Poll: Do you agree with IS structure change announcement?

« Reply #25 on: September 09, 2010, 11:42 »

#link

Quote from: Talanis on September 09, 2010, 11:33

There is a lot of sense in what Thomson said, in the way that historical earnings will break down the profitability model in the end. They could have had 2 responses: cut in their fat (who needs all those costly lypses?) and bonuses, or make image earnings dependent, not on contributor performance, but on image performance (the level system of DT).


	Ignore \| Logged

Freedom

« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2010, 15:51 »

#link

Kelly has been silent since his last explanation.


	Ignore \| Logged

lisafx

Premium Member

« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2010, 16:13 »

#link

Quote from: Talanis on September 09, 2010, 11:33

Actually, I agree with some of the changes they propose. It's a good way for new talented peoples to get better earning faster. And I also think it's faire that the more you bring money, the higher your commission should be.

BUT! I can't agree with a commission lower than 20%. Even 20% was very low and I can't believe they want to go lower than that. IMO, they should have kept the independant at a fixed 20%. From a PR perspective, there would be a LOT less screaming.

As for the credit levels, the numbers are not realistic. They should tone that down to more fair levels. For someone to generate 2 million dollars in revenue to get to the highest level is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure they will readjust that to try to make peace with the exclusives but unfortunately, I think the damage is done. With the news expanding everywhere, iStock's reputation is going down the drain. That's sad! I miss Bruce!

You make good points Eric. I think the points you enumerated - going below 20% for non-exclusives, and making the credit levels so unattainable - that are causing the most stir. If they had been more reasonable on those two issues they could probably have gotten the changes in the way royalties are calculated past the majority of contributors.


	Ignore \| Logged

cclapper

Premium Member

« Reply #28 on: September 09, 2010, 17:23 »

#link

Quote from: FD-regular on September 09, 2010, 11:42

There is a lot of sense in what Thomson said, in the way that historical earnings will break down the profitability model in the end. They could have had 2 responses: cut in their fat (who needs all those costly lypses?) and bonuses, or make image earnings dependent, not on contributor performance, but on image performance (the level system of DT).

But you see this is at the heart of corporate greed. They will NEVER cut those things away. They got theirs, screw everybody else. And I totally believe that corporate jets and lypses are just the tip of the fat iceberg. There are probably a lot of people making unheard-of salaries on the IS payroll.


	Ignore \| Logged

lisafx

Premium Member

« Reply #29 on: September 09, 2010, 17:29 »

#link

Quote from: cclapper on September 09, 2010, 17:23

There are probably a lot of people making unheard-of salaries on the IS payroll.

Seriously!! How else get people who have worked hand-in-hand with contributors for years to support screwing them so badly?


	Ignore \| Logged

sharply_done

« Reply #30 on: September 09, 2010, 17:40 »

#link

Quote from: lisafx on September 09, 2010, 16:13

Quote from: Talanis on September 09, 2010, 11:33

I think all but the very top exclusive credit levels aren't out of reach at all - I'll be maintaining my 40% commission without even breaking a sweat. The top exclusive credit level and non-exclusive credit levels need a rethink, though - cutting these in half would go a long way. It should be very interesting to see how this all plays out ...


	Ignore \| Logged

luissantos84

« Reply #31 on: September 09, 2010, 17:47 »

#link

Quote from: sharply_done on September 09, 2010, 17:40

Quote from: lisafx on September 09, 2010, 16:13

Quote from: Talanis on September 09, 2010, 11:33

it SHOULD just be forbidden to pay less than 20%.. it is already low enough no???..

instead of 1.4M credits should be 140K! and 25%!


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

Premium Member

« Reply #32 on: September 09, 2010, 17:58 »

#link

Quote from: lisafx on September 09, 2010, 17:29

Quote from: cclapper on September 09, 2010, 17:23

There are probably a lot of people making unheard-of salaries on the IS payroll.

Seriously!! How else get people who have worked hand-in-hand with contributors for years to support screwing them so badly?

Oh yes. One summer when I was a student I worked chambermaiding in a hotel. The chefs were on a bonus for money they could save from their allocated food allowance. The easiest way they could save money was on staff meals. So twelve out of fourteen lunches/dinners we got in a week was horrible cheap, greasy mince. (or you could wait until after 10p.m. to see if there were any leftovers from guest meals, but since we had to be up at 5.30 to do room service early morning teas, that wasn't a great option). I was spending most of my wages on food bought outside the hotel.
Oh, the parallels are closer than I realised before starting to write this reply. Cry


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: 1 [2]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: Poll: Do you agree with IS structure change announcement?

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results