The only condition i had when designing this product, was that I got to design it completely as I wanted it. It is so fine-tuned and "custom" and really does not compare to any other product out there.

I didn't notice that, what's the difference between your one and the one that Custom brackets have had out on sale for in the past. i.e. this http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-custom-brackets-digital-pro-sv-kit/p1026865 that's been out a couple of years. (Obviously it's without the monopod and tilt head but I don't want those anyway) On the link you've provided the apparently same set up is $308 which is more than what looks like an identical bracket on the site I've linked to. Has your version got some modifications?

There's a difference between reporting events and putting your own spin on things, personally I don't like Pickerell's way of reporting it's too self speculative for me, there are dozens of blogs and web based infomagazines (I might have made that term up) that report pretty much everything about this industry as is so I can then form my own opinion, but it's a free world and everyone can make their own choice.

By the way check out Tom's daily stock project blog if you haven't already, I don't think he's claiming they're the worlds greatest stock photos but for me I just enjoy seeing how he can find a stock photo every day and everywhere.

He also said, �I would appreciate that you do not tell 'my story'.� (Just so we are clear this story or this post was not authorized by Daniel or Yuri.)

Well in one respect he got his wish, you didn't tell 'his' story you told your version of it.

I felt this story was important. I had enough information from publicly available sources, even if I had no quotes, to supply some important information to the photo community and particularly the macro community.

Of course it's important, it means you get to write another blog for your paying audience, beats trying to make a living in the industry you speculate about eh!

Personally I like to read the ( free) blogs of people like John Lund and Tom Grill, I get the feeling they know what they're talking about because they're out there doing it successfully.

Personally I take anything Jim Pickerall says with a pinch of salt. I only read the first paragraph of this related blog and it was enough for me to form the opinion that yet again he is using the shock and awe approach based on nothing but his own speculation, there are many great blogs on the subject of stock photography done by people who really know what they're talking about and I don't count his as one of them.

As for Yuri and Laflor being one in the same or other speculations, there were some blatantly obvious similarities when he first came on the scene which some of us discussed then, surprised so many people are making such a thing of it now but I guess they've got Pickerall to thank for that. This guerrilla marketing thing can bite you on the backside sometimes, some never seem to learn.

"they get some money, bragging rights, they get a credit and that�s the value they get"

I'm going to contact him and ask if he'll design me a new website and marketing campaign, in return I'll throw him a couple of dollars but the main appeal will obviously be the credit and bragging rights he'll get.

Perhaps that is because all the IT money was going into rolling out the new Photos.com?   It appears Istock is being treated like the black sheep of the Getty Family. 

I just read about the relaunch of photos.com today and had the exact same thought as you, I too think that maybe iStockphoto is at the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to the importance of having the site run correctly, and in true tradition they relaunch a site selling all the photos for next to nothing at no doubt huge profits for them.

As you wrote earlier, I thank god I'm not exclusive at Istock.

If there's no price difference I might as well know who has it and what use?

They don't tell you 'who' has bought it, only the industry sector.

Lisa I think you could word the question slightly better, although we all know what you're talking about now I think somebody reading this in the future could be confused into thinking iStock are raising our royalties !!!!

Maybe:

Yes although I'm still getting a reduction over my 2010 rates.

Yes and now I've retained my rate from 2010.

Neutral I was already remaining on the same rate I had in 2010.

No I'm still getting my commissions reduced by the same amount compared to 2010 royalties.

If the quality of the images they are starting to source drops becuase they are now buying from a new, lesser quality image source, then they will start losing clients.

The quality of images on iStock are no higher that many other sites. Most of the worlds highest selling professional stock photographers sell on many sites, plus iStock is just as full of images by low selling contributors as any of the others.

If what some people believe (i.e. exclusives get a bump up the search ranks) then from a buyers point of view shopping at an alternative site means they don't have to wade through all the stuff from exclusives that have had very few sales, on other sites quality shines through with no 'bump' up.

He starts talking about Fotolia at the 20mins point.

Not the best speech I've ever seen, see if you can spot the mistakes in what he says!

�mv

I can't believe the camera was still there when the barber took the towel off his face!

Yes I saw this the other day, it's being heralded as the poor mans M9, it will be interesting to see some sample files from an end user.

Related to my OP in this thread, please say it isn't true:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289532&page=1

Deleted - for attitude reasons.