istock and the "no discussing competition" rule
Ok, so it's not just istock. Other sites with forums have rules against discussing other stock sites. But istock does seem to be the most strick about the rule. This week alone there were two threads that I saw locked down, one justifiably, the other more questionably (someone was trying to locate a photographer who wasn't even an istock contributor anymore).
My point here is not whether these rules are fair, justified, etc. My question is whether these rules make any sense whatsoever. The reason I see thrown around istock for having this zero tolerance of even mentioning another site by name is that istock is a business, and we don't discuss competitors.
What?!
That is exactly the opposite of what businesses do. You look at your competition, size them up, see what they do well, what they do poorly, etc.
Is this all just one big "we don't want to share contributors" pissing match amongst the microstock companies? Seems silly. Chances are most people already know about the other major companies out there.
Can anyone think of a good, practical reason why these policies exist?
|