pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Istock Second "Explanation" to Contributors  (Read 16167 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: September 13, 2010, 18:46 »
0
Here's the funniest, and most accurate account of what has actually happened that I have read, posted by Kelvinjay - fourth post down:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&page=77

Hopefully it won't be a problem if I repost it here? 

"You don't seem to be taking the hint. They've F'd us in the A, rolled over, farted and are reaching for their cigarettes. They don't want some cosy post coital chat. They're just hoping you will realise how embarrassing the whole situation is, take the couple of dollars they've left on the bedside table, get dressed and do the walk of shame."


Must be the best post I have ever read over there! How bang on can an analogy be!


« Reply #76 on: September 13, 2010, 18:51 »
0
Here's the funniest, and most accurate account of what has actually happened that I have read, posted by Kelvinjay - fourth post down:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&page=77

Hopefully it won't be a problem if I repost it here? 

"You don't seem to be taking the hint. They've F'd us in the A, rolled over, farted and are reaching for their cigarettes. They don't want some cosy post coital chat. They're just hoping you will realise how embarrassing the whole situation is, take the couple of dollars they've left on the bedside table, get dressed and do the walk of shame."


Must be the best post I have ever read over there! How bang on can an analogy be!


That's too funny...right on the nose.

RT


« Reply #77 on: September 13, 2010, 19:22 »
0
Getty was in trouble.  Analysts downgraded them over and over.  Got bought out because they couldn't thrive at all.

New competent owners controlled their direction, bought iStock for growth.  Bottom line, they win.  They made the company better, maybe marginally, maybe more.  Don't try to spin this as anything else as a takeover to fix operations, make the company profitable and spin around.  iStockphoto just became part of that plan when they realized that it would help make it all work even more.

You need to do some reading up, firstly read the link I posted, Getty were not in trouble, their shares fluctuated but the company was operating on a decent profit and had been for the previous five years, share prices go up and down for reasons beyond whether a company is in profit or not (have a look at Sony Erricsons latest q results, 200% up in profit and yet their shares have just fallen).

You might want to learn what the term 'spin' means also. Ironic though because to correct your statement the new competent owners you mentioned didn't buy iStock, it was bought by Getty two years before H&F then bought Getty.

Unfortunately the Getty/iStock figures are not published by H&F anymore, probably why the iStock CEO came out with that 'spin' in response as to why they're lowering commissions.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2010, 19:27 by RT »

« Reply #78 on: September 13, 2010, 19:55 »
0
Can someone confirm my bad dreams.
Somehow I think that first founder dady Getty in his days was blackmail by mafia, and after that he made Getty foundation to avoid blackmail. After few decades somehow foundation was on free market?! and bought by the same mafia covered by suspicious venture capital. I dont know if it is H&F or some hidden investors under H&F.
If it is true this means that hidden mafia guys are black mailing Getty again and raping them more and more every year. Now Getty is like goose without feathers and now It is turn to rape iStock to feed mafs....
And that is all about...
Only in this case I will somehow understand this mess what is on iStock this days

Can somebody verify my bad dreams  :-\

« Reply #79 on: September 13, 2010, 23:09 »
0
Getty was in trouble.  Analysts downgraded them over and over.  Got bought out because they couldn't thrive at all.

New competent owners controlled their direction, bought iStock for growth.  Bottom line, they win.  They made the company better, maybe marginally, maybe more.  Don't try to spin this as anything else as a takeover to fix operations, make the company profitable and spin around.  iStockphoto just became part of that plan when they realized that it would help make it all work even more.

You need to do some reading up, firstly read the link I posted, Getty were not in trouble, their shares fluctuated but the company was operating on a decent profit and had been for the previous five years, share prices go up and down for reasons beyond whether a company is in profit or not (have a look at Sony Erricsons latest q results, 200% up in profit and yet their shares have just fallen).

You might want to learn what the term 'spin' means also. Ironic though because to correct your statement the new competent owners you mentioned didn't buy iStock, it was bought by Getty two years before H&F then bought Getty.

Unfortunately the Getty/iStock figures are not published by H&F anymore, probably why the iStock CEO came out with that 'spin' in response as to why they're lowering commissions.

I guess i will expect you to be writing for the wall street journal soon and some textbooks too because i guess an 80% reduction in stock price doesn't mean any company is in trouble.  F&^K you guys just believe whatever you want.  If the market is saying that your stock isn't worth 100$ a share anymore and your market value is 20% of what it once was, there's something wrong. Just because it posts profits doesn't mean that make it a good situation.  Getty could be bleeding cash (whcih has nothing to do with profits) and that could have made them a huge gamble to stay afloat at the time .  Those profits could have been unrecognized revnues from previous years.  DOn't try to school me on financial statements - Getty was taken over because it was a viable target to buy and resell - no capital firm goes and buys a company at the top of its game.  They are specialized management firms with the intention of adding value through their operations management and strategy.  Ive read way more strategy books than I need to not to eat the s#it you're trying to feed me

RT


« Reply #80 on: September 14, 2010, 04:55 »
0
Ive read way more strategy books than I need to not to eat the s#it you're trying to feed me

I'm not trying to feed you anything, just trying to point out that misquoting events and claiming a company was operating at a loss when in actual fact it wasn't and providing the figures to prove that obviously aren't enough for you, try and get your facts right in the future it will benefit everyone.

 

« Reply #81 on: September 14, 2010, 06:01 »
0
I think it is quite clear that Getty was in a big decline when they were taken over and I presume that was mostly caused by the availability of cheap images on the microstock sites.  They purchased istock but the damage had been done and istock profits couldn't replace the lost profits from Getty.  There were also a lot of rival sites.

This is my speculation.  Perhaps the strategy was to raise istock prices so high that buyers would return to Getty?  They also needed to take away the microstock subscriptions.  Wouldn't we know if they had made an offer for shutterstock?  Perhaps there are competition rules that stopped them?  That would explain thinkstock, designed to take customers from the other subs sites.  The strategy seems to of failed so far, buyers have left istock for the other microstock sites.  If they really wanted thinkstock to work, they shouldn't of paid the lowest subs commissions.

There have been so many changes with istock, I can't help but think "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".  It feels like there is a lot of desperation to make all these changes, probably to sell off Getty and istock for a profit but they could end up with a company that is worth less than they paid for it.

« Reply #82 on: September 14, 2010, 06:27 »
0
It feels like there is a lot of desperation to make all these changes, probably to sell off Getty and istock for a profit but they could end up with a company that is worth less than they paid for it.

Oh yes __ Istock/Getty is undoubtedly being fattened for the market. Come March next year H&F will have owned Getty for 3 years, about the average time that a PE outfit likes to turnaround an investment.

I strongly suspect that the numbers suggest that the image market may be nearing it's peak of growth (possibly beyond), at least in terms of profitability, and that holding on any longer is unlikely to add much value to their investment.

If Istock was really 'your baby' and you were in it for the long-term would you really have risked losing all those exclusives and demotivating so many contributors for just a few extra percentage of profit today? I wouldn't.

I will be very surprised if H&F are still the owners of Istock/Getty by the end of 2011.

lisafx

« Reply #83 on: September 14, 2010, 10:48 »
0

Oh yes __ Istock/Getty is undoubtedly being fattened for the market.

Absolutely.  This is the only explanation that makes any sense at all to me.  It's clear that the long term health of the company is being jeopardized in favor of short term profits. 

RT


« Reply #84 on: September 14, 2010, 12:33 »
0
I will be very surprised if H&F are still the owners of Istock/Getty by the end of 2011.

They'll have sold the main part of Getty, but they'll keep iStock because by then all the independents plus the top crowns will have left and the remaining exclusives will be on 5% commission safe in the knowledge that money doesn't make them happy, they'll occasionally get an email ending in 'you guys rock' which will give them a warm feeling of belonging to a community.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2010, 13:58 by RT »

« Reply #85 on: September 14, 2010, 12:52 »
0
Interesting article and I agree it does state the drop in share price, however I stand by what I've always said about the company operating profits and that they were not operating at a loss:

http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=financials&btn=annual_reports&mode=&symbol=NYSE%3AGYI

Check out the 5yr trends, especially the total net income!


Year end date       2003   2004   2005    2006    2007
Total net income    64.0   106.7   149.7   130.4   125.9
Revenue per share  9.13   10.25   11.78   13.65   14.40

« Reply #86 on: September 14, 2010, 17:05 »
0
Still no word from Kelly or anyone else on the multitude of good questions regarding the changes, like why non-photographers are being treated differently in the royalty structure, and why we were promised something when supposedly everyone at HQ knew they wouldn't be able to come through with it. Bewildering and jarring shift in the contributor/owner relationship. Unfortunately their silence, and the three (3!) posts that didn't answer a single question, point to this being the new status quo. :-\

On a related note, I've had a project in the works that I think many here will be interested in. I felt that the iS forum wasn't an appropriate place to post this, so hopefully here is OK. If you're interested, send me an email at photodoer /at/ gmail.com, and I'll shoot you an email when it's completed. For now I'll just say that it's right up your alley.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
11636 Views
Last post September 30, 2008, 01:03
by RacePhoto
3 Replies
4251 Views
Last post December 17, 2010, 05:11
by anc
24 Replies
4799 Views
Last post September 26, 2011, 04:14
by michealo
141 Replies
25833 Views
Last post May 09, 2018, 10:05
by PZF
4 Replies
1024 Views
Last post July 12, 2018, 08:25
by MatHayward

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors