MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Lots of rants about random stuff (was: More Getty content on iStock)  (Read 62465 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 07, 2011, 15:52 »
0
Not content with dumping the agency collection on iStock, they now plan to put editorial content from Getty on iStock - read here.

The kind of content - news, entertainment etc. - is the kind we're not allowed to submit.

Some animals are more equal than others...
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 20:32 by jsnover »


« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2011, 16:02 »
0
... and here is the kick in the nut$

« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2011, 16:16 »
0
I have no nuts to kick, however it does make me feel that having decided to return to independence now, versus wait out 2011 and see, was a good choice. Getty's clearly trying to milk iStock's traffic for all it's worth.

They didn't say anything about prices for this new stuff yet...

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2011, 16:16 »
0
So let me see if I'm reading this announcement correctly. I'll translate minus the sugar coating.

"You guys have done such a fantastic job of working hard to submit editorial images and prove editorial can sell at Istock that we are going to reward you by adding more Getty content competition. Oh, and by the way, you're not allowed to submit. You can apply to Getty."

Am I reading this correctly?

« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2011, 16:21 »
0
I think so - except that the hint of desperation doesn't come through as well in written form...

« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2011, 16:27 »
0
...Oh, and by the way, you're not allowed to submit. You can apply to Getty."
Not to mention that as a Getty contributor you will get 20% which may be an increase for some non-exclusives but most likely a decrease for existing exclusives.

I don't do editorial so I don't care either way but I can see that a bunch of people are getting p!$$3d off (again) with these, latest news (including non-exclusives, exclusives AND Getty photographers).

Oh and I was wondering where is the cut off line regarding who is a celebrity and who is just "a famous person". It's just stupid IMO.

« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2011, 16:31 »
0
Inevitably the traditional micro contributors will be pushed out and into TS and PP.  I have been saying this ever since Sept 2010.  Every activity is indicative that more change is coming.  Just watch....there will be so much competition in the micro collection when they complete the mass induction of agency collections and other Getty contributor ports that the Getty contributors will scream about "too much competition and depressed sales" resulting from superior micro content and Alamy-type volume (x2) that Getty will force the migration of Istocks micro contributors into their sub collections, or tell you to not let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.  There will be arguments to the contrary but they have made so many fkd up decisions over there that I am sure are mandated by Getty that I see this scenario happening.

lisafx

« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2011, 16:51 »
0
Thanks for the headsup JoAnn.  Guess our stuff will be buried even futher back, except in the very unlikely event they separate editorial from commercial. 

jen

« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2011, 17:11 »
0
The worst part (okay, the second worst part, after making this decision in the first place) is their habit of dumping news on us and then leaving us to rant without answering any questions.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: June 07, 2011, 17:38 »
0
Well, do you know I was actually going to make a positive post as I'm having a good, for me, day today, including 3 E+ sales and a Vetta.
But now I just feel battered and bruised.
:-(
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 18:21 by ShadySue »

Slovenian

« Reply #10 on: June 07, 2011, 17:42 »
0
^^I'm having a good day as well after a weekend with no sales (hasn't happened for months). I don't really care about editorial, I don't shoot it much, they're rejecting my shots for absurd reasons (I have good acceptance rate in the regular collection).

« Reply #11 on: June 07, 2011, 17:55 »
0
Wow, this really sucks... another gazillion images to push back our files in the best match

« Reply #12 on: June 07, 2011, 17:58 »
0
It sounds to me like the Getty content that is going to be added is stuff that we can't submit anyways as the normal "iStock" editorial. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Getty dumps into the collection (especially when they are Agency images that never sell and have no place at the top of the best match search), but if these are photos that we can't even upload then it might bring in new/different customers. Plus it opens a door for photographers who want to shoot this type of stuff (celebrities, etc.).

« Reply #13 on: June 07, 2011, 18:17 »
0
"On a technical note, we will be dating these files so that our system recognizes their original creation date, and not the date they are uploaded to iStock. This is being done to ensure that these new files do not dominate our Best Match sort en masse."

People don't really believe that, do they?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #14 on: June 07, 2011, 18:20 »
0
It sounds to me like the Getty content that is going to be added is stuff that we can't submit anyways as the normal "iStock" editorial. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Getty dumps into the collection (especially when they are Agency images that never sell and have no place at the top of the best match search), but if these are photos that we can't even upload then it might bring in new/different customers. Plus it opens a door for photographers who want to shoot this type of stuff (celebrities, etc.).
There are plenty of occasions where we can easily photograph celebs and politicians a without needing any 'accreditation', but iStock won't accept even that. For example, if there's a rally in a big public place, where celebs and/or politicians are speaking, free festivals (probably minor celebs, but iStock won't take them either, though some are in), politicicans or royalty doing a walkabout etc (e.g. if you happened to have a good position for photographing Kate Middleton in her carriage from the pavement). There are no ways of getting accreditation for that sort of thing. No matter, there are other outlets.
However, I don't see how a buyer with an interest in celebs will even look at other material.
One thing iStock seems to be bad at is debriefing. We've already had evidence here that they don't debrief former exclusives who hand in their crown. This could just be as simple as 'We're sorry exclusivity isn't working for you. Would you like to explain why you made your decision'. It may be that they are happy about losing exclusives, of course, as they make more 'profitability' out of them as independents.
When they changed the old Getty program, they pointed out that a high proportion of people who had been accepted for Getty had never taken it up. I was one of these, and I was never asked why I hadn't taken up the 'opportunity', and I guess others weren't either.
So they seem not to be remotely interested in finding out why things aren't working for contributors, and as we know, they wouldn't want to make things better for us anyway. Sheer arrogance.
And as George said on the iStock forum, lots of these images are upsized: a luxury that isn't granted to us.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 18:34 by ShadySue »

« Reply #15 on: June 07, 2011, 18:21 »
0
And why do people keep insisting on this?

"We Want To Be Included in Major Decisions!  We deserve at least this much.

Name an iStock Contributor Panel that can be permanently active with rotating members.  PLEASE!!"

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: June 07, 2011, 18:26 »
0
Double post.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 18:30 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #17 on: June 07, 2011, 18:29 »
0
Sorry again. One of these days I'll remember to hit 'modify' instead of 'quote'.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 18:30 by ShadySue »

« Reply #18 on: June 07, 2011, 18:44 »
0
and somehow the IS fanboys are silent...

« Reply #19 on: June 07, 2011, 18:51 »
0
It sounds to me like the Getty content that is going to be added is stuff that we can't submit anyways as the normal "iStock" editorial. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Getty dumps into the collection (especially when they are Agency images that never sell and have no place at the top of the best match search), but if these are photos that we can't even upload then it might bring in new/different customers. Plus it opens a door for photographers who want to shoot this type of stuff (celebrities, etc.).

yes, but it begs the question - if they can do it, why can't we? 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #20 on: June 07, 2011, 19:06 »
0
Plus it opens a door for photographers who want to shoot this type of stuff (celebrities, etc.).
Yup, and get 20% for it rather than our iStock percentage.
Of course, for all but one independent, 20% would be an attractive proposition.

« Reply #21 on: June 07, 2011, 19:31 »
0
This is total BS. The folks who are supporting it make me sick. Particularly a certain admin who used to be one of the strongest "voices of the people". I just can't get over how the badge and the paycheck has changed that tune. It's truly disappointing.

But anyway, this is just another nail in the coffin for the site. I dare say I hardly care, at this point. It's beyond saving now, I think. Get what $ from it while you can. I think it's bad news bears and smaller paychecks for all, moving forward.

And above all, keep that day job! Or find one :)

« Reply #22 on: June 07, 2011, 20:03 »
0
My eternal optimism is wavering.  As I posted on iStock, does anyone know how the Getty contributors view this change?  An additional opportunity, or a downward kick???   I am a small business owner and don't pretend to understand the iStock/Getty business and management dynamic, but it appears that more and more, iStock is simply being run as a subsidiary of Getty (duh).   I truly doubt that iStock management has any more say in these decisions than we do.  They are in my opinion middle management squeezed from above, and railed at from below.  The driving force behind the company is clearly no longer in Canada.  Hey, maybe it will all be good this time, just kidding.  I have been wanting to do some creative photo projects for myself instead of always looking for stock images, maybe this is the catalyst.

traveler1116

« Reply #23 on: June 07, 2011, 20:19 »
0
I think the new contract said that Getty contributors could have their content moved to the partner program as Getty sees fit, correct me if I'm wrong.  That is even worse than our deal, for now.

« Reply #24 on: June 07, 2011, 20:43 »
0
Jaw-dropping, really,  some of the stuff that comes out of people's mouths over there.

Once Getty sees certain contributers standards, how good their work is and how well it sells, Istock admins will push those people in the right direction like they did with agency files. Neither Istock or Getty is going to give up the chance to make money on our skills and the people that excel will be noticed now.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
8738 Views
Last post June 03, 2010, 11:32
by Opla
5 Replies
6592 Views
Last post March 17, 2011, 07:50
by ProArtwork
7 Replies
5330 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
7 Replies
3427 Views
Last post March 30, 2017, 17:37
by Sean Locke Photography
5 Replies
4620 Views
Last post December 25, 2018, 05:23
by mara

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors