Best Summation

The best summation I've seen of this entire iStock fiasco can be summed up here:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4798672

It reads like a eulogy...

//So this will be locked soon. Its being cried for. Some of you might be coming late to discover a nightmare over the last 10 days and have no idea what's going on. Here's a little recap.


There are basically three problems management has created with regard to their community.


1) Royalty changes (they called it need we called it greed); 2) Agency Collection (they called it was asked for we say it will ax 4 to every 0.0001 that it helps.); The Community (they say they want see a thriving community we say we see a conniving of the community).


1) Royalty changes: They minimized contributor loyalty while maximizing profits on us. The 71% iStock/Getty had a couple years ago has gone down to around 69% (I could give hard facts and numbers for this so if you're curious let me know.) SO yes their margin is decreasing. But so are their profits. They have watched their share dwindle from perhaps a high of 78% when Exclusives were introduced and have seen their share drop to perhaps 68% today. This drop over the years has led to the claims of iStock's model being unsustainable. As contributors reach Diamond and the maximum of 40% it has created a seniority based system which when combined with the Independent's 20% share has produced the roughly 70% the figure they are in process of dropping from. Getty pays RM 30-40% but RF has been 20% and iStock was charged with coming into line with this figure. The current Redeemed Credit system will reward the high volume contributors while penalizing the average Black Diamond thru Silver who make up the 40+% of iStock's present content. So to set ridiculously high goals which almost none will meet iStock Getty has forced a 5%-10% drop in just about every higher level contributor such as Black Diamond- Silver and only Bronze who are 76% of Exclusives will see a bump up or mostly likely stay the same at 25% as well as an across the board drop for all Independents below the 20% to a more likely 15-17% figure . This way iStock/Getty can 1) combine the Exclusive and Independent royalties to raise their share back about its current 70% to closer to 75-80% in line with their goals for RF content on Getty. On all this we have asked simply, How can you not sustain on 60% should we make it to Diamond? It very hard to believe. DO we not deserve that 40% based on the work to make iStock, more unique imagery, supplying the inspectors and admins, and increased revenues over the years? We think toying with that system that the accountants call unsustainable will implode and bring division and ill will which will collectively prevent iStock/Getty from long term growth.


2) Agency Collection: They will continue to add their collections such as they have already done with the Hulton collection and now the Agency Collection flooding the BM with Getty owned material thus raising their share even more. To do so numerous 'blue blood' 'outside exclusives' with rule changing instant Exclusivity and one day acceptances apparently following a different standard for inclusion will also dilute the iStock/Getty Exclusives and Independents as they try and outdo BM placed files that dominate the searches. Getty's return is maximized again and we the group that made iStock what it is (was better now since iStock is seemingly just a Getty puppet site) have further and further been knocked farther and farther down the BM competing with files that like Vetta can almost wholly clog a page with the higher priced, less stock like and more artsy like collection.


3) The Community: iStock/Getty has promised that these changes will actually benefit us as a 'thriving community' which remains to be seen. Since many promises have gone in one ear and out the 'udder' iStock/Getty knows they have alot of trust building in store and a cynical group to win over. The site's community was once a mainstay and selling point of iStock for it actually created iStock's success and produced many of its current admins. The community has solidified in opposition to these changes with occasional dissent wanting to give the benefit of the doubt but has typically fallen on deaf ears in here. The community is divided against itself as competitors, divided from its leadership which promised dialogue but never engaged in any and has lacked the at least perspective of the Inspectors and other badges who are sworn to silence touting the company line of not wanting to say anything now because things are so emotional and so they need to stay a step back (ie. not interact in any discussion about the changes). Community is also divided due to the serious lack of trust in HQ which has appeared as merely puppets of a Getty and H&F inspired plan to spruce up the company for a sale coming soon that shows maximized profits. The anger has turned to sadness and distrust as the community is feeling like they have witnessed a funeral for an old friend they used to respect only to see a corporate sense of financial disassociation replacing the former bond of unity. Well that's about it.


So a few last quotes. Klein said, "I was famously quoted in Wired magazine on the subject of cannibalization and I have not changed my view since then:When Getty purchased iStockphoto for $50 million. “If someone’s going to cannibalize your business, better it be one of your other businesses,” says Getty CEO Jonathan Klein. Well it worked then so they are doing again with the PP and Thinkstock and now the Agency Collection. Expect more to follow.


About community I would remind Mr. Klein to remember what he said back in 2006. "“iStockphoto’s micro-payment system has allowed me to increase my profit margin.” Welcome to the age of the crowd. Just as distributed computing projects like UC Berkeley’s SETI@home have tapped the unused processing power of millions of individual computers, so distributed labor networks are using the Internet to exploit the spare processing power of millions of human brains. The open source software movement proved that a network of passionate, geeky volunteers could write code just as well as the highly paid developers at Microsoft or Sun Microsystems. Wikipedia showed that the model could be used to create a sprawling and surprisingly comprehensive online encyclopedia. And companies like eBay and MySpace have built profitable businesses that couldn’t exist without the contributions of users." If he believed that then, why are we seemingly trying to replicate the same model on IStock that a $50 million sale proved wasn't working by trying to flood it with 'contributors' that act and get privileges that put them outside the norm here?


Isn't that why they are partnering with Flickr? Didn't they see the value in the crowd? "Because the imagery is not shot for commercial services, there is more authenticity,” Mr. Klein said. “Advertisers are looking for authenticity.”" Perhaps productivity is now more valued?


Lastly a quote from the present and past leaders of IStock/Getty. Klein and Livingstone. "Bruce's brilliance," Jonathan Klein once told me, "is that he turned community into commerce." Livingstone uses a slightly different formulation: "I turned commerce into community,"


Notice the difference in perspective. Klein saw iStock's community as a way to make money. We are witnessing that now with business as the priority not community. Bruce saw money as a way to build iStock's community. There's a vastly different approach. The one exploits people to build business. The other exploits business to build people. Did anyone like Lise Gagne not see how she was built as a person by the exploitation of business to further her talents? Can many of us not say the same?


We have crossed the bridge from one way to the other and this thread laments the departure from one people centered way which rewarded loyalty and hard work. Fare thee well iStock we knew you well and will miss you.