MicrostockGroup

I agree that they want to dominate the market what site wouldn't, however I can't believe for one minute part of their strategy is to have exclusive images, because if it was they would offer an exclusive image upload process, I think they just want exclusive contributors. However I think this recent best match change has certainly buggered up that plan, a couple of months ago I was seriously considering going RF exclusive with them, I've just lost $1500 in a month due to this best match change, there is no way on Gods earth I would even consider going exclusive now, and I know for a fact I'm one of many who feel the same way.

I have a feeling (and nothing other than speculation to back this up) that the heads of Getty want iS to lose it's market share and have deliberately conjured up this recent best match change to do just that, within the past few months I've seen a lot of old time RM photographers start to make enquiries about iS and microstock in general with the view of testing the water and they had been getting good feedback, of course none of them would go exclusive and would try various agencies, what would happen if they started to see good returns? they'd reduce their uploading to Getty. Since this recent best match change and all the bad press it's got, most of these have now decided it's not worth bothering.
Like I say just my theory but I can't see any other reason why iS would have implemented this change.

Very interesting theory Richard!  Makes as much sense as anything I have read.  

Yuri, that is shocking that you are getting those kinds of rejections.  Especially in light of your recent success in becoming their second best selling artist of all time (and top selling artist in current rate of downloads).

Do you think there is a deliberate attempt to keep you and other high level non-exclusives from advancing any further up the ladder?  

"3- New non-exclusive images are pushed back just like top images so they'll never (or rarely) get the sales to take off. I already noticed this happening."

Interesting. I have noticed the same. My new images, even super groups, which there are virtually non of on Istock, won't sell. Very strange that this material suddenly sells about 500 percent less then the average sales for the same batches on other microstock sites with a lower demand for such images...

Maybe they don't like the idea that there #1 seller is non-exclusive.

I almost went exclusive like others have mentioned. It made financial sense at the time but a lot can change while waiting to clear contract with dreamstime and bigstock.

Yuri, so good to hear from you. Frankly, if IS is putting the squeeze on you, what chances do we newbies have?
I mentioned the same thing as you did here...even without post processing other than levels
i get overfiltered, for an especially sharp file. only because i went from a 7MP to 14 MP camera.
that's the mysteriously sharp ...that the reviewers rejected as over fliltered.
also the soft focus and lack of contrast, were actually high key lighting and actually steam off a glass, lol.

still, in hindsight, Yuri, if you get those rejections with your most expensive camera in the world,
hey ! i am going to forget IS for now.  or maybe, just send cats and off focus files that are accepted.
i am a newbie, only 20 images. Why scream at IS some dude tells me. Well, you know what, the images they rejected are so much better. Even i won't buy the ones IS accepted over the ones IS rejected.

Anyway, once again, Lisafix, Yuri, Coco,etc...and all, thanks for the insight. I will leave my portfolio at 20 images and go elsewhere until i see you all get better results from IS.

Why are you surprised? It's the norm to get nonsensical "overfiltered" and "artifact" rejections from IS. There's no use getting upset about it - this is simply the way they've chosen to operate their agency.

The opposite end of the spectrum, for me, is Flickr, where it's not out of the ordinary to see people rave about an image that has been overfiltered and/or has artifacts visible at low resolution. The lesson to learn, I think, is that it's only photographers who care so much about quality - end users are far more interested in emotional impact than technical quality.

I have a totally ridiculous theory about what istock is doing - a golden handshake for it's loyal long-time exclusives before abandoning their exclusivity policy totally as being not tenable in the long term, given that every new site increases the amount that exclusives are missing out on.

RT!  could be more right in his speculation then we ever know. Dont forget in the beginning of the 90s when they aquired Stones and Image-Bank it was differant.
Stones in Europe and Image-Bank in America was pretty much what gave Getty their prominent place, before these aquisitions they were really nothing.
Photodisc when launched was a big threat to the picture library world. Getty bought them, pretty much to be able to control them and hold them at bay. Today? Photodisc is just a sidekick, nothing else.
Could very well be that Getty sees the entire Micro industry as a giant threat to conventional RM and RF and that what we see here, the questionable best match changes, the " slow deterioration " of a leading Micro site, is an all purpose-like strategy to start putting the lid over the entire Micro industry. The worlds top Micro earners with lifestyles etc would still find it extremly hard to compete within the Getty-RM, its on a differant level.
Only, this time, the Micro has got a too  strong foothold and unless they can somehow get control over sites like SS, FT, DT etc, theyll have no chance.
Besides I dont think it will take too long before the likes of Alamy presents their very own Micro or similar.

RT`s  assumption could indeed be very close to truth.

That was a much more elaborate perspective then mostly seen here. Who are you again?

Hi Yuri!

Just a photographer ( long time member of the Getty-RM, Image-Bank and Stones, since 91 ) My hunch might be elaborate but Im basing it on history, since early 90s.

all the best.  Christian

In this market, I'd say anything is possible. But even if this turned out to be the strategy they are employing, I think it vastly underestimates the will of the people. Giving people a taste of more affordable stock imagery has left them wanting more, and if they ultimately can't get it from istock they will just find it elsewhere. istock isn't powerful enough to single-handedly stop the microstock industry.