MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Is Kelly Thompson's Sep 10 explanation acceptable?

Acceptable
2 (1.7%)
No acceptable
41 (35.3%)
Not acceptable, KKT should resign
60 (51.7%)
I don't care
13 (11.2%)

Total Members Voted: 104

Author Topic: Vote on Kelly Thompson's Sep 10 explanation  (Read 6107 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 10, 2010, 17:58 »
0
Kelly has just offered another soul searching explanation, but changed nothing. Please voice your opinion.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2010, 18:05 by Freedom »


« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2010, 18:20 »
0
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.

« Reply #2 on: September 10, 2010, 18:27 »
0
I am disappointed by KKT's lack of flexibility. It seems that he has made up his mind and is not willing to amend his plan.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2010, 18:39 by Freedom »

« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2010, 18:33 »
0
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.

« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2010, 18:34 »
0
it made me feel like holding hands and singing kumbaya, while making me realize that I don't need money to pay for bills and other things...  Hey, why does this kool-aid have a funky aftertaste??  ::)

« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2010, 18:45 »
0
$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.

« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2010, 18:50 »
0
Thompson, you shouldn't resign, you should be fired.
+1

« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2010, 19:19 »
0
I understand needing to keep a limit on the number of contributors reaching the top payout percentages.

I don't.

« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2010, 19:23 »
0
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.

they reach 40%, still high or excessive. other sites start at that for everyone, exclusive or not. I'm sure Istock could still be the biggest, strongest etc microstock site paying everyone 40%

« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2010, 19:47 »
0
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!

acv

« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2010, 20:26 »
0
Shocking betrayal. I thought istock would back down but Kelly comes out with a load of insulting BS. You don't do it for money! You do it to hang out with your friends - what an insult.
I believe Kelly has no control over these decisions. Kelly's bosses are Greedy bankers from Hellman & Friedman who paid $2.4 Billion for Getty.
http://media.gettyimages.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=171

So the accountants there have come up with this plan to take more money out your pockets. Sad but true. All these people want to do is make as much money out of this business even if it means treading on the small guy. And eventually sell it.

Getty has always treated photographers like crap. The first thing Mark Getty did when he bought Tony Stone was slash royalty rates. So they have a history of acting like assholes.

« Reply #11 on: September 10, 2010, 20:48 »
0
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.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #12 on: September 10, 2010, 21:55 »
0
Thompson, you shouldn't resign, you should be fired.
+1

Why would he be fired? He just made an epic corporate wolf move that will put additional millions in the pockets of himself, Getty, and H&F. In corporate terms he's a rockstar. High-fives and champainge all around the Getty/H&F offices right now.

« Reply #13 on: September 10, 2010, 22:22 »
0

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.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #14 on: September 10, 2010, 22:32 »
0

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.

Are you talking to me? If you are, what are you smoking?

This isn't about being profitable. They are highly profitable. This is about being even more profitable.

They are fattening up the pig to bring it to the market.

« Reply #15 on: September 10, 2010, 22:46 »
0
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?"

« Reply #16 on: September 10, 2010, 22:49 »
0
I voted "I don't care". I didn't read what the man wrote. I have better things to do.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2010, 00:03 by FD-regular »

« Reply #17 on: September 11, 2010, 01:32 »
0
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

lagereek

« Reply #18 on: September 11, 2010, 02:33 »
0
Explanation?????  oh thats what it is?  pitty a Corp, can slowly die out because of utter greed and two totally poxy concepts like exclusive/independant crap. Boy oh boy, these computer age people wouldnt have survived one month in the times when photo-agencies really were photo-agencies,  it was a differant league, differant class.

Microbius

« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2010, 02:58 »
0

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.
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?
« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 04:23 by Microbius »

« Reply #20 on: September 11, 2010, 03:10 »
0
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*
Exactly. And they have the nerve to tell us that in our face! *!!!

Pixel-Pizzazz

« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2010, 23:19 »
0

« Reply #22 on: September 21, 2010, 11:24 »
0
His "explanation" is not going to pay my bills. I could give two shits about what he says. I just want to be paid fairly and the new structure is unacceptable.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2962 Views
Last post November 19, 2008, 22:43
by hali
107 Replies
23732 Views
Last post April 13, 2011, 04:53
by ShadySue
84 Replies
19835 Views
Last post January 23, 2012, 21:38
by Suljo
87 Replies
13025 Views
Last post November 27, 2015, 01:49
by shiyali
206 Replies
36721 Views
Last post September 01, 2017, 19:42
by Zero Talent

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results