Here are some random thoughts:

It seems clear to me that stock photography has entered a bear market (dire economic conditions resulting in reduced demand etc etc).

It also seems reasonably clear that the new owners of Getty will want to make the businesses cleaner and leaner to maximise profits.

I understand that Getty does all the keywording etc for submissions.  Does it seem reasonable that the new owners would sanction the recruitment of 20 new keyword people for iStock when there is already a team in place at Getty (who might be underemployed)?

Does it also seem reasonable that Getty employs people to do RF and iStock also employs people to do RF?  Doesn't this seem like duplication?

So perhaps this new keyword facility is just one more step towards the eventual integration of Getty RF and iStock RF.  And perhaps the 20 new employees aren't going to be 'new' at all, but a reallocation of resources from elsewhere.

And perhaps when iStock does the keywording, more Getty photographers will be inclined to also contribute to iStock.

The dividing line between Getty RF and iStock RF is closing all the time.

I just received my my exclusive business cards from iStock and have to say that they are some of the highest quality out there. It's a nice change from the last batch that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.  It's one of the the actual perks that exclusives get, the others being faster review times and an increased percentage of the sale.

Just want to add, if a company applies artistic double standard and discriminatory practice towards a certain segment of its contributors, eventually it may hurt its credibility. Don't forget, many contributors are buyers or in the position to influence the buying decisions.

I agree that the business cards, particularly with the referral link, are a nice bonus for exclusives. 

It was suggested awhile back in istock's forums that istock consider offering the cards - for a fee - to non-exclusives.  Don't see how that would be anything but good for istock, since it would ensure that more independent contributors would refer people to istock over their competitors.

I would certainly buy them and I imagine a number of others would too.   

still getting pictures rejected for Keywords - upload 06/21/08 rejected 06/27/08

Quote from: Seren on July 02, 2008, 12:51

Quote from: yingyang0 on July 02, 2008, 12:18

I just received my my exclusive business cards from iStock and have to say that they are some of the highest quality out there. It's a nice change from the last batch that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.  It's one of the the actual perks that exclusives get, the others being faster review times and an increased percentage of the sale.

I don't really see business cards from iStock as a perk when you could get 250 of your own printed online for under a fiver...

While I agree that it is not a major perk upon which anyone should base huge life-altering decisions, I respectfully disagree that these can be printed online for "under a fiver".

1. The 200 free cards can include an assortment of up to 50 different images from the artist's portfolio.

2. Each card is printed with a code which entitles the bearer to 10 free credits. Each code is linked to the artist on the card. Each referral that results in a purchase of credits beyond the free ones will result in a referral bonus of $10 being paid to the artist.

So they are a bit more than just ordinary business cards.

What strikes as odd to me is the number of exclusives (based on my own observations and relatively speaking) who have very few referrals.  I would think the cards would make for an advantage.

Perhaps strictly 'freebie referrals' don't  show in an exclusives 'referral listing' if they only take advantage of the 10 free credits as opposed to a bonifide (credit buyer) referral?

I'm an independant (4 years) with a small portfolio (less then 200 images- I actually didn't upload for the entire past year until just recently) but I have over 30 bonifide referrals to my credit - which seems like an awful lot in relative terms when I've browsed similar sized exclusive portofolios.  Not sure what to make of that.

I'm don't think business cards are much of a perk - but maybe I'm missing something.  Maybe those 10 credits are the true perk? - but I obviously don't know the policy/policing of their use.

Like the others, who have the option to go exclusive on a moments notice, I think this was a beautifully presented but very poor offering.  If Istock really wants to attract the die hard independants they should find out what matters to them.

Perhaps strictly 'freebie referrals' don't  show in an exclusives 'referral listing' if they only take advantage of the 10 free credits as opposed to a bonifide (credit buyer) referral?

The only referrals listed are paid referrals. If the referral used the free credits and then purchased credits at a later date, then they would be listed and the bonus would be paid to the referring artist. If they do not eventually purchase credits, then there is not referral bonus.

The previous business card system was a farce with many delivery frustrations, crappy quality, etc. I suspect these new ones will be handed out with much more frequency.

Quote from: Pixel-Pizzazz on July 03, 2008, 19:24

 If Istock really wants to attract the die hard independants they should find out what matters to them.

They know what matters to us - Money! As in a 50% or better stake in the earnings from our own images.   

And that is one thing they don't seem prepared to give...

More control would also go a long way, IMO.   There is far too much potential for confict of interests on too many fronts.

Quote from: Pixel-Pizzazz on July 03, 2008, 19:24

 If Istock really wants to attract the die hard independants they should find out what matters to them.

They know what matters to us - Money! As in a 50% or better stake in the earnings from our own images.   

And that is one thing they don't seem prepared to give...

I think they must be prepared in the near future

So with inspectors spending more time messing about with exclusives keywords, it will mean that non-exclusive files now take even longer to review....

Seriously, what a waste of time and resources - if contributors can't be bothered to take the time and effort required to keyword their images correctly, then the images don't deserve to be on the site in the first place. Why on earth would you reward contributors for doing something incorrectly?

I can just agree with you in that point! And I keep on thinking that the inspectors seem to be too busy with "other things" and seem to have less and less time to do what they are supposed to do first: inspect photos. And besides that: I would not even trust the inspectors to add the right keywords to my images. Some of them are very special, like certain artwork. They might not even know about the technique and the material that I have used for the painting.

Quote from: bittersweet on July 07, 2008, 12:39

Quote from: Pixel-Pizzazz on July 04, 2008, 14:45

More control would also go a long way, IMO.   There is far too much potential for confict of interests on too many fronts.

Can you explain more about what you mean with this comment? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Sorry, you'll have to get your juicy steak elsewhere.

I thought you might like to clarify your comment beyond vague innuendo, since the lack of response to your post suggests that I wasn't the only one who hadn't a clue what the heck you were talking about.

This one is even more random than the other. I'm certain I can live without further explanation.