MicrostockGroup

Does anyone know if this is truth or rumour?  It's a few days old now, I thought there would be chatter if it was correct.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/fotolia-takes-a-massive-50-to-100-million-round-from-ta-associates/

My experience with TA is they have a bottom of $60 million.

Sounds more like Fotolia is in acquisition mode, I would not imagine subordinate debt. ... wonder who they are buying.

Why would TA be "far too smart" to buy FT at those prices? If you crunch the known figures backwards it suggests that FT currently has an annual turnover of about $45M of which they're only paying out about 35-38% in commissions. On the basis of sales it is probably about double the size that IS was when they got bought out.

Anyway the report is emphatic that TA has not actually bought FT, although they must have acquired a huge chunk of it. I think Litifeta may be spot on suggesting that they may be in acquisition mode __ I can't think of any other reason why a business in apparently robust health would need such a large cash injection.

Makes you wonder who they are after? Surely SS and DT are the only two other major players, still in private ownership, that could command such figures. Looks to me that only SS would cost anything like the sort of money being talked about. Fascinating.

Very interesting information.  Thanks for posting Pixart.

I don't know how exactly this sheds light on their current inexplicable action to start a massive free image site, but I am sure it does somehow. 

It is starting to look like Getty, and now Fotolia (or TA Associates) are in a massive game of trying to undercut the competition and ultimately keep all the marbles for themselves. 

Competition for contributors was great when it was happening and driving royalties up, but this race to slash prices and put the other guys out of business really doesn't look to have an up side for contributors.   

I've yet to see any real evidence for this __ just lots of speculation and conspiracy theories. Yes, some agencies have cheaper offerings than others but this most often just reflects the size and quality of their respective libraries.

There's also precious little evidence that a significant proportion of the real buyers are particularly price-sensitive anyway. For example most Emerald and above contributors at FT don't report losing sales when they put their prices up. DT and BigStock both had very simple and cheap pricing structures when they started but it didn't mean that they rapidly gained market share over the others __ quite the reverse in fact as they probably didn't make enough profit to invest in adequate marketing.

So many things are going on.  This funding.  The PhotoXpress launch.  The new CEO (sorry, forget the Istock dude's name at the moment).  Since PhotoXpress just came out this week and since they have disclosed virtually nothing about the site....  perhaps they are taking the approach of a a crack dealer.  Give everybody a taste of the crack and lure them in.  I can't possibly fathom what the benefit of that site is as it is today with no revenue.  There has to be a big picture that we are not privy to.  "Customers" will have to eventually realize how limited free sites are and want to buy something better.    I have only skimmed their terms (as a photographer not a customer).  When you sign up for free downloads, are you really signing up for something else? 

I used to work in the theatre, and shortly before they filed for Chapter 11, a big Hollywood producer came in like a white night and infused a ton of money.  Then they found out about the Securities fraud etc. and the business was forced into bankruptcy.  (Yup, bad investment.)  Another reason for the cash infusion may be that FT just isn't doing well.  It's easy to say that we get such a low % they must be raking in the bucks - but who really knows.

anyway, good to see some private equity still exists. Maybe TA should look at buying out Francisco Partners, they have some great assets, albeit, they paid way too much for them.

this doesnt make sense on a lot of levels and TC is really sweating FT.  they have been reporting on them like crazy.  that makes me think that FT is paying them, has great PR (probably this) or advertising on their site (maybe this).  there were like 4 FT announcements in 2 weeks on TC. 

FT put this statement out.

""  TechCrunch has been very, very good to us. We are huge fans of the site and its reporters, and think they provide great value in to startup and tech community. The latest article is reporting on rumors, and Fotolia never comments on rumors. With respect to the facts in the article, we can confirm that Fotolia's business is strong, rapidly growing, and gaining on the industry leader. ""

pretty secretive.  also there is nothing on TA's website. 50-100 million is just an astronomical figure in a down economy so i have a hard time believing it. 

If TA have invested hugely in FT then it would be standard practice for their interests to be represented via a place on the board. Not sure we can read into it any more than that.