates have risen at iStock: “We started paying 25 cents an image!” He adds that commission levels stretch from 20% to 45%.

Why does almost everything he is quoted as saying come across to me as spin, distortion of the truth or just wrong? He says iStock started paying 25c per sale, I remember it paying 10c minimum and I believe that in 2003 it was as low as 5c.
He says the current commission rate ranges from 20% to 45% - err, excuse me, I think you mean 15% to 45%.
Doesn't this guy know anything about the company he's running?
Then we have the "make $10,000 from one photo in a few months" rubbish - I can't say it's a lie because maybe someone has done that, but it's hardly a fair representation of reality, is it?
And if Jonathan Klein told them to slow down the growth of the collection and concentrate on quality when he bought it, why did they speed up the expansion of the collection instead?
It's all bollux IMHO.

I understood that at first no money changed hands?
And the commission part omits a great part of the truth. [1]
Yup, JJRD was right, it's a "new kind of trust" we have to have in our 'leaders'. Trust that we'll never know HAFC WTH is going on.
[1] Does that make it a 'sin of omission' and a 'sin of commission' at the same time?

Yes, of course, you are right, Sue.

I almost forgot to mention my amusement over the comment about the forum community being there to offer photographers helpful advice. Isn't this overlooking the fact that his redeemed credit targets system has made us all competitors with each other, so you'd be a fool to help others get ahead?

And I take it from his advice about not cropping images in order to leave plenty of space for designers that he hasn't been a recipient of the "too-much-space" rejection form.

I don't know if it's a correct word, but this interview looks like a MOCKERY.

He's a dick, yes, but clueless? I think he/they know exactly what they are doing.

Feel I want to hide my head in the sand,  everything is just too embarrasing.

   This is just one more step in the process of cleaning up Getty for an IPO or sale. Puff pieces like this will all be included in the press packet announcing the IPO, with the hope that the financial press will focus on their side of the story. The ongoing cleanup of the forums is another part, and the push to increase profits short term at any expense is the final part. And it's going to work.

the article is fine IMO. it's remarkable that it's so taboo here to say anything positive at all about iStock. It was good advertising for iStock and though Kelly's comments were very general and broadly focused, that is undoubtedly the design of the publication and the interviewer. FWIW, I've never met or even spoken to him, but very good friends of mine and even other colleagues I don't know that well have consistently told me what a nice, very genuine person KK is. unfortunately being genuine almost always comes across as foot-in-mouth syndrome when a person is being paraphrased by media.

when I worked as a reporter/interviewer for magazines back when writing was my main work, magazines always have their agenda. they usually want broad statements, nothing drilled down and nothing too intimate. each article in that type of publication is simply an advertisement for both the magazine and the interviewee. The only obvious inference from the 'spin' is that Getty is actively for sale. but we already suspect that is underway. my concern with that is that iStock remains intact through a sale.

No word yet on the IS forums.

I recently read this 2009 article and though this line was pretty funny:

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/yourmoney/41592872.html?page=1&c=y

"It doesn't really matter if someone considers themselves a professional or not," said iStockphoto COO Kelly Thompson.

"People aren't looking to make a whole lot of money, but they want to get that new lens cap," Thompson said.

would it have mattered if he had said 15% to 40%? it wouldn't have changed the context of the article in any way. to put it in perspective, in publishing authors get 4% to 8%-if we're lucky. I'm not stating that I agree with 15% for non-exclusives. I completely disagree with so low a percentage in our industry for any artist. but I'm just saying that suggesting it was a great big LIE designed to mislead seems silly. because even had they printed the 'truth', it would have hardly changed the article.