Photography is a "hobby" for me and my tiny little port of 250 images at IS will not sway their decision, my REAL job is creative director for fortune 1000 co.
Not only do you have my support in no longer purchasing from IS (have about 50 credits that I'll spend this weekend so that some of you can get your 20% - and I'll buy nothing with a crown : P   ), but I'm pulling my port as well. It's only worth about $500 per year, but I'll feel better about myself. We also have monthly "designer meetings" (people from area design companies get together to suck down scotch and crab cakes) and I will take my 10 minutes of speech time to make sure that they're at least aware of this.

It's unfortunate that Wall-St found its way into MS

added: and even if all of this gets IS to modify or completely drop this plan, I'm done with them.

Since most of us appear to agree that changing buyer's behavior is the best response to Istock's unethical money grab, it would be great to read what buyers have to say. 

I know that some buyers have voiced plans to leave, but it's really hard to find their posts, buried as they are in all the justifiable contributor outrage. 

It would be nice to be able to read what buyers have to say here on MSG.  If you are a buyer who is going to leave Istock, or if you have found a post somewhere by a buyer who is leaving, or if any of the buyers you have contacted have responded, could you post it here?  It might have a stronger impact if we can see the buyer comments in one place.

Just finished reading Thomas' excellent post compiling the buyers' comments.  Well done!  And thanks so much to the folks who have been able to unearth them in that monster thread!

Most of all, three cheers for the buyers who have supported all of us these past several years, and who are continuing to support the contributors by taking their business to more ethical agencies:  Morton, Lizzielou, Polekspress, ABDesign, SDbT, Mortmatch, anonymous, and Gbalex.

Hopefully the list will continue to grow as more designers get word of what's happening.

And Cathy, I totally agree that this shouldn't be about exclusive vs. independent.  We are all getting hosed here to one degree or another and this rampant greed threatens everybody.

Hi, I just joined this group.  So glad I found it.  I just spent the past five years gradually building to get to be exclusive at iStock.  I am now knocked down to 15% with no hope of ever crawling out of that hole.  I didn't go exclusive, yet, thank goodness.  Now I will try starting over at other agencies.  A designer friend posted this on my FB page:

Getty owns the whole image world. That is silly that iStock is paying the photographer's less. I am getting tired [of] the costs that keep going up on purchasing images.

Quote from: KB on September 09, 2010, 11:16

Quote from: anonymous on September 09, 2010, 10:57

and I'll buy nothing with a crown : P

Why is that? What have exclusive contributors done to earn your wrath? In some ways, we are hurt more by this move than independents. Of course, it's your decision, and your money. I'm just curious why you feel that way.

Well - when some one pissis on me I for one Piss back.

Beisides - you should thank us, while on your knees whining. Hurting IS on the wallet, is the only thing that can bring the silly management at IS to the negosiationg table. The independents leaving, and taking their businnes and clients with them, is "money talks".

Remeber - there are 80%+ non ex. on IS.

The end result has been many more submitters with LCV work burying images that we as buyers actually need for our projects.

Quote

It's another to support the artists and vote with your feet.  Thank you!

That has got to be the most self-interested moronic comment I've read in this whole debate. Why would anyone contributing to IS want people to go elsewhere and thus damage the artists income?

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on September 09, 2010, 16:20

Quote

It's another to support the artists and vote with your feet.  Thank you!

That has got to be the most self-interested moronic comment I've read in this whole debate. Why would anyone contributing to IS want people to go elsewhere and thus damage the artists income?

To point out to iStock management that their actions have consequences?  To put every other agency on notice that we're not just sheep to be fleeced?  And that's ignoring the very human "screw with me and I'll screw with you" response to being bullied.

Quote

.  Both self-interested AND moronic

That's right, they exist hapily together, you've just shown that.

Quote

To point out to iStock management that their actions have consequence

Look mate, you're hardly a big seller on IS. For a lot of people it's their entire source of income, start chasing buyers away and people are not happy. Duh!

If I chose to redirect my clients and my network to other sites, that MY desition.