MicrostockGroup

I understand needing to keep a limit on the number of contributors reaching the top payout percentages.
But there is no excuse for dropping the independents below 20%.
That is a sustainable level ad infinitem ad nauseum.

Yeah, mark me down for unacceptable. All these explanations really don't make any sense. Even at 45%, they still make more off of exclusive files than they do non-exclusive files. That's what the change in prices in January did. Exclusives aren't the problem. The math doesn't add up. This really seems to be smoke and mirrors to distract us from the real change which was to lower non-exclusive rates. That's where the real money is. They seem to be avoiding that topic with little or no explanation.

$1.7 per week to contributors, that's about $5 mil to Istock and the poor *insult removed* still can't make ends meet.  Poor Istock.  Thompson, you shouldn't resign, you should be fired.

I don't.

I don't understand the math or the logic behind istock's policy.  The top contributors who make the most sales get the top commission, but they say that this commission rate is unsustainable.  So they cut commission rates, disproportionately at the lower end of the contributor scale and for independents.  This discourages the smaller, independent contributors who quit istock and stop uploading.  So istock is left with a small number of large, exclusive contributors, whom they are paying at or around the commission rate which they claimed was unsustainable.  Am I correct?

They should make the math more clear and make sure that they understand it.  Then, they have to make sure that their contributors and customers understand it.

If it costs approximately $0.50 (or whatever) to review an image, then they should factor acceptance rate into the commissions paid to contributors.  If a contributor's average image makes say $0.50 per year then they should get a higher commission than someone who brings in only about $0.10 per image.  It costs more to store person B's photos on the server (compared to revenues) so they should get less money for each sale.  If someone is an exclusive and their images cost more, then it should be reflected in higher revenue per image, so they should get more money that way.  There is therefore no need to set different commission rates for exclusive versus non-exclusive contributors.  If someone makes only a small amount per year, it costs more to deal them because istock has to cut checks in $100 amounts instead of $1000 or $10000 per check for top earners.  So this should also be factored into commission rate.  Call these canisters, gold stars, or whatever you want.

Istock doesn't have to publish their exact costs per image or other detailed figures (this would be tipping their hand to competing agencies), but they have to come up with a simple, logical and fair formula such as this.

Also, istock can probably do without the social, clubby "woo yay" aspect.  Sell stock, pay your contributors, end of story.  People are more than happy to create their own separate, independent, professional and social organizations (forums, meet and greets, etc.).  Istock should save their money for running their servers and for advertising instead of trying to be not just an agency but a social forum.  AFAIK the other industries which use the agency model, such as fashion and acting, don't try to be a club for their clients/contributors but just concentrate on business.  We should be so lucky!

Thompson is clearly just a corporate puppet wanker who will do anything, say anything, think any f&&king thing ... whatever it takes to keep his very nice job & perks. He couldn't give two sh!ts about the contributors who actually pay his inflated wages.

I'm sure you jest.  $5M x 52 weeks = $260M.  If you cannot run a virtual business with zilcho inventory for $260M, there is something seriously wrong with your management skills.

Paulie, I am clearly suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

I love Thompson's title of his third installment:  "Where do we go from here?" 
Is there a veiled message within those words?  "Would you like a shove to get going?"

I read it as I'm going to do what I please, you do what you please, I dont give a crap

What he's saying is not that the company isn't profitable, in fact he's implying profits are increasing. Management just seems to be irked by the fact that profit is decreasing as a proportion of revenue,  even though that is because they are rewarding those who have caused the profit increase in the first place.
I think it's technically called being greedy *insult removed*

ETA oh and about the third statement, sounds like a schoolboy that's smoked too much weed reminiscing with his friends. Why didn't they get a grown up to run the company?

I think this says a lot too:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382