Not SF.  RGB.  I have no problem with Peter trying to make a go of it with paid for content (although he's still a competitor ).

I still don't get how operating free sites are going backwards when they're in existence today.  RGB shouldn't effect anyone who doesn't want to give away their content for free but it'll help sell content on SF and will help their SEO.

I think sitting at IS next year accepting a pay cut while image prices have gone up is going backwards.  Kelly's speech about any business becoming more profitable over time was correct, but any business should also become more efficient over time as well so a contributor's profit margin, as well as IS's should go up as well.

I feel for you Sean, and other exclusive there at the minute.  It's a tough decision to make but eventually you're going to have to make it and I have a feeling you'll be crossing over to other avenues sooner rather than later.

I�ve just read through the second half of this thread and emotions seem to be running high over nothing.  Let me recap...

Cclapper�s question to weirdvis came across a little hostile and almost as if it was an accusation.  She�s probably paranoid over the IS caning and it seems she has lost trust in management on all agencies altogether.

Weirdvis, who has diligently been explaining RGB�s relationship to SF became frustrated and took offence to cclapper�s paranoia worrying that her question will instil unnecessary fear into contributors who currently have confidence in, or high hopes for SF.  Cclapper�s paranoia went a step further and falsly accused weirdvis if calling her stupid which he did not.

Sean then stepped in and made a mountain out of a molehill over the term �not-for-profit�.  Perhaps that term should not have been used but what weirdvis meant is that they are not making a profit from RGB, not that they�re registered as an NPO.  Having said that though, even NPOs need money to operate their organisation, regardless if no or a marginal profit is made.  I�d say Sean is feeling the effects of IS and is a little touchy at the moment.  I�m also sure that he'd prefer IS exclusives to remain put for the time-being rather than taking their business away and heading towards SF, because let�s face it, SF sure sounds appealing, doesn�t it?  

I think everyone should take a deep breath in and remember who the bad guy is here.  It�s not SF, it�s IS.

As for my opinion on free sites, I think they are necessary.  Without them, people will be downloading your images illegally from other websites anyway.  A free site gives these types somewhere to go without hurting those who opt to make money from their images.  The other bonus is that RGB will direct traffic to SF so it�s a win:win situation.  There are many reasons why some contributors want their photos on free sites.  Portfolio exposure is one of them. Many times a photographer will submit their best images from a group and submit the rest for free.  There�s no real loss here because those images wouldn�t have made him money anyway and there�s a chance his revenue-generating images will sell if a buyer is directed from the free site.

Who knows why RGB is interested in running the free site for peanuts while advertising for SF.  Perhaps management at RGB has some personal vested interest in SF, perhaps they too are gaining exposure and experience?  Who knows?  Does it matter really?  The animal we�re all interested here is SF and if RGB helps them succeed in anyway, they have my thumbs up!

I've just had a lot of sales elsewhere, particularly at 123, DT and FT which is unusual for this time of the week.  Is this a coincidence or have buyers already switched to another side?  Anyone else notice an increase in sales at other agencies?

Quote from: nicmac on September 11, 2010, 09:11

Quote from: pseudonymous on September 11, 2010, 07:27

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, 06:52

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.

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.

As 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.

I�ve been reading about the IS debacle and see a lot of people allowing their emotions to get the better of them.  Istock has been on a downward slide for months now and everyone should have expected this to happen.  Probably not so soon but it was definitely on the cards.  Istock has made one bad decision after another and their last attempt at improving their website has probably blown their budget causing the big Kahunas at the top to kick ass, forcing them to reduce costs.  Of course the quickest way to do this is to reduce commissions.

I see people have stopped uploading and are pulling (or talking about pulling) their portfolios.  Istock is worried about their bottom line so I advise contributors to do the same.  For those earning a living, don�t let your emotions drive you to make a bad decision.  Instead make this a slow and steady process.  Set up your position on other viable sites and slowly reduce your portfolio on IS.  Don�t do anything hasty that will you hurt you.

The other thing everyone needs to remember is that this isn�t necessarily an Istock problem.  This is a microstock problem.  You could remove your portfolio and dump it onto another site but the same thing will happen in the future.  The new site will grow, money will be invested, bad decisions will be made, budgets will be blown out and eventually they�ll be forced to shaft the contributor.

The only solution to all of this is, as a few have pointed out, to educate the buyer.  Stop referring contributors and buyers to sites that make you the most revenue.  Instead, refer them to sites that give you both greater commission and a better deal for the buyer. 

The poll results on the left are biased and do nothing more than give power to the already greedy agents.  It's flawed because not everyone gets to vote for starters and because it's about sales volume rather than RPD.  This table should be scrapped and replaced with a table that displays the fairest pricing and commission structure for both buyers and contributors.  Buyers should be able to look at this table and it should immediately influence them on making a decision where to buy.  It should also influence contributors to upload to the site that gives them and the buyer the best deal and it should also influence the agents to strive to be at the top of the list.

This table could possibly be made into something like a widget that can be placed on everyone�s websites and blogs and is always kept up to date.  Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and all social networking sites should be used to educate the buyer.  There�s no point driving them to an agent that makes you more money if it doesn�t give them the best price.  The majority of buyers don�t care where they buy their images as long as it�s the cheapest alternative.  If they find the same image on two websites that are both cheap only then will the contributor�s commission influence their decision and this is what we need to play on.

So if it's going to hurt you and your family, leave your IS portfolios sit for a while, promote the fairer sites and the buyers will follow if we start promoting agents with the interests of the buyer at heart.  Even if it�s a new site with no buyers yet, just add your portfolios and at least give the buyer the option of buying them there.

As for Istock, there is no need to punish them.  They�re already finished.  They cannot come out on top of this one.  Even if they reverse their decision, contributors and some buyers have already lost faith in them.  And this is the other thing, it is silly to be loyal to any agent.  These agents are supposed to have the buyers and the contributors� best interest at heart but the world doesn�t work that way.  Forget about loyalty.  Instead favour the agent that�s the fairest at any given time and never become exclusive.  Doing that only gives the agent the power to screw you over you by locking you in.