MicrostockGroup

You're not wrong!  They seem to have almost as many images as SS, possibly a similar number of contributors numbering 100s of thousands.  Using the DT rank here as a guide to possible number of independents on this site we're talking in the region of 600.  Of those only 40 have 10,000+ (lifetime) sales and 200+ have no sales.  All of the top 40 "going on strike" may have a minor impact, as for the rest of us, they wouldn't even notice...

Stop uploading might not influence them fast, but it is a d*mn side better than doing nothing.......(at least it will start sending them a small message about their future if there might be a significant drop in new material due to their pricing and payment policy.......perhaps just a seed of doubt might have a decision influence).

Any other ideas or are they just so big and bad that the "little" fish can not bite them at all?  

I think cutting commissions hits sties more than they anticipate.  They get less traffic, as more of us encourages buyers to look elsewhere.  I presume that hits them with google search?  Their competitors get more new images and that should make their collections more appealing to buyers.

For a site that has already seen a decline in sales for lots of us, if the poll here is accurate, they are taking a big gamble.  They might make more money short term but that seems like a bad decision if it lets their competitors overtake them.

So perhaps we don't have to take any action?  Shutterstock is getting better for sales all the time and all the sites that have cut my commissions are in decline.

Saying that that just a few companies cut rates is not true since everybody knows that in the economy based on inflation you would have to increase at least 5% of the salary every year to have the result of 'no change'. So all photographers getting no raise of the income during several years experience actually a decline of real profitability of their business...
Saying that there are just few 'bad businesses' and that 'This isn't a microstock industry-wide epidemic' does not make big sense since we all see the same process everywhere and we see the idea on which this business is based: it is based on making the photo image FOR FREE from the point of view of big business. How else would you call the price of the 36 cents per immage while creating commercial advertisement worth sometimes 1000, sometimes 100 000 times more?

What do you think from what kind of logic the price of 36 cents came? What kind of 'rationale' stands behind this price? Why does it not coast for ex 5 cents? or 1 cent? For me it is absurd to charge corporate bussines 36 cents per picture - its simply humiliating. And it shows! As I said before, the marketings of big corporations dont treat photography as something valuable anymore... its simply a trash that you 'get from the Internet' just like this!