I found this in the comments of the cnet article and I thought it was interesting:

We've got 5531 exclusive contributors in our contributor charts:

base contributors 105 ( 1.9%)
bronze contributors 2417 (43.7%)
silver contributors 1647 (29.8%)
gold contributors 760 (13.7%)
diamond contributors 574 (10.4%)
blackdiamond contributors 28 ( 0.5%)

I'm assuming the info came from istockcharts, but what I thought was interesting was that about 75% were Silver and below. Is that where the majority of their 76% unaffected come from? Not to mention about 100% of the 25000+ non-exclusives.

OK everybody - let's get a few more votes in so I can do another summary.

Please tweet about this thread and mention it on FACEBOOK!

OK let's try to get 23 more votes for the poll. 200 iStock member votes would help getting a clearer image of what's happening.

Please email this to IS contributors, tweet about it or put it on your Facebook wall or myspace page.

Just 23 more votes!

it is possible to change my vote?

The results are interesting. Note that over 50% of all the current 181 respondents are independent contributors that will be dropping to 15% or 16%. Added together that probably generates a very significant increase to Istock's profitability.

OK 18 more people! Let's try to get 18 more votes so I can do another status update.

Please let everyone who uploads to iStock know about this poll and tell them to vote.

I think that their later statement that 76% exclusives won't be dropping is technically correct. Most of bronze and silver will keep what they have. Add to that some gold and few diamond level contributors and you are at 76.

Bronze exclusives are already at the lowest commission rate (25%) and thus cannot drop further. This probably pays a significant part in iStock's 76% estimate.

As far as maintaining Silver and Gold commissions go, my calculations show the bar to be quite reasonable: Silvers only need $4,969 in royalties to maintain their 30%, and Golds need $18,550 to keep their 35%. Getting into Diamond is now strictly for dedicated full-timers: you'll need to earn $79,500 to keep your 40%. Being a 45% Black Diamond is only for the truly elite: you'll need to be bringing in $835,000 worth of bacon a year to be in that club.

I think there are a fair number of contributors who have reached Silver, Gold, or Diamond level due mainly from being at iStock for quite a long time, and for the most part it's these people who will see their commissions cut - hence the number of "I've been here since 2004 and now you're stabbing me in the back!" responses.

Thanks a lot Click for starting this poll and taking the time to tabulate the votes and explain them in simple language for those of us who are mathematically challenged. 

Certainly by this poll, Istock's claim that 75% (or thereabouts) will stay the same or not lose out with this are complete nonsense!

Is there any way an exclusive can get an increase in percentage (immediate jump) once this lunacy is enacted?

I'm not aware of anybody. If so, that person would certainly have the key to success and I doubt they would share their story anywhere in public.

Quote from: lisafx on September 12, 2010, 17:22

Thanks a lot Click for starting this poll and taking the time to tabulate the votes and explain them in simple language for those of us who are mathematically challenged. 

Certainly by this poll, Istock's claim that 75% (or thereabouts) will stay the same or not lose out with this are complete nonsense!

I'm glad I did it because it shows clearly what 142 non-exclusives (141 for that matter) will experience - a loss of income while iStock will make more money.

I think iStock's numbers regarding the contributors who are supposedly not affected was limited to the exclusives. Everything else would mean that a bunch of crazyheads is running that place (although it might not be far off...).

Still, these numbers and iStock's don't match, not even close. I can only explain this with the assumption that most of all exclusives who maintain their commission level are not participating in this one sided discussion and also didn't vote here either. So there might be a higher percentage that isn't actually affected.

I agree.

on istocks forum it was mentioned that something like 74% of exclusives are base level, so cannot drop. cant remember the exact figure, but if correct it left only 1 or 2 % of other exclusives not taking a hit.

Great work CC. Many thanks for getting it in statistical perspective for us.

...
Here some comparisons:
- Approx. 4 out of 10 non-exclusives will lose 25% (a quarter) of their monthly earnings.
- The vast majority of non-exclusives, 9 out of 10 will at least lose 15% of their iStock income.
- According to the poll 1 out of 267 non-exclusives stays at 20%.

Throwing out percentages like this doesn't give as good a picture as you might think - it's akin to the monthly earnings percentages thread that circulates around this place: It may be interesting to scan, but it doesn't really tell you anything. Let's put some dollar amounts to this data. With reference to the chart in this thread, here's what the poll results look like now:

142 non exclusive contributors which split into: (omitting contributors who are staying even, for clarity)
New               Number of
Commission   Contributors   iStock Income           Income Lost
15%                39.4%             $0 to $398                  $0 to $99
16%                28.9%             $424 to $2,650            $85 to $530
17%                22.5%             $2,816 to $9,010         $422 to $1352
18%                5.6%               $9,540 to $35,775       $954 to $3,578
19%                2.8%               $37,763 to $352,450    $1888 to $17,623

Breaking it down like before, but a little differently:
- Approx. 4 out of 10 non-exclusives will lose less than $99 per year.
- Approx. 5 out of 10 non-exclusives will lose between $85 and $1352.

45 exclusive contributors which split into: (omitting contributors who are staying even, for clarity)
Old                 New                Number of
Commission   Commission   Contributors    Income                      Income Lost
30% to 40%    25%               28.9%               $0 to $4141                 $0 to $1,552
35% or 40%    30%               17.8%               $4,969 to $15,900       $621 to $3,975
40%                35%               6.7%                 $18,550 to $69,563     $2,319 to $8,695

Breaking it down:
- 47% of exclusive contributors will lose less than $3,975 per year.
- 7% of exclusive contributors will lose between $2,319 and $8,695.
- 53% of exclusive contributors will lose $0.


Although there are far more independents than exclusives, it's clear that exclusives stand to lose more from this than independents. Assuming the poll data is valid, it might be possible to make a broad statement: While 50% of independents will lose up to $1350 per year in this deal, 40% of independents will be minimally affected by it, losing less than $100. Nearly 50% of exclusives will lose up to $4000, almost 3 times the amount of independents in a similar income bracket.

Taking a step back, the majority of income losses shown here are in the chump change category - not even a few hundred dollars per year. While some lost income amounts to the same as losing a performance bonus in a white collar job, it's only the full-time independents earning $70k+ who are losing significant cash, and they make up less than 2% of the respondents. Full-time exclusives (earning $70k+) aren't going to lose anything. How's that for spin?

Interesting figures, although your numbers seem a little light on the top end. ...

These numbers are for photos only - I didn't incorporate credits/commissions for illustrations, flash, audio, or video.

I think the chart shows number ranges that are broader than they really are. The ranges shown are mathematical boundaries, and my gut feeling is that real world values are more tightly clustered - there aren't going to be many losing more than $10,000 here.