MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The only way to scare the sh*t out of Getty and IS  (Read 5243 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

XPTO

« on: September 08, 2010, 05:10 »
0
After the current events in IS I think that the only way to scare the sh*t out of Getty and IS management is for non-exclusives to start a campaign globally targeting picture buyers. Let's make an e-mail, showing how exploitive IS is, and that they can buy the same images from agencies like DT, SS, etc., and even alamy, for a lower price for them and a far higher and fairer commission for the photographers.

Also making them realize that turning this business unsustainable for the photographers will kill their content suppliers and large quantities of good quality imagery will stop.

This is THE ONLY way to pressure Getty and IS. Burn a hole in their pocket!

Threatening to stop uploading, or deleting portfolios is just a huge BS that never worked and never will. The only power we have is to influence those who put the money in the business, the picture buyers.

And it doesn't take a Union to do this, or global organization. Just a good and true e-mail, which could be translated into several languages. Then each of us could search for a series of designer companies, send the e-mail asking them to pass to their contacts and soon enough the designers would become aware of the way IS is likely to damage their quality and cheap source of images.

This is the only way. Stop uploading, deleting portfolios and unions are just BS and everyone knows it wont happen to a scale to bother the administration of these agencies.

And it will send a strong signal to all the other agencies thinking of scr*wing us.


« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2010, 05:18 »
0
Interesting.

« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2010, 05:27 »
0
I have already started on this by posting in a couple of designer's forums about how Getty/iStock treats their photographers and recommended them to go shop elsewhere (SS, DT, FT, Veer) if they want to be more ethical and fair.

A written letter would be a very effective way to make some changes.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 05:29 by Perry »

« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2010, 07:42 »
0
I've also mentioned previously that IS contributors should take turns calling their support hotline either until their system breaks down or until they realize they cannot provide adequate service for their buyers.

That would hurt them in the long run as well.

With today's means like VOIP calling virtually anyone can call for free their support lines both at HQ and the 1-800 numbers.

« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2010, 07:56 »
0
I've also mentioned previously that IS contributors should take turns calling their support hotline either until their system breaks down or until they realize they cannot provide adequate service for their buyers.

That would hurt them in the long run as well.

With today's means like VOIP calling virtually anyone can call for free their support lines both at HQ and the 1-800 numbers.

I think that's just harrassing.

« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2010, 08:08 »
0
I've also mentioned previously that IS contributors should take turns calling their support hotline either until their system breaks down or until they realize they cannot provide adequate service for their buyers.

That would hurt them in the long run as well.

With today's means like VOIP calling virtually anyone can call for free their support lines both at HQ and the 1-800 numbers.

I think that's just harrassing.

They can sue over a phone call?

How many IS contibutors are there right now fuming of anger? None of them is entitled to a simple phone call?

« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2010, 08:51 »
0
Interesting! (not that with phone)

They often justify their big piece of the cake with expensive investments in marketing...
To see what can be done with 15% vs. 85%...
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 09:02 by borg »

« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2010, 09:25 »
0
Yeah, recommend those other sites like FT and DT because they have never lowered royalty rates on us... oh wait, they have. The list of companies that haven't seems to be getting smaller and smaller.

Edit: Sorry, I know sarcasm doesn't help, but everything that's been happening lately seems bad. I guess my Dash for Cash money will be coming soon, so that should cheer me up.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 09:26 by cthoman »

« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2010, 09:27 »
0
Yeah, recommend those other sites like FT and DT because they have never lowered royalty rates on us... oh wait, they have. The list of companies that haven't seems to be getting smaller and smaller.

Yes, they have lowered their royalty rates. But they at least have a long way to go to 15%

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2010, 10:19 »
0
I agree 100%....the buyers are the pockets of iStock and that is the only way to get the message across. There are millions of contributors that probably don't even know what is going on or they don't care. They will continue to upload. The BUYERS have to be the targets, that is the only way Getty will get the message.

« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2010, 10:25 »
0
Targeting image users is a waste of time. This will of course never happen so I have no dreams in this regard but the only thing that would work is if every single contributor started to deactivate ALL of their images. And even as Getty said well maybe we should revisit this, even then you would not stop. Once the ENTIRE collection was sitting in the deactivated basket THEN they would be willing to talk. The whole event would last about a week, all images would be automatically reinstated and a guaranteed contract would be put into place where no one would worry about this again. Simple.

« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2010, 10:35 »
0
Ok - I'm definitely up for fairtrade.  My sister's company has an account with istock

I'm not an istock contributer so don't know how to frame it.  What should I tell her?  She prefers ethical business, but if i just go in going 'they just gave a big paycut to everyone and pretended it was a good thing!' she's not going to take it seriously

Anyone got a statement about it that I can just copy and paste and send her and tell her it's from the photographers?  I think she'll listen then

Lucy x

edit: i take it back - it's not the way... bad idea if it hurts the contributers! 
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 13:21 by luceluceluce »

RacePhoto

« Reply #12 on: September 08, 2010, 11:53 »
0
I agree 100%....the buyers are the pockets of iStock and that is the only way to get the message across. There are millions of contributors that probably don't even know what is going on or they don't care. They will continue to upload. The BUYERS have to be the targets, that is the only way Getty will get the message.

Not just you but it was a nice message to quote for my thoughts.

After we drive the buyers to the competition and ruin it for IS/Getty, one of the only two good paying agencies, how do you get the customers back? Oh wait, we just drove them away and screwed ourselves. Not everyone has their images on FT, DT and BigStock.

It maybe be a hasty decision to get revenge and drive our own business and customers away!

Think of the long term implications, not just a hasty retaliation to something we don't like!

« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2010, 12:02 »
0
After we drive the buyers to the competition and ruin it for IS/Getty, one of the only two good paying agencies, how do you get the customers back? Oh wait, we just drove them away and screwed ourselves. Not everyone has their images on FT, DT and BigStock.

Then they should start uploading to FT, DT, BigStock and others.  This isn't only about getting iStock to take notice.  It's also about cutting off their air supply and getting a fair deal elsewhere.  If iStock reacts quickly and well, then maybe they can reverse the tide of desertions.  And if they can't or won't, then those other agencies (and we) will be the beneficiaries of their loss.  After all, 81% of my stock income comes from not-iStock.  Increasing that percentage doesn't scare me, especially if the absolute numbers increase as well.

RacePhoto

« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2010, 12:15 »
0
After we drive the buyers to the competition and ruin it for IS/Getty, one of the only two good paying agencies, how do you get the customers back? Oh wait, we just drove them away and screwed ourselves. Not everyone has their images on FT, DT and BigStock.

Then they should start uploading to FT, DT, BigStock and others.  This isn't only about getting iStock to take notice.  It's also about cutting off their air supply and getting a fair deal elsewhere.  If iStock reacts quickly and well, then maybe they can reverse the tide of desertions.  And if they can't or won't, then those other agencies (and we) will be the beneficiaries of their loss.  After all, 81% of my stock income comes from not-iStock.  Increasing that percentage doesn't scare me, especially if the absolute numbers increase as well.

Ah I see, we should all work with your program instead of our own? (nothing personal just a point of logic)

Some people make 100% from IS, you don't mind hurting them? I make 50% of my micro earnings from IS and 50% fro SS, I pretty much ignore the rest. You don't care about me. (OK fair enough, you don't need to :D ) But some people don't want to work with FT, DT, or others, but you think we all need to get revenge, without considering the extended effects and harm for the long term, including how it may harm the people, possibly friends, who are in the same position as you.

On the other hand, maybe I'm worried too much and everyone here can "show iStock" and it's like a butterfly landing on an aircraft carrier. ;)

« Reply #15 on: September 08, 2010, 12:52 »
0
Some people make 100% from IS, you don't mind hurting them? I make 50% of my micro earnings from IS and 50% fro SS, I pretty much ignore the rest. You don't care about me. (OK fair enough, you don't need to :D ) But some people don't want to work with FT, DT, or others, but you think we all need to get revenge, without considering the extended effects and harm for the long term, including how it may harm the people, possibly friends, who are in the same position as you.

I'm not the one who attacked iStock exclusives; iStock did that themselves.  If exclusives don't take action to protect themselves, why should I worry about them?  Or maybe I do care, and I feel that they're in a self-destructive relationship and need to be pushed out of it for their own good.  Take it whichever way you like.

As for working with other agencies, I believe that's the only way to keep one (or two or three) from having too much power over suppliers.  iStock thinks they're invincible, and thinks they can increase revenues 50% in a struggling economy.  How?  By taking more money from its customers and from its suppliers.  Because it can, or thinks it can, and no one will stop it.  And if something doesn't change, it may be right.  So I agree with changing the equation.  Maybe it'll force iStock to reconsider.  Or maybe it'll reduce it to a second order player.  Or both.  But it'll demonstrate that customers and suppliers aren't sheep to be fleeced, that we're in this together and need to be treated with a modicum of respect.

Let's remember that it's not the protestors who threaten the status quo.  iStock did that, and anybody who lets it happen is complicit.

« Reply #16 on: September 08, 2010, 13:39 »
0
It's true that any effective form of industrial action hurts everybody involved, not just one side.

The objective is to prove to the employer that going beyond a certain point will cause it damage that is disproportionate to any gain. Proving that point always harms the people who are making it, too. It is the fact that they are willing to act despite the harm they will do to their own interests that proves the employer wrong.

Has it got to that point?

ShadySue

« Reply #17 on: September 08, 2010, 14:31 »
0
Targeting image users is a waste of time. This will of course never happen so I have no dreams in this regard but the only thing that would work is if every single contributor started to deactivate ALL of their images. And even as Getty said well maybe we should revisit this, even then you would not stop. Once the ENTIRE collection was sitting in the deactivated basket THEN they would be willing to talk. The whole event would last about a week, all images would be automatically reinstated and a guaranteed contract would be put into place where no one would worry about this again. Simple.
I wish I were Pollyanna.  :-\

vonkara

« Reply #18 on: September 08, 2010, 14:45 »
0
Targeting image users is a waste of time. This will of course never happen so I have no dreams in this regard but the only thing that would work is if every single contributor started to deactivate ALL of their images. And even as Getty said well maybe we should revisit this, even then you would not stop. Once the ENTIRE collection was sitting in the deactivated basket THEN they would be willing to talk. The whole event would last about a week, all images would be automatically reinstated and a guaranteed contract would be put into place where no one would worry about this again. Simple.

That's a very nice idea, I agree with it. But only in the case we can reactive them without much issues. We could desactivate them one week and see, until they change their mind on most of their new royaltee sheet
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 14:48 by Vonkara »

« Reply #19 on: September 08, 2010, 15:49 »
0
I agree ... i think the best way is using facebook to spread the word

« Reply #20 on: September 08, 2010, 16:53 »
0
After we drive the buyers to the competition and ruin it for IS/Getty, one of the only two good paying agencies, how do you get the customers back? Oh wait, we just drove them away and screwed ourselves. Not everyone has their images on FT, DT and BigStock.

It maybe be a hasty decision to get revenge and drive our own business and customers away!

Away? Where? Hopefully somewhere they pay more than 20% for the photographer.

Not everyone has their images on every site, but if they are not exclusive they should have their images at least on the big 4.
The important part is that we don't feed the clients propaganda, just sincerely tell them how iStock treats their contributors (and maybe in comparison how other sites treats us)

RacePhoto

« Reply #21 on: September 08, 2010, 20:54 »
0
The OP: Let's make an e-mail, showing how exploitive IS is, and that they can buy the same images from agencies like DT, SS, etc., and even alamy, for a lower price for them and a far higher and fairer commission for the photographers.

Once you send customers to another agency that has them for less, the buyers won't be coming back. It isn't like you can turn off the faucet and then turn it back on again after IS changes their policy and commissions. :D That's the problem with sending an email which diverts buyers forever. Of course DT, SS and FT would love this idea!


After we drive the buyers to the competition and ruin it for IS/Getty, one of the only two good paying agencies, how do you get the customers back? Oh wait, we just drove them away and screwed ourselves. Not everyone has their images on FT, DT and BigStock.

It maybe be a hasty decision to get revenge and drive our own business and customers away!

Away? Where? Hopefully somewhere they pay more than 20% for the photographer.

Not everyone has their images on every site, but if they are not exclusive they should have their images at least on the big 4.
The important part is that we don't feed the clients propaganda, just sincerely tell them how iStock treats their contributors (and maybe in comparison how other sites treats us)

lagereek

« Reply #22 on: September 10, 2010, 08:34 »
0
BS!  why start a stupid thread like this and many others??  they serve no purposes what so ever and just reduces us to vendictive crap merchants. Nobody here has got any power to do anything against Getty/IS.  We are a fly in the ointment. Deal with it.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
20 Replies
5798 Views
Last post January 22, 2008, 18:37
by vonkara
3 Replies
2820 Views
Last post February 03, 2008, 17:27
by GeoPappas
8 Replies
5232 Views
Last post February 26, 2008, 01:03
by litifeta
30 Replies
9519 Views
Last post December 08, 2008, 17:13
by lagereek
1 Replies
1192 Views
Last post December 09, 2008, 16:17
by AVAVA

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results