Question: Would iStock showing financial statements change your mind?

ichiro17

« on: September 11, 2010, 17:16 »

#link

I rarely have my own threads, maybe because I just like reading or because I really don't have any value to add. But this is a question that came to mind:

How would iStock showing their financial statements make you feel?

I'm not saying that they are actually doing as poorly as they say they are - in fact, I don't think they are even close to negative net income, but would them opening up the books (with a reputable Chartered Accounting firm such as Ernst and Young) help you make a better decision?

There are lots of factors here, so obviously this situation needs to be taken lightly. I'm curious to see where the problems lie within their business model.

Thats my take - I won't actually have any reduced income, I might go up a step - however, I think it sucks for everyone else and things should change to a better, more sustainable system.

JG


	Ignore \| Logged

Read_My_Rights

« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2010, 17:20 »

#link

The whole point of being owned by private equity is so you do NOT have to open your books. If bruce would have taken IS public, we would know exactly what the execs are making and how their cash flow looks like.


	Ignore \| Logged

Phil

« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2010, 17:21 »

#link

I think it would show that are making a shirtload of money

Someone else posted here (lost the post amongst the threads, so sorry cant say who it was) that getty pay 20% for RF and it appears that Istock as a whole has to get the royalties down to an average of 20%, personally I think they have nailed the whole issue.


	Ignore \| Logged

qwerty

« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2010, 17:25 »

#link

I think you would find that Istock is making heaps of money but it has been chosen to offset reductions across the rest of the Getty business.

Having said that I don't care, you don't eye gouge the golden goose to prop up reductions in sales in other areas. 80% is already enough commission.

So seeing istocks financial statements would make me more angry in this grab for cash.


	Ignore \| Logged

cthoman

« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2010, 18:05 »

#link

I don't think it's a question of how much they are making, but where are they spending it all if they need more?


	Ignore \| Logged

luissantos84

« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2010, 18:09 »

#link

Quote from: cthoman on September 11, 2010, 18:05

I don't think it's a question of how much they are making, but where are they spending it all if they need more?

They don't need! 10M $ houses Tongue


	Ignore \| Logged

disorderly

« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2010, 18:17 »

#link

It's academic, since they'd never do it, but it wouldn't change my mind at all. They're already taking 80¢ on the dollar; if they can't make a profit on that, they deserve to fail.


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

Premium Member

« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2010, 18:23 »

#link

I don't trust them any more, so I probably wouldn't believe their statements.


	Ignore \| Logged

Graffoto

« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2010, 18:38 »

#link

Quote from: qwerty on September 11, 2010, 17:25

Gouging the golden goose is EXACTLY what most business will do.
For instance, in my 'day' job I work for and educational organization. There is another arm of the organization that provides a service and has nothing to do with the education side. The education side losses money or at best breaks even every year. The company uses it's service side to make up the difference.

Those who work on the service side should, by measure of their contribution to the overall success of the organization be making higher wages than those on the education side... But they don't. They get screwed over because they support the money losing side of the equation.

This is why Getty bought IS in the first place, to shore up their balance sheets.

The answer the OPs question, no it would not make any difference if I could see IS financials. My wife is a CPA and I know very well how business bury the numbers to make things look more bleak than they really are.


	Ignore \| Logged

sharply_done

« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2010, 00:33 »

#link

I think it would have a detrimental effect - people would see that profit is increasing, and would thus question the decision to lower commission rates even more vehemently.

They're making a change not because of profit, but because of profit margin. I think TPTB want to see this increased, and the only way to do it is to reduce commissions. Reducing the commissions of "unserious" exclusives is acceptable, as is lowering the nonexclusive commission rate. To management's way of thinking, the "serious" exclusive contributor is not going to see a reduction in income (and might even see an increase), which makes them appear even better at what they do best: provide exclusive content to the microstock marketplace.

Completely unrelated, but I thought this would come about last year, and made the jump to exclusivity sooner than I originally planned - I was afraid that the commission bar would be raised, and by waiting too long I'd miss it. Good on me that I didn't.


	Ignore \| Logged

TheSmilingAssassin

« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2010, 00:56 »

#link

Disclosing their financial statements won't make a difference. The result will show that they're either greedy *insult removed* or inefficient. Either result will lead to people giving them the flick. IS has screwed themselves Royally.


	Ignore \| Logged

sharpshot

« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2010, 04:43 »

#link

Quote from: sharply_done on September 12, 2010, 00:33

Don't you think that they will find it harder with so many of us no longer uploading new images? They have exclusive content but the other sites have millions of images they don't at better prices and they pay higher commissions. I still feel they have made a big mistake here, losing a lot of their contributors and buyers.


	Ignore \| Logged

LostOne

« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2010, 10:01 »

#link

Quote from: pseudonymous on September 12, 2010, 00:56

My thoughts exactly.


	Ignore \| Logged

gostwyck

« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2010, 10:10 »

#link

Quote from: pseudonymous on September 12, 2010, 00:56

Yep.


	Ignore \| Logged

cclapper

Premium Member

« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2010, 10:20 »

#link

Quote from: gostwyck on September 12, 2010, 10:10

Quote from: pseudonymous on September 12, 2010, 00:56

Yep.

+1 Doesn't make a bit of difference what's in the books. It's actions that count, and hosing contributors (more than they already are) is a pretty bad action. Not a company I want to be associated with.


	Ignore \| Logged

ichiro17

« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2010, 10:34 »

#link

Thanks for the replies. Just wondering how everyone felt.

And yes, I'm in banking so I know all about how things are manipulated. Can see it all the time.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: Question: Would iStock showing financial statements change your mind?

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results