To be frank...

I just want the 40% I earned while I wasted my fingers, wrist, eyesight, back family time and free time... that I invested in getting there at almost triple diamond.

We had a contract and a set of rules which were changed mid-race in order to simply wipe the slate clean and post higher revenues.  It is simply the ugliest thing any company or boss has done to me personally and why I simply have lost what made me love iStock in the first place, trust.

They can still backtrack and make it all back from today forward but I can't fathom that fairness is something they put in the equation now or in the future.   

If iStock does 40% to us diamonds as we were privy before, we still have the lowering of revenues due to large competition.    It does however only punish from a predictable side and not from the part of the equation that should be your agent and look after your revenue/work.

I know that many at iStock had no clue or wanted to do this so I am not generalizing on the good people there. They were handed a rotten egg basket and they had to color them nicely as much as they could to make the poison pill easier to swallow.   They can still turn back the clock and re-earn their place of trust.

Hi all,

It seems I struck a nerve at some point with my post in the main RC thread.

I have no agenda but that of fairness and as many of you know I was part of the Vetta Video opt out process. 

I have lost around 33% of my income due to the RC system and while I have worked many many extra hours off and on stock to pay the bills it looks like I might never attain the higher level that I enjoyed by being close to triple diamond.

I have good friendships with many inside and out of iStock and while I respect their positions I have always said what i really believed inside.

I believe iStock as a company had slower growth than projected hence why the RC system was concocted. It is a way of strengthening the core of the company while avoiding raising prices heavily to an already high system of offerings.

Now what did I mean by the contributors are at fault?

Well I believe we are responsible indirectly for the current state of affairs. If we don't fight for our rights it is of no consequence that they will be stripped away one at a time.

This is no master evil plan at work its business at its best. A business will try to extend its profit arm as far and wide as the market and suppliers will let it go. We in our small but vocal pulpits did not generate enough force to redirect the flow of the grab to make it a fair and stable system.

I am actually in awe of how far it has swung towards the company and its owners.  It makes it for a more stable and strong company to weather opposition, competition and economic storms.   It is their job after all to make the company stronger at any cost but it is our job to defend what take we finally get and we have failed dearly at it in what respects to RC.

RC levels is just one implementation of the system and it could be tweaked further to balance it out over time. I want a strong iStock, I want happy management but I also want a contributor base that is proud and doesn't distrust or vilify the company at every turn.

Corporations are not evil, they don't have feelings or empathy, they just see balance sheets that they can better tweak as time moves on. The staff is there and they do have feelings, empathy, love for the craft and good real feelings for contributors, buyers and friends.

I strongly believe that as far as iStock goes; the company people are good and strong minded people which get the bad reputation of being the button pushers and tweakers of our destiny in stock.  They are doing their job with the tools they were handed but that doesn't include the key to the contributor happiness toolbox.

That key can be brought to them by a well organized, respectful and unified voice that starts a dialogue process into getting a fairer system implemented.  It is of prime importance not to create animosity or damage the company but to make our points firm and in a true majority standing behind them.  Its our work and our livelihoods at stake and we can only fight it like good ladies and gents.

The scattered voices that populate the forums wont create that homogenous and clear message but will surely help in creating a voice when the time calls for it in a group creating a whole.

In the end we would desire to get a strong company attached to strong contributor values of compensation and clarity. Their strength is an asset to us the same as our continued support and artwork is the main resource that runs their engines.  Only dialogue can get there and only a clear voice will have a chance to be heard and listened too.

No side should feel punished or damaged in the end, we are a single shining entity with different systems but with third rate communications system. Our mutual benefit will make the whole stronger.

Sincerely,

James Benet

Sadly I'll be getting large cut come January 1st.    Wonder if Google would like to advise some in the stock business?

Hope this starts a trend reversal not just for stock related companies but industries as a whole.  Good times should be shared with the employee, not piled up in a vault!

It was always about the money, right from the beginning. I hope Bruce is enjoying his $50 million. Somehow I doubt he lies awake at night worrying about what's happening to the likes of us.

I have to step in here and defend Bruce.   He didn't get 50 million, he had to give most of the sale money to the creditors that were owed for bankrolling the iStock Startup who wanted a nice return to their investment. If he made 2-3million himself I would be surprised. I think he was never in there for the money and when the iStock baby grew up to be big bucks he was not connected to that. He was not a cash hog or a bean counter, he was a rebel that made the right moves at the right time to get something started that changed a bunch of lives for the better, while making a difference for his own life.  He had a decision to make, either take it public or sell it off to gather the funds for expansion and pay the creditor shares. In the end I believe he could have gotten even more for the company but he made the right decision. Going public could have been a much more stressing scenario with a pure for profit culture. He was assured control of 3 years and he got it; I bet that was a hard to negotiate position but he got it! 

I for one think he got the short end of the stick "money" in the deal, he probably deserved much more as well as some of the staff that started it all with him.  But as with any visionary/rebel, he is probably looking into building something cooler and different in the future rather than steer a ship that is already sailing. It would be boring and a spirit killer.

He entrusted the company to KK and I believe it was the best decision at the time.  He has done a great job of expanding this place, and I am willing to find out what 2011 brings.  It's a thankless job for the most part and I wouldn't want to be in his shoes but I respect the guy, because lets face it he is our horse and you don't change your bets mid race.