MicrostockGroup

well, yes, yes, and yes..
starting back to front..

sjlocke..
-agree, we need some form of QA. although i can't say much for bias reviewers who would approve dogshit and then reject a studio shot for poor composition. literally.
-not sure what you mean by "keep idiots from driving pricing to a penny", Mr Locke.
the microsites are already doing that . is it ok for agencies to drive prices down to a penny but not ok for individuals?  maybe i misread your thoughts.

nosaya..
- agree. even now, amongst sites, there is some form of bias in driving buyers to insider's portfolio.
you know it's happening. how else would there be such disparity in a new image where one gets an instant sale while another much better image gets shafted on page 110 of the same keyword search placement. or when in a site's blog by an official, a poorly underexposed image is given credit as "stock sellable " example.
so, of course, Getty will find a way to own the search to still get first ten pages. in failing that, all Getty will need to do is buy over the search engine. and then kill it too.lol.

stockastic..
= i am not advocating to do away with agencies. they do their job and they earn their commissions.
i just don't like the way some of them are controlling contributors, be it not allowing them to opt out, or just plain showing no concern of the bottom line .

good thread. this is the kind of forum i enjoy, where there is some form of unity amongst contributors. after all, if we let agencies shaft us, no one particular contributor is immuned.
that is, unless, you start your own agency. .. and we know how successful that is, lol.

sure, Mr Locke. anyone can slit their own throat(s) by undercutting you. but in order to get a buyer to move to these cutthroats, they have to make images like yours.
if you make images that is easy to copy, or clone, i can see that reducing your lifelihood to a penny.
somehow i don't think that is just that easy. if so, IS wouldn't give you that preferential treatment either, would they?

what i see with other sites, not IS, though... is that they are trying to get total amateurs to move in on your "territory"  but being lenient to them initially.  this is why we see so much crap in microstock. some quite laughable.   i suspect this is to maintain the volume.

it seems many sites are now doing a fantastic job with the smoke screen... ie. wow, we now have xxx millions images ... and wow too, you can get these xxx millions at prices AS LOW AS (fill in the blanks here, as this amount keeps getting lower and lower each time you check).

 

IS is the eBay/paypal of this business.  All 3 are middlemen between the two people, all 3 raise rates as they like and all 3 annoy their users .

Free content is legally hazardous, hardly searchable and with an average poor quality.  Even if you were determined to do do it, producing free content with acceptable standarts would cost you a lot of money, and because of that, if not the hobby of a bored billionarie, free content never will be able to replace paid content. An the same will happen, in the near future ,with too-,much-cheap content (basically subs)... in the point when producers discover that they spent  more than what they get.

Correct. A clearance house for rights and releases, a warranty, a technical evaluation, payment, controlled downloads....
What you are talking about is a... stock agency. 

i think many of us have hijacked this thread. so let's pull it back into topic.

to reconsider why Getty would want to divert attention from IS.
well, maybe they are not as stupid or insensitive to IS contributors (esp exclusivies) as i initially thought.

we see the other top 4 sites literally going for the mass volume cheap subs marketing. so Getty gets StockXpert and shaft them into Thinkstock. also shaft a lot more of non selling IS images there.
this creates competition for SS, DT , FT,et.. who seem to favor subs , even though we know contributors hate sub with a passion.  but Getty has to fill that need or lose market hold .

now, a buyer can choose between "premium" micro stock that you can find at IS,
or Thinkstock. you probably will find everything from horseshit to one thousand and one golden people same old same old for the next 100 pages in Thinkstock as you would with SS, DT, FT,etc..
this way, Getty buyers are happily served via Thinkstock without having to go outside the Getty fold.

then, when the buyer gets tired of seeing all those same old same old at Thinkstock,
they can come back to IS and pay for something better.

this pleases both contributors of IS, and buyers.
not as dumb as they look... this Getty.

How can a buyer be guaranteed that you own the image which you are selling the rights to use ?

How can a buyer be certain that the image is rights cleared ? Who checks the paperwork ?

What are you going to offer as a trader which is better than what an agency can offer ?

Who checks that you are not spamming your keywords or uploading inferior shots ?

The best photographers in the world need someone else to make editorial decisions for them. Same as all other creatives ultimately.

You need to look at things from the clients' perspectives.