iStockphoto’s Long Lingering Death

iStockphoto has a long history of controversial actions that make it appear as if adults are not in charge.  It started in early 2006 when Bruce Livingstone,  founder of iStockphoto in 2000, announced he had sold it to stock powerhouse Getty Images.  A huge debate raged in the forums on the future of iStock that was the most alarming for the Exclusives who had all of their eggs in one basket.  One comment that stood out for me from that time was when one of the more clueless posters wrote, "They couldn't beat us so they joined us."   I cringed at reading that.  No, poor soul, the big fish gobbled up the little fish.  And you and we are in the belly.

This was the start of the long decline.

In their latest move, a recent announcement stated that phone support for contributors was being terminated in what was termed a cost cutting move.  Only contacting support via e-mail is henceforth allowed.  It's amazing that a company, any company, would make such a preposterous decision as this.  I can't imagine a more insulting or disrespectful way to treat people that are the soul reason for your success.  It shows somewhere up the corporate chain, a contempt for the people that made iStock what it is, or was.  And to add a dash of incompetence to the mix, the contributor agreement (i.e., contract) clearly states that phone support is to be supplied to all contributors!  It appears they drew their guns and fired too fast.  An update on that should be forthcoming.  

Anyway, it's ironic that a photographer, videographer or illustrator in the higher bracket, earning Getty/iStock $50,000 to $100,00 a year in sales can't get phone support when a guy buying a $1 image can.  

It wasn't clear at first but it certainly is now that Getty bought iStockphoto for one purpose, and that was to rein in the competition.  Sadly, many in the iStock community have never grasped this basic fact.  A generally smart bunch, they keep bringing up ideas–many quite good–regarding what management needs to do to get iStock to maximize its full potential in the marketplace, to produce happy buyers and happy contributors providing quality content. 

But it's hopelessly naive.  Their words are ignored and their pleadings never heeded.  Some people there actually think the Getty cabal actually cares what they think.  Maybe in the Livingston days but not now.  The business model is crowd sourcing–get people to work for next to nothing.  It's an ancient tradition for those in Power.  That's why some Microstocks move the financial goals just as people are starting to make money and get ahead so the crowd sourcing model stays intact.  iStock did that when they changed the royalty structure in 2010 and made it performance based.   Meaning, sell a certain number of images and keep your royalty rate.  Don't and lose it.  I didn't and my 20% dropped to around 15%.  It's another way to remind the peasants at the gate that the gate is still shut. 

What was slow and subtle is now a blitz of blatant dismantling of the pioneering Microstock firm and the diluting of its content.  The last six years has been a routine of unpleasant announcements, followed by anguish in the site forums to calm being restored, only to have the same sequence of events play themselves out again, and again.  As time has gone on it's never let up.  Every new announcement is filled with trepidation for what lies ahead.  

Take a look at what has gone down in the past six years:  A brief history of events include changing the royalty structure so that many photographers/illustrators earn less, based on an absurd idea that the previous process was "unsustainable."  This from a company whose financial stats indicated that it is highly profitable since the content is not produced by them but by iStock members.  Salt was rubbed in the wound by having a now fired Admin tell contributors that, "Money won't make you happy...";  after massive credit card fraud in early 2011, Getty/iStock decided that the contributors would suffer the "clawbacks" not them.  One photographer reportedly lost over $5,000 in a clawback which is clearly a result of iStock's incompetent online security; they launched the higher priced Vetta Collection just to later dilute it with outside images from Getty's other stock collections; Getty photos don't need to pass through the rigorous file inspection which has raised the ire of many; the offering of logo designs just to terminate the project after a long period of inaction; PNG file format announced just to later be dumped after contributors had put many hours of work converting images over to the new format; launched Editorial images only to dump a ton of Getty editorial photographs to compete with member's images; constant tweaking of the search system resulting in feast or famine for members and making sure Getty, Vetta, and exclusive contributor's images have priority; Getty photos from their other online sites (known as collections) have flooded in and all are immune to exclusivity.  Meaning, these images are still for sale on other Getty-owned web sites which no iStock exclusive member is allowed to do; and finally, the afore mentioned canceling of phone support for all contributors.  

(This is just a brief history.  Go to iStockphoto's forums for the full history of controversies not covered here.)

Frankly, I don't know why photographers and illustrators that are Exclusive to iStock stay exclusive. Getty-iStock maintains what amounts to a basically abusive relationship with its suppliers.  They’ve committed enough outrages to have been sued many times over, yet strangely, they have avoided that fate so far.  I do acknowledge that it's a lot of work to go independent and start from scratch rebuilding multiple portfolios to a host of different stock agencies.  And that work also includes doing a lot of side labor such as key words,  description, selection of categories and so on.  I imagine if one has a large portfolio the job would take weeks, if not months, to accomplish. The future is staring the Exclusives in the eye.  There is nothing left but continued dominance of Getty's interests over that of iStock and its members and a flood of Getty content (which includes some hearty dreck) from all over the globe.  

So what do we have here?  More of the same actually.  Getty didn't buy iStock to make it boom, it bought it to remake it into a vassal state.  It's hard to imagine things getting much worse but I bet it can.  Many features on the site don't work right and haven't for years with apparently little incentive to ever fix them.  (We are told it's oh, so, complicated but the other stock agencies don't appear to suffer this malady and their sites are well maintained.)  iStock has the worst royalty rates in the business and that won't be getting better anytime soon.  Many Exclusives have turned in their crowns and are moving their content to other stock sites.  Sales are still pretty good, good enough for people to hang on a while longer.  It's good that an aspiring photographer can still sell images especially if he or she got in early on–meaning around 2005.  Now is not a good time for a rookie to sign up.  Continuing sales for the established are the only bright spot I see, providing they can tolerate the disrespect they will be subject to.

Sources

http://www.istockphoto.com/forums.php

Buy Used

The Enticing the Light web site has posted on article on what a hit the Japanese camera manufacturers have took during the recent 9.0 earthquake and resulting aftershocks. All of the majors, Nikon, Canon, Ricoh, Fuji, Olympus and Sony have been affected. Sony in particular has been forced to shut down 7 plants. Fujifilm was forced to halt production of its popular Fuji X100 and Canon has closed one lens production plant for a month. And besides that their chip manufacturing has taken a hit as well. One can expect to see shortages in all kinds of electronic items being produced in Japan for a while.

The word on the street is, if you need something buy it now. Either it’ll be out of stock for an indefinite time or else the price will rise. And the price and availably of used camera gear might be affected as well. The “pre-owned” option is looking even better.

What To Look For
I always recommend buying used. I buy used gear from Keh.com, Adorama, or B&Hphotovideo.com. You’ll get a warranty from these companies, 30-60 days, plus good return terms if you are not happy with it. Try eBay at your own risk. I’ve done okay with them but prefer lenses as opposed to bodies if I buy from there.

Canon 5D shown above is one of my used buys that I got from B&H. (The lens shown was bought new.) If you can’t afford the $2,500 5D Mark II price tag then the original 12 MP version is not a bad choice if a photographer needs to move to full-frame. I got mine for around $1,100. Though it won’t have some the newer features such as sensor dust removal and video recording, the image quality is outstanding.

It was rated a “9” and was in fine condition, with only a little paint wear on the hotshoe. I’ve been very pleased with it and it came with everything, box, manual, CD-ROM, battery, charger and all cables. With Keh, some things might be missing. You will at least get the DSLR basics, in this case, the battery and charger, which are the two main accessories, you will need with a digital camera. That is why I would rather do business with B&H. If you buy from B&H, you have to move fast as items sell quickly. They usually have just a few samples of a particular piece of gear. Keh and Adorama on the other hand, are loaded with equipment so you can take more time considering your purchase.

Other good cameras are the Nikon D200 and D300 and the Cannon 40D and 50D. If you are just starting out, a Canon 20D or 30D, or a Nikon D70 are good for novices.

I have a 40D and don’t see myself ever parting with it. The image quality, noise control up to ISO 400, overall handling and automatic sensor cleaning make it a fine professional tool for a partial frame sensor camera. The used price has shot up as well. Last year, a friend traded his in for a Canon 7D and got a higher than expected trade-in offer from Adorama. When he inquired as to why, he was told that the 40D was more sought after. I’ve seen the used price over the last year go up $100 or more (current street price: $600-$650). I have no answers for this or who is purchasing this camera in such quantities.

While the prices are good the one downside is that if it breaks on you no warranty support to get it fixed. And repairs are costly as I found out a few years ago when I accidentally dropped my 17-40mm zoom on the floor and the impact damage cost me $200 in repair fees.

Another thing to consider is more pixels doesn’t mean more detail. It means you are getting bigger picture dimensions; more real estate, which is good for cropping. This is evidence of camera manufacture’s marketing departments influencing camera development. More pixels does not mean greater improvements in image quality. However, in my experience, I would say that going from a partial frame sensor to a full-frame sensor does offer an increase in resolution that is noticeable. The full-frame images from my Canon 5D have more “pop” to them. It seems to me, that my 17-40mm zoom images look nice on my 40D but on a 5D they look like I used a tripod with a shutter release cable. The 17-40mm is a totally different lens on a full-frame camera. I didn’t realize it was that sharp!

As always, there are plenty of resources online for researching a new piece of gear. Check out your favorite photographers and see what kind of equipment they use. The wise take their time before they buy.

Link
http://enticingthelight.com/2011/03/15/camera-makers-to-close-factories-indefinitely-after-earthquake-in-japan/

iStockphoto And The Big Call

iStockphoto was the first stock site I signed up with in 2005. I’ve long had a love-hate relationship with them. Peculiar rejections claiming image faults where there are none, and a host of business actions over the years that made it look like the adults were not in control. They did however do a good thing for me—allow me to achieve my goal of shooting and selling stock photos and in the process propel me into areas of photography I’ve never explored. It helped me improve the quality of my work. I’ve since branched out to other sites

iStock early on wanted people to be exclusive to them. It makes for good marketing leverage to have a loyal group of contributors providing content that can’t be found anywhere else. I’ve been tempted many times but only went exclusive for video clips. I’m glad I stayed independent. So much has changed there, starting with being bought by Getty Images in 2006, which were in turn bought up by a private equity firm Hellman Friedman in 2008. New owners always means thing will change and often in undesirable ways. (Starting in 2010, Getty owned stock companies can now post images for sale on Istock’s site. They can also retain their web sites for sale through them as well. No exclusive stock artist is allowed to do that. Exclusive can now mean whatever Getty-Hellman Friedman wants it to.)

The Fraud
After a series of screwy events that are too many to go into here, iStockphoto announced in December of 2010, around Christmas, that credit card fraud had occurred. The amount of fraud has never been revealed. Much to the dismay of the contributors, iStock announced that all members would bear the burden of the losses. Naturally, they were in an uproar of this! Then, it was announced in March that the fraud had continued through January and February of this year as well. I was hit with this round but only out $1.80 so I know I got off easy. One of the bigger sellers, Sean Locke posted on iStock‘s forum that he had lost over $5,000. So far, that is most of any photographer on there that has been admitted to. The idea that Getty-iStock had no intention of reimbursing any of the contributors over this is probably the biggest outrage committed by this company. Many people are wondering when the class action is going to start. Frankly, I don’t know why a majority of the exclusives haven’t left by now.

So far, there has been no apology. Not even a sense of regret from iStock management that this event happened. That is the way of corporate America—when something screws up, never admit anything.

The Big Pow-Wow
So, in order to placate the unruly mob and plug the leaks it was announced that a conference call would be enacted with six members and they would all exclusives, allowing no non-exclusives to take part in the process. Each person had to sign a non-disclosure agreement. How is that for transparency? Many questioned that and some hoped that Sean Lock would not be involved. He was one of the Six.

And what many forecast came to pass. Mr. Locke posted a vaguely worded statement on iStock’s forum full of happy talk and how the unnamed powers-that-be are working to insure this never happens again. The usual lemmings appeared to offer their gratitude for a statement filled with nothing but air.

Nancy Louie (Nano), another member of the Six also posted her thoughts about the call stating “What I did find overall were some sincere answers and disclosure for some hard lines of questioning.” How nice. Disclosure, but only for a select few. Real disclosure would actually be telling us something, right?

However, over at the Microstock Group Forum, Mr. Locke had a different reception for his non-disclosure, disclosure. When asked about what was said at the conference call, he erupted with this response:

“Either you think we're reasonably smart enough, or at least one of us is that you are able to go, "Yeah, they're positive about the outlook, so I'm good". So either you do or you don't, and I totally get it that someone would want explicit details. Heck, we didn't even get those. However, it seems we did mostly feel that ongoing work will address this (from the forum posts).”

A rebuttal from Stockastic (name unknown):

“In any other business, I think a non-report of an alleged discussion of an unspecified agenda between un-named participants would be nothing but material for jokes. Here, at this intersection of web investors, IT geeks, internet crooks, IP lawyers, black-clad art school graduates, and photographers receiving 19 cents per sale, it apparently makes sense.”

Touché.

Where Do We Go From Here?
iStockphoto has been in Bungle Mode for some time now. This current credit card fraud nightmare has been the worst so far. If they think that having one of their top and most trusted photographers issue a bland statement to assuage the contributors concerns and anger, think again. That was a massive fail. We still don’t know anything. We don’t know the level of the fraud, why it was allowed to go on in the first place, why there is no insurance for this sort of thing, or whether or not law enforcement is investigating the case. And, no promise that it might not happen again.

It is also strange that the fraud is so rampant at iStock when it doesn’t seem to be affecting the other stock sites such as Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Fotolia. In fact, nobody has heard of it happening at the other Getty owned online stock sites, of which there are quite a few.

Who knows? Perhaps some good will come out of all of this mess. For the sake of the company, they had better do something. All I can see is, once Getty bought them, things have never been the same or as good. I think everybody can see that.

On the other hand, I am reminded of what Getty did shortly after they bought iStock. They bought a stock company in Ireland. No soon had they acquired it, they laid off all the staff, gave them all generous severance packages and took the company apart. That’s the kind of thing the big companies do to the little ones. “Competition is a sin,” as John D. Rockefeller once said. It’s a sin to them all.

Welcome To Microstock Blues!

This is my first posting for my photography blog. I’ll be posting here on various subjects and issues dealing with photography. I have over 30 years experience of working in photography, which also includes stints in graphic and web design. My early interest was in art so I’ve done everything in that field from commissioned portraits, to logos, to 3D computer generated designs. I currently sell my photographs and illustrations through a variety of Microstocks such as iStockphoto, Shutterstock, Dreamstime and many others.

Here, I’ll be dealing with the various aspects of Microstock, the online selling of photography and illustrations, photography technique and help in making sure photographers have better success in the field. I won't be shying away from any controversial issues as well.

Come along for the ride!

Best to all, George Bailey