...The master grand plan of this whole announcement is for iStock/Getty to flood the market of lower priced sites with the images that are available on Shutterstock, DT, FT, Canstock etc...  That way they will have a chance at diluting the market and maybe even offer lower prices for customers in order to hurt the competition with the same content for cheaper.  Non exclusives IMO are the main target of this and they know they can do it because most non exclusives have most of their images on so many sites that iStock calculates that one more site or multitude of sites wont be a burden since it will be automatically ingested, it will be instant dilution of the market.   Getty will offer competition from the bottom to the top.
...

All this is premised on the assumption that iStock can actually get the partner program transfer working - something that's been broken for a very long time. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that they can, and keep it working to deliver new content from iStock to the PP sites.

For all subscription sites, they need more than a good size, comprehensive library. They need a stream of new content - without that, existing subscribers get restive and at some point don't renew. What independents could choose to do, with some cost to them, but not as much as pulling their portfolios from iStock, is give new content to other sites first - for a few months - and only to iStock later.

When buyers see that so-and-so's great new content is on SS but not on Thinkstock, they may decide that switching isn't a great idea.

And as far as drawing buyers away from SS with cheaper content, there are already other cheaper sites and still SS thrives, so it remains to be seen if Getty can "kill" SS even with the addition of independent iStock content.

And I will get a huge laugh if the exclusive IS supporters of the partner program start wailing loudly when their PP sales drop because of all the new content in the program (which will of course happen). If they then pull out of the PP as the sales aren't as good, Getty will then make PP mandatory for exclusives. It'd be funny if it wasn't our livelihoods those jerks were messing with.

...You ppl go all crazy about ...

You people? So you mean you're not a contributor? You're clearly a member here, so you can't be referring to members here as "you people".

If your point was that there are many different things that anger contributors, that's true, but it's like saying "The sun's hot" - we don't generally need to have that noted as it's taken as a given.

I'm not happy but I'm staying. Too much of my income comes from iStock to leave (as I'm sure they realize). I won't lift a finger to help them, but I'm not going to hurt my income any further by pulling out.

The less money they make me, the easier they make it to leave them, but at the moment, they haven't cut my income enough to make it easy to walk away

I just hope that like a good movie plot, at some future time all the bad karma will come back to bite Getty on the arse.. Life doesn't always oblige that way, but one can only hope

I just submitted cancellation for exclusivity. It is done. Then by 30 days I'll dismantle my portfolio . Getty, you really soured something good into a complete pisser.

Not sure what your plans are, but as an independent, iStock can be a significant part of your monthly microstock earnings. I completely get your anger with Getty (although I'd also add H&F to that) but there is life post-exclusivity. There are a number of us who have left since last September's bombshell - in my case my 30 day wait was up at the beginning of June - but most haven't left iStock completely, just left exclusivity.

This doesn't really come as a surprise, but it certainly marks the end of an era.  Or the end of the tattered remains of an era, anyway.  

Like those seaside towns where everything's peeling paint and faded colors...

I knew this was coming, but it doesn't mean I like it. However, until sales tank, my portfolio will stay at iStock.

Gotta love that little note at the bottom that says any content made available via the API may be at some new royalty rate. IOW they'll funnel the content wherever they please at whatever royalty they please.

OTOH, if they got the site working properly and consistently at got the sales volume up, I could be mollified somewhat.

...But obviously, I don't expect him to mention it in the interview. That is just PR...

I wouldn't expect Klein to bring problems up - I would expect an interviewer to do that though.

At Getty as well as at iStock there have been major upheavals with suppliers. There were no follow up questions about how long that "dividend" payment would keep H&F happy and what the issues with selling the company might be now, in 1/3/5 years time.

We have other examples (Mark Hurd at HP comes to mind) of established companies that made themselves look more healthy than they really were by looting something - in HP's case it was dropping R&D spending which is the lifeblood of continued success for a tech company.

Questions about what happens with Getty long term once H&F have their money and have moved on seem more than pertinent to me.

I had a quick look a the L20 user manual, and this seems to be a camera with no manual controls whatever. The only mention of ISO is that an idiot light saying that comes on when the camera has to adjust the ISO (automatically) because of low light. There is "auto" or various scene modes.

This really isn't the right sort of equipment to use for stock - even if you start with a point and shoot, you need something with more manual controls. My take would be that you'll spend so much time trying to work around the camera that it wouldn't be worth it.

Quote from: gostwyck on August 26, 2011, 13:20

their ambitions to make spectacular short-term profits and sell the business on.

I think you have said similar before. I cannot find a link, sorry, but I believe it was either here or on the iStock forum. And I wondered then -- which bit of the business do you believe will be "sold on" - the portfolio of Getty brands as a whole or iStockphoto in isolation ?

Do you think that it is likely that iStockphoto would be sold in isolation when so much of what has happened over recent years seems to point towards stratifying and streamlining the various brands such that there is product available at all price points across various different models - whilst really they are all part of the same whole. The whole thing surely only works if they are all part of a whole.

I think the general assumption, based on what H&F does, is that it will sell what it acquired in 3-5 years (if possible) to make a profit and move on. Whether the pieces are sold separately or as a whole is only a matter of where they can find the best deal. I read one article about them that claimed their men's room urinals are named for deals that didn't work out.  Google brings up many articles about their other acquisitions and one has a picture of Mr. Hellman with some of his acquired wisdom.

The dividend recapitalization at the end of last year (talked about before here in another thread and in this article) suggest that they can't sell at a profit at the moment.

It'd be like seeing a company that can barely keep their main site up and running, and which felt the need to reduce contributor payments to make themselves more "sustainable", start a new site called Feast (seemingly to do the community stuff they just destroyed at iStock).

To be fair, I did get my survey e-mail right at the beginning (although never a reply to my last support ticket which was just "disappeared" with no reply), but getting the contact sheet with this perky copy about this wonderful new site they're starting set back my attempts to avoid ranting about iStock and how angry I still am...

Do they know you are a professional photographer and sell your photos elsewhere?

I ask because I had a situation where I was contacted about more photos of a remodel I have for sale - it was for a book, not a newspaper. It's a long story and there was a hiatus during the recession when I thought they'd abandoned plans for the book completely. Then with new personnel the book was revived earlier this year. The new person sent me a release to sign where I was just to get credit.

I explained that although we hadn't gotten as far before as signing a contract, I sell my photos and would not allow them to be used for free + a credit. They then said that they did pay professionals although prices had dropped (they couldn't afford as much). I got $85 per photo.

I know it isn't exactly analogous but it's worth a try.

And the total is now 16,909 and Lobo has locked a thread "congratulating" EdStock on having the largest iStock portfolio.

Only 700+ downloads so far though. Two files are over 10 and the rest are in single digits.