MicrostockGroup

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...

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...

I think so - except that the hint of desperation doesn't come through as well in written form...

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.

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.

^^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).

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.

Double post.

and somehow the IS fanboys are silent...

Yup, and get 20% for it rather than our iStock percentage.
Of course, for all but one independent, 20% would be an attractive proposition.

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.

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.