Quote from: donding on September 11, 2010, 01:15

Quote from: Elenathewise on September 11, 2010, 01:05

Quote from: Karen on September 10, 2010, 22:51
Not sure if this already was posted...

The end of iStockphoto at Ember Studio:
http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193

This is nice. Too bad I can't leave a comment thanking them - getting an error.

That's Helix 7 site. He's a member here

Well thank you Helix 7 :-) And trust me, buyers have nothing to lose by switching to other agencies. For example, only half of my port is available on Istock because of stupid upload limits for non-exclusives. I know this is also the case with many excellent contributors with big and diverse portfolios. By switching to other sites you'll definitely see more choice, not less, and probably for cheaper price. The irony is that even if you buy cheaper there, we'll get paid more! Looks like win-win situation to me:)
I am glad buyers making these decisions - only a fear of losing customers can make istock re-evaluate their policy.

One example of the real reasons for the changes:

http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/mack-daddy-likes-big-bucks-and-klein-cant-not-buy

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 10, 2010, 18:55Ariel and Sumo, enough of the spamming already.

Leaf should have banned those spammers a long time ago.

Quote from: HughStoneIan on September 11, 2010, 04:48
One example of the real reasons for the changes:

http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/mack-daddy-likes-big-bucks-and-klein-cant-not-buy

On IS' 3rd explanation thread is a post by a guy who spends his royalties on his wife's medical expenses - she has breast cancer. And he quotes the IS statement that 'money is not important'.

Quote from: disorderly on September 11, 2010, 01:00
I'm more and more convinced they feel they have no choice, whether because of greed higher up the chain or because they're overleveraged and can't survive on less.  But all that means is that they can't and won't survive.

You're probably right on both occasions.  I'd be betting they feel they have no choice and that they also have overleveraged.  Kelly made it pretty clear in the already famous academy award-winning speech that IS is a "larger, more successful company".  Getty would be putting pressure on them to meet their budget and they've probably blown it with all the website shenanigans from the past few months but I doubt this means they won't survive (yet).  The more likely scenario is that IS is forecasting to come out with a slightly lower massive profit than first expected and that Getty is forcing them to make up the difference to enable them to invest in their next major f-up.

QuoteAs for me, I'm going to keep to my plan.  No more uploading, and remove existing images a few at a time.  If iStock reverses their changes regarding independents, I'd consider reversing mine.

Good move.  No-one should rush this.

Quote from: rubyroo on September 11, 2010, 01:13

Quote from: djpadavona on September 11, 2010, 01:08

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 11, 2010, 00:10
Wow. Three replies and nothing has changed. Brutal.

The strange thing is they never should have sent message #2 or #3.  The first announcement told us where they stood, and the 2nd and 3rd got everyone's hopes up for a concession for no good reason at all.  Why does Kelly keep announcing what he has already said?  I prefer not to hear anything again, except "We are reconsidering..."

Yes, that's exactly what I've been thinking also.  Why on earth pre-announce these statements as though they'll deliver something useful when they don't?   Bizarre.

He just wanted to remind everyone that he thinks of them as "friends".  What a tool.

Quote from: pseudonymous on September 11, 2010, 12:52
The more likely scenario is that IS is forecasting to come out with a slightly lower massive profit than first expected and that Getty is forcing them to make up the difference to enable them to invest in their next major f-up.

No it is part of strategy to streamline RF stock business. Many factors but eg IS is cheaper to run than Getty and has more traffic. Getty employs account managers etc. eg the more work goes through IS the fewer office staff they need. Arty Vetta shows that IS can be portal for more expensive work - ie Agency Collections.

20% is standard Getty rate. This affects people at Getty as much as it affects IS. It affects everyone who works in the industry.

As much as I hate all these changes, I have to give them credit for allowing us to really hammer them on their forums. You would never see Fotolia or Dreamstime allow that.

Yea thats about the only positive thing I can say. 

Quote from: cclapper on September 11, 2010, 00:54
Something just occurred to me...you know how since F5 we don't seem to be able to opt-out of subs? I'm guessing that non-exclusives will not be able to do that...meaning we are going to be shuffled over to ThinkStock. No choice anymore to opt-out. Anybody else thinking this?

You can but it is buried so deep it is very hard to find.

My Account/Preferences/My uploads/Manage collections/Partner Program

I just finished removing every single file that had at least 1 IS DL. Yeah Getty here are my leftovers.

Quote from: alias on September 11, 2010, 13:13

Quote from: pseudonymous on September 11, 2010, 12:52
The more likely scenario is that IS is forecasting to come out with a slightly lower massive profit than first expected and that Getty is forcing them to make up the difference to enable them to invest in their next major f-up.

No it is part of strategy to streamline RF stock business. Many factors but eg IS is cheaper to run than Getty and has more traffic. Getty employs account managers etc. eg the more work goes through IS the fewer office staff they need. Arty Vetta shows that IS can be portal for more expensive work - ie Agency Collections.

20% is standard Getty rate. This affects people at Getty as much as it affects IS. It affects everyone who works in the industry.

I seriously doubt this was planned greed from the beginning.  It makes more sense that they had their eye on a target, didn't meet it and made a difficult decision knowing there would be mass hysteria and retaliation.

Of course there's the other ridiculous theory going around that they came up with this evil plan in order to drive out non-exclusives.  If that was their intention they wouldn't have shafted exclusives as well.  They would have thrown in a sweetener instead and enticed non-exclusives to join the other side.

[/quote]
They would have thrown in a sweetener instead and enticed non-exclusives to join the other side.
[/quote]

So now is time to deside if you want to join the Dark side, or go with the Force

Quote from: Kngkyle on September 11, 2010, 13:24
As much as I hate all these changes, I have to give them credit for allowing us to really hammer them on their forums. You would never see Fotolia or Dreamstime allow that.

Yea thats about the only positive thing I can say. 

Even their reason for allowing it is self-serving...they know that most of the complainers won't do a darn thing about making a change. They will stay and take whatever gets dished out.

Just a quote from the IS forums, in relation to these ones...........



" Don't bother with that forum anymore.I found the same loonies over there that are on here"

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on September 11, 2010, 14:08
Just a quote from the IS forums, in relation to these ones...........



" Don't bother with that forum anymore.I found the same loonies over there that are on here"

Your ignored rate is growing.

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on September 11, 2010, 14:08
Just a quote from the IS forums, in relation to these ones...........



" Don't bother with that forum anymore.I found the same loonies over there that are on here"

You consider yourself a loony?
I consider you ignored from now on.  Go on and enjoy your 15% royalties.

Quote from: Perry on September 11, 2010, 14:24

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on September 11, 2010, 14:08
Just a quote from the IS forums, in relation to these ones...........



" Don't bother with that forum anymore.I found the same loonies over there that are on here"

You consider yourself a loony?
I consider you ignored from now on.  Go on and enjoy your 15% royalties.

Vlad is quoting the infamous shank ali ! The chief loony of all loonies, and by remote control he's extended his lunacy here - I'm sure he'd be chuffed!

So what can we all do to thwart IS and other micro agencies who may try this in the future?

My little idea.

I haven't read all the posts on this topic, over 30 pages I believe, so if this has already been mentioned I apologize.

Someone who knows about SEO, create a web site with a unique URL that simply and elegantly explains photographers' issue with iStock. Not defamatory in any way, not  a flashy website, just a basic list of concerns. If it's coded properly it should rank somewhat high in the search results, it wont rank very high initially. All the photographers who agree with the statement on this page will have a link on this page to their web site and provide a reciprocal link on their own web site to the web site taking issue with IS. Reciprocal links help sites rank higher (at least they used to) So the links in essence are the same as a petition. With each link to the photographers web site, adjacent links to their images on other micro sites could be provided. Each link could also have a small thumbnail showing the type of images that photographer sells at the other micros. Then a press release is written by someone who knows how to write, unlike me, again not defamatory, and this is sent to any and all magazines, blogs, forums, anyplace that might have an interest in this issue and where image buyers might frequent. Finally, a pool is created through paypal and money is collected through donations to buy an add in a major design publication stating the issue. This could cause IS to back down, and dissuade other micros from trying something similar in the future. Heck, this could become an organization for micro stock similar to SAA. Just an idea.

Quote from: Kngkyle on September 11, 2010, 13:24
As much as I hate all these changes, I have to give them credit for allowing us to really hammer them on their forums. You would never see Fotolia or Dreamstime allow that.

Yea thats about the only positive thing I can say.  

... and organising buyers boycots in qnd out their own forums. How much will last any employee doing that at any business? At least they are taking the heat

Note : But I don't agree with the changes.

Impaler,

Thing is, there's something wrong with your memory. It got wiped out. Aliens did it!
IStock the bestest. Yeah, but not really.  
Not so long ago you were complaining about their poor sales, biased best match and crappy management. Right here, on this forum. You were asking for advice and looking to go independent.
What happened? You got a badge? All is well now?
Well done, we wish you continued success.
Now go impale a goat and stop spamming.


CClapper,
this is the real problem. I'm willing to do everything I can to stop this from ever happening again. IStock's changes might not even be legal, (canister lock-in agreement), but we're weak and incapable of organizing ourselves.
What's to do ?

Quote from: pseudonymous on September 11, 2010, 13:27
Of course there's the other ridiculous theory going around that they came up with this evil plan in order to drive out non-exclusives.  If that was their intention they wouldn't have shafted exclusives as well.  They would have thrown in a sweetener instead and enticed non-exclusives to join the other side.

Actually I think independents are collateral damage, since the beef seems to be the growing number of folks to reach the 35-40% mark, or expected to in the near future, which is certainly not the independents. But had they messed only with their exclusive structure, the headlines would have been "Istock screws their exclusives" which would have been incredibly worse. With the damage done to our wallet, they're appeasing a few of their exclusives who would have gone even more berserk trashing IS reputation, but more importantly killing the awful headline. Of course making more money during a PR operation certainly made that decision more obvious. Being on the receiving end of this PR op, though, plainly sucks.

Quote from: nicmac on September 11, 2010, 15:11

Quote from: pseudonymous on September 11, 2010, 13:27
Of course there's the other ridiculous theory going around that they came up with this evil plan in order to drive out non-exclusives.  If that was their intention they wouldn't have shafted exclusives as well.  They would have thrown in a sweetener instead and enticed non-exclusives to join the other side.

Actually I think independents are collateral damage, since the beef seems to be the growing number of folks to reach the 35-40% mark, or expected to in the near future, which is certainly not the independents. But had they messed only with their exclusive structure, the headlines would have been "Istock screws their exclusives" which would have been incredibly worse. With the damage done to our wallet, they're appeasing a few of their exclusives who would have gone even more berserk trashing IS reputation, but more importantly killing the awful headline. Of course making more money during a PR operation certainly made that decision more obvious. Being on the receiving end of this PR op, though, plainly sucks.

Exactly. Since the day Getty bought IS, their path has been to transform IS to Getty, and that path NEVER included non-exclusives.

Quote from: cclapper on September 11, 2010, 15:21

Quote from: nicmac on September 11, 2010, 15:11

Quote from: pseudonymous on September 11, 2010, 13:27
Of course there's the other ridiculous theory going around that they came up with this evil plan in order to drive out non-exclusives.  If that was their intention they wouldn't have shafted exclusives as well.  They would have thrown in a sweetener instead and enticed non-exclusives to join the other side.

Actually I think independents are collateral damage, since the beef seems to be the growing number of folks to reach the 35-40% mark, or expected to in the near future, which is certainly not the independents. But had they messed only with their exclusive structure, the headlines would have been "Istock screws their exclusives" which would have been incredibly worse. With the damage done to our wallet, they're appeasing a few of their exclusives who would have gone even more berserk trashing IS reputation, but more importantly killing the awful headline. Of course making more money during a PR operation certainly made that decision more obvious. Being on the receiving end of this PR op, though, plainly sucks.

Exactly. Since the day Getty bought IS, their path has been to transform IS to Getty, and that path NEVER included non-exclusives.

I get what you're both saying but if that was the case, woudn't they have reduced the commission of independents and left exclusives as is?  That way independents would have either jumped ship or become exclusive and exclusives would have been happy.  Their current structure now will force quite a few exclusives to leave as well, maybe not in a hurry, but they'll definitely consider alternatives in the next couple of months. 

Quote from: cclapper on September 11, 2010, 15:21

Quote from: nicmac on September 11, 2010, 15:11

Quote from: pseudonymous on September 11, 2010, 13:27
Of course there's the other ridiculous theory going around that they came up with this evil plan in order to drive out non-exclusives.  If that was their intention they wouldn't have shafted exclusives as well.  They would have thrown in a sweetener instead and enticed non-exclusives to join the other side.

Actually I think independents are collateral damage, since the beef seems to be the growing number of folks to reach the 35-40% mark, or expected to in the near future, which is certainly not the independents. But had they messed only with their exclusive structure, the headlines would have been "Istock screws their exclusives" which would have been incredibly worse. With the damage done to our wallet, they're appeasing a few of their exclusives who would have gone even more berserk trashing IS reputation, but more importantly killing the awful headline. Of course making more money during a PR operation certainly made that decision more obvious. Being on the receiving end of this PR op, though, plainly sucks.

Exactly. Since the day Getty bought IS, their path has been to transform IS to Getty, and that path NEVER included non-exclusives.

I get what you're both saying but if that was the case, woudn't they have reduced the commission of independents and left exclusives as is?  That way independents would have either jumped ship or become exclusive and exclusives would have been happy.  Their current structure now will force quite a few exclusives to leave as well, maybe not in a hurry, but they'll definitely consider alternatives in the next couple of months.

Quote from: pseudonymous on September 11, 2010, 15:44

Quote from: cclapper on September 11, 2010, 15:21

Quote from: nicmac on September 11, 2010, 15:11

Quote from: pseudonymous on September 11, 2010, 13:27
Of course there's the other ridiculous theory going around that they came up with this evil plan in order to drive out non-exclusives.  If that was their intention they wouldn't have shafted exclusives as well.  They would have thrown in a sweetener instead and enticed non-exclusives to join the other side.

Actually I think independents are collateral damage, since the beef seems to be the growing number of folks to reach the 35-40% mark, or expected to in the near future, which is certainly not the independents. But had they messed only with their exclusive structure, the headlines would have been "Istock screws their exclusives" which would have been incredibly worse. With the damage done to our wallet, they're appeasing a few of their exclusives who would have gone even more berserk trashing IS reputation, but more importantly killing the awful headline. Of course making more money during a PR operation certainly made that decision more obvious. Being on the receiving end of this PR op, though, plainly sucks.

Exactly. Since the day Getty bought IS, their path has been to transform IS to Getty, and that path NEVER included non-exclusives.

I get what you're both saying but if that was the case, woudn't they have reduced the commission of independents and left exclusives as is?  That way independents would have either jumped ship or become exclusive and exclusives would have been happy.  Their current structure now will force quite a few exclusives to leave as well, maybe not in a hurry, but they'll definitely consider alternatives in the next couple of months.

No, they don't want to leave exclusives as is. They want EVERYONE to make 20% or less! That has been how Getty operated since day 1.

Quote from: pseudonymous on September 11, 2010, 13:27
I seriously doubt this was planned greed from the beginning.  It makes more sense that they had their eye on a target, didn't meet it and made a difficult decision knowing there would be mass hysteria and retaliation.

No I am certain this is about streamlining and 20%.

I will try explaining again:

The IS system is probably less to operate. Getty still employs account managers etc.

Getty operates at 20/80. Best of both worlds for them is to move towards running IS as the RF portal but paying Getty 'standard' royalties. IS also has much more traffic than Getty Images.

Getty content is coming to IS (at the 'standard' 20% royalty). IS content is going out on Getty at the 'standard' rate (ie 20%). Royalties are definitely moving towards 20%.

So IS is being tested as a portal for work from the main Getty RF collection. I am speculating that it may ultimately be the main portal for Getty RF. So why run two inspection processes. Suppose later there will be a single place to upload for inspection from where it will be sent to a collection or directly to one of the subscription portals which will compete with microstock.

20% is the theme here. It's even the rate which many non exclusives are setting like a line in the sand.