Quote from: lagereek on November 30, 2010, 11:55

Not untill now have I had the time to sort of browse the Agency collection and I understand why the Admin and supplyers got so uptight. Man, this is such a piece of serious crap its unbelievable, its the same old plastic, dead-pale codswhallop people as we saw the first year in the Micro business, BAD photography as well.

How can anybody with any self-esteam even want to show they got this for sale?  its an insult, a mega insult to buyers, clients, even contributors.

While they may not have gotten the collections right, they got the idea right. Prices need to go up overall and especially for premium content.

Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera?

A few years ago a buyer would have paid a few hundred or a few thousand dollars for a lot of those shots.

It's an insult to talented contributors to keep charging peanuts for their excellent work.

The problem is that I don't think IS knows where the line is between premium and average content. They'll continue experimenting until they find it.  At least somebody is trying.

SJLOCKE:

So, trying to raise prices to a mid level is bad... Micro pricing is bad...  What's the answer?

I think the answer is fair pricing for better images (Vetta), fair commission for the contributors AND a better licensing model.
A national magazine (Time) should not be able to get away with running a cover image and only paying a few pennies + extended license. Neither should a national or multi- national be able to put a model's image on a multi- million dollar product (Shampoo for instance) and only have to pay a few dollars + extended license. That is just highway robbery.

Quote from: SNP on November 20, 2010, 00:56

@Lisa: jumping on the bandwagon is easy. staying on the bandwagon, producing despite an ever-growing pool of competitor's images, and rolling with some fairly large punches takes more than a little bit of effort.

Ah.  Thanks for explaining that to me.  Personally, I wouldn't know.  

Quote

I think it's a fair system to attempt to reward contributors working hard and producing sales. new or old contributors and those of us in the middle.

And just so we're clear - if you are not exclusive at IS, you will NOT be rewarded at all.  You WILL be having your commissions lowered, in spite of how much work you are putting in or how many sales you generate.  The target of over 1.4 million RC's is pretty much impossible to hit in a year, even for top sellers. 

Quote from: Allsa on November 16, 2010, 13:29

Maybe this is their strategy - get rid of the old, expensive exclusives, and replace them with new exclusives who start out with lower expectations. Could be that there are so many of us, that contributors are being regarded as a nearly unlimited resource, making it easy to adopt an 'out with the old, in with the new' policy. Sort of a new twist on the Age Discrimination theme.

In time, we're all replaceable. The trick will be if they can find enough talented, hardworking newbies who want to bust their but for 20% max. If the only group chortling about how much money they made are the executives, they may be out of luck - tales from happy contributors of how much money you can make in this great business will be what draws in new players. Happy contributors are a bit thin on the ground these days.

 This says as much as anyone needs to know about any argument you will put forth:  "I don't do it, unless its convenient for me, regardless of impact to others".

Several of you replied to my recent post, saying in effect that istock appears to be simply too incompetent in their decisions to be evolving in an intelligent and productive way.  There may be something in that   

It's certainly possible that they are screwing this up.  In my previous experience as an employee of large companies I saw this happen several times, and there is one major cause of this.  Once a company reaches a certain size and complexity the average employee can no longer hear what the customers and suppliers are saying.  Instead they only hear the noise of their internal organization.  Survival and career growth in a large company depend on satisfying the bureaucracy and especially the management, whereas if you stick up for the customer or supplier you are branded by the powers that be as "not a team player".

This tends to happen in companies which have a dominant market position, because for a while they will be shielded from the consequences of their incompetence.  Customers and suppliers will keep dealing with them for some time after things go bad, for lack of alternatives.  By the time management notice that the company is stumbling badly it is often too late.  Even recognizing the problem clearly does no good if there is too much internal corporate inertia to turn the ship around.  Recognizing mistakes requires one to admit having made the mistake, losing face and taking a blow to one's *internal* *corporate* reputation.

Now that I review this in my mind and look back at the last three weeks of shock, anger, confusion and frustration, I see some evidence that this is going on at Getty/IS.  For one thing, if IS represents only a relatively small part of Getty then the consequences of screwing up IS will not be as noticeable to Getty management as they would have been to the management of IS alone if they were still an independent company.  They can point to overall company results or to overall industry trends or economic factors and make excuses while the ship sinks and some other smaller and more nimble company passes them.  "The ship isn't listing because of a hole in its side, it's just that all those damned passengers raced over to one side to look at the iceberg."  LOL

This is all just speculation of course ... now if you'll excuse me I have some images to send to scout 

For those who did not see this.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=257202&page=3

JJRD said
"Over the course of the past 2 weeks, kkthompson & I have put our own asses on the line many, many times over for this community of artists... and we'll do it again and again every single time that we feel it necessary."

Sounds to me like JJRD is saying the whole thing is a Getty or H&F idea and that he and KK have fought on our behalf to minimize the damage.  But why "past 2 weeks", after the announcement?  Seems like this would have been planned for much longer then that, so the fighting with Getty/H&F would have been months ago.  

So if the asses were on the line for something else, what would that be?  Turning off the forums?  

He also said "Let me add the following, however: if one day I do not believe in iStockphoto anymore, I will be out of here in a snap. Faster than a speeding bullet.  It is not the case at the very moment. I still believe in this place, just as on day one. I am in it for the long haul & for the well being of the entire community."

His point about "not the case at the very moment" seems to suggest that he has had his own doubts, or that he fears that he may in the future.