pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fotolia sells 50% stake in business  (Read 23577 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lisafx

« Reply #75 on: May 17, 2012, 17:58 »
0

A lot of people who need to eat a Snickers Bar.  (maybe only makes sense in USA?)   ;D


LOL!  Love those commercials.  Here's for anyone who didn't understand the reference:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO_uJVL8KkA[/youtube]


« Reply #76 on: May 17, 2012, 18:01 »
0
thats interesting, if I may ask you, what % of your income come from microstock beside your own agency? maybe you are becoming less and less dependent on agencies so you have different interests, that said I agree with 99% of your posts

My own site is only about 10% of my passive income, so I'm not going to be retiring off of that cash cow anytime soon.  ;D

I guess I meant it more from the perspective that I can't imagine a union that would get enough people to agree on one set of core principles. And if they did, would those principles be enticing? I do see a lot of opinions I agree with, but I also see a lot that I disagree with as well. Maybe, I'm just being cynical.

« Reply #77 on: May 17, 2012, 18:19 »
0
To add on to my last post, I think selling vectors is a very different marketplace too. Sometimes I wonder if they should even be sold on the same sites as photos. The sites that only sell or focus on illustration seem to be decent sellers for me. Maybe, it is because their marketing is more focused on what I do.

« Reply #78 on: May 18, 2012, 02:51 »
0

A lot of people who need to eat a Snickers Bar.  (maybe only makes sense in USA?)   ;D


LOL!  Love those commercials.  Here's for anyone who didn't understand the reference:


Have you seen the English version?
Joan Collins & Stephanie Beacham 2012 SNICKERS Ad (ENG)

CarlssonInc

« Reply #79 on: May 18, 2012, 03:06 »
0
Love the Snicker's commercials - especially the first one (I think it was) - with the guy in the back-seat of the car...

« Reply #80 on: May 18, 2012, 06:57 »
0
I have some experience with KKR.  It is indeed its mission to enter an industry and consolidate many existing players, attempt to put them all under one infrastructure to eliminate a lot of costs, and thus maximize profits.  For example, if they bought ten companies and have them all operate as one unit, you don't need ten accounting departments... you could fire nine of them.)  With the agencies, there can't be that much infrastructure to eliminate... I'm guessing they would instead maximize profits through commission cuts. 

I felt pretty good about Shutterstock's news the other day.  But the Fotolia news has me feeling this is the beginning of the end.  Oh well, it's been a fun ride.

Microbius

« Reply #81 on: May 18, 2012, 07:01 »
0
I think FL has actually pushed many contributors about as far as they are willing to go. Any further cuts are bound to result in an exodus. Or am I being overly optimistic?

« Reply #82 on: May 18, 2012, 07:22 »
0
I think FL has actually pushed many contributors about as far as they are willing to go. Any further cuts are bound to result in an exodus. Or am I being overly optimistic?

Time will tell but the comments here seem to point in that direction. It would be a lot less painful for most people to dump Fotolia than it is for exclusives to dump the crown and in my view Fotolia has consistently been far more aggressive and deceitful in its treatment of contributors - to and perhaps beyond the verge of outright dishonesty - than iStock.

« Reply #83 on: May 18, 2012, 09:06 »
0
I think FL has actually pushed many contributors about as far as they are willing to go. Any further cuts are bound to result in an exodus. Or am I being overly optimistic?

Time will tell but the comments here seem to point in that direction. It would be a lot less painful for most people to dump Fotolia than it is for exclusives to dump the crown and in my view Fotolia has consistently been far more aggressive and deceitful in its treatment of contributors - to and perhaps beyond the verge of outright dishonesty - than iStock.

I believe they havent punished emerald and superior ranking, there was a time because of DP that they were going to decrease their pricing but nothing happened actually, so they are still respecting top contributors

you can say that IS makes a ton more money than FT but actually I dont think you can compare royalties between them
« Last Edit: May 18, 2012, 09:12 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #84 on: May 18, 2012, 10:55 »
0

I believe they havent punished emerald and superior ranking, there was a time because of DP that they were going to decrease their pricing but nothing happened actually, so they are still respecting top contributors


Believe me Emeralds have been punished. Some of us were pushed so far back in the search that my I lost 75% of my earnings virtually overnight and it never has recovered.  I know others that had similar treatment at the same time it happened to me so it wasn't anything that I did or didn't do that caused it.

« Reply #85 on: May 18, 2012, 10:57 »
0

I believe they havent punished emerald and superior ranking, there was a time because of DP that they were going to decrease their pricing but nothing happened actually, so they are still respecting top contributors


Believe me Emeralds have been punished. Some of us were pushed so far back in the search that my I lost 75% of my earnings virtually overnight and it never has recovered.  I know others that had similar treatment at the same time it happened to me so it wasn't anything that I did or didn't do that caused it.

yep I know that, yourself, Lisafx too but I was mainly talking about the royalties % but I do understand what you are saying, perhaps more important than royalties..

« Reply #86 on: May 18, 2012, 11:38 »
0

I believe they havent punished emerald and superior ranking, there was a time because of DP that they were going to decrease their pricing but nothing happened actually, so they are still respecting top contributors


Believe me Emeralds have been punished. Some of us were pushed so far back in the search that my I lost 75% of my earnings virtually overnight and it never has recovered.  I know others that had similar treatment at the same time it happened to me so it wasn't anything that I did or didn't do that caused it.

+1.  Most days on FT I'm down 50-60% from where I was just a few months ago.  Very discouraging.  But given how poorly I'm doing at DT since their recent changes, and how I've all but given up on ISP, these reduced FT sales still make them my #2 seller.   Very frustrating to know that things are down not due to anything I'm doing wrong... it's most of the big players sabotaging me.  Here's hoping SS remains steady.

« Reply #87 on: May 18, 2012, 11:52 »
0

A lot of people who need to eat a Snickers Bar.  (maybe only makes sense in USA?)   ;D

LOL!  Love those commercials.  Here's for anyone who didn't understand the reference:
...

Thank you Lisa! I had no idea what they were on about :) Those are funny!

« Reply #88 on: May 18, 2012, 17:46 »
0
Everyone should pull all their images from Fotolia, and see how much it is worth then.

Too late. I already did that a year ago.

Yeah, me too. I really don't care what they do going forward.

lisafx

« Reply #89 on: May 18, 2012, 17:51 »
0

Have you seen the English version?


ROFL!  Hilarious!  And wow, Joan Collins looks great - good plastic surgery, I guess... :)

« Reply #90 on: May 18, 2012, 19:36 »
0
I can't dump FT. I started there and it is a heavy work to eleminate them. SS helps a lot more than expected.
But i expect FT will die faster than i can relocate my images.

« Reply #91 on: May 19, 2012, 03:50 »
0

A lot of people who need to eat a Snickers Bar.  (maybe only makes sense in USA?)   ;D


LOL!  Love those commercials.  Here's for anyone who didn't understand the reference:


Have you seen the English version?
Joan Collins & Stephanie Beacham 2012 SNICKERS Ad (ENG)

I don't like adverts but this one made me laugh.  Almost as good as the Joan Collins Leonard Rossiter ones many years ago.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scOFAbQ3nXY[/youtube]
« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 03:52 by sharpshot »

OM

« Reply #92 on: May 19, 2012, 09:02 »
0

I believe they havent punished emerald and superior ranking, there was a time because of DP that they were going to decrease their pricing but nothing happened actually, so they are still respecting top contributors


Believe me Emeralds have been punished. Some of us were pushed so far back in the search that my I lost 75% of my earnings virtually overnight and it never has recovered.  I know others that had similar treatment at the same time it happened to me so it wasn't anything that I did or didn't do that caused it.

+1.  Most days on FT I'm down 50-60% from where I was just a few months ago.  Very discouraging.  But given how poorly I'm doing at DT since their recent changes, and how I've all but given up on ISP, these reduced FT sales still make them my #2 seller.   Very frustrating to know that things are down not due to anything I'm doing wrong... it's most of the big players sabotaging me.  Here's hoping SS remains steady.

Noticed a recent post on the FT forum from a 'gold' contributor (close to emerald) asking whether anyone knew if there was a deliberate policy to prevent golds becoming emerald (and bumping up their prices). He/she had sold almost nothing since April, their emerald carrot getting pushed even further out in time.

In April, the search drastically changed to favour more recently uploaded images with sales momentum (in the default 'relevance' search). All the 'most downloaded' files have been relegated to further back in the search pages in the default setting and the only way to see the 'most downloaded' is to use the filter; something, I guess, the majority of potential buyers don't do. That is why IMHO the golds/emeralds or anyone with established sellers are getting so few sales now. Sales momentum seems to be achieved by having one or more files added to their 'newly added' files section in which the majority of files chosen for exposition often come from seriously serial uploaders (300+ files in the last 6 months and often 20+ in the last week). If this is so then it appears that FT is determined to encourage large volume uploading of new files, thus displacing the old favourites and best sellers. Don't understand this but ours is not to reason why. Since April my, impression is also that the percentage of subs sales has now risen to around 90% from the previous 60-70%. Subs must be hugely profitably for FT. Only they know on average how many downloads out of the 750 possible are actually taken up but I'll bet that it's not even half, which at an average of 30 cents payout to the contributor amounts to $100 profit on every monthly sub. And the great thing is that FT gets in $200 multiples immediately but it takes contributors 150+ multiples of subs to reach their monthly payout (could take months)............all money in the bank for free and earning interest + a bit of speculation in currency derivatives and it's a real money spinner!

drugal

    This user is banned.
« Reply #93 on: May 19, 2012, 16:54 »
0
Fotolia sells 50% stake for $300m


thats waaay too much money. They are leveraging up to buy something, likely shutterstock. 'Private equity' is just the latest name for leveraged buyout firms after those got a really-really bad name for themselves among people who actually work for a living.

« Reply #94 on: May 19, 2012, 17:25 »
0
Fotolia sells 50% stake for $300m


thats waaay too much money. They are leveraging up to buy something, likely shutterstock. 'Private equity' is just the latest name for leveraged buyout firms after those got a really-really bad name for themselves among people who actually work for a living.


Yes, it's too much money. Shutterstock must be worth way more than Fotolia. I've seen one surprisingly low number for the SS IPO but I don't know whether it was real or was just made up by someone. I don't see how Fotolia could buy SS, it would be like the minnow swallowing the shark.

drugal

    This user is banned.
« Reply #95 on: May 19, 2012, 17:44 »
0
Fotolia sells 50% stake for $300m


thats waaay too much money. They are leveraging up to buy something, likely shutterstock. 'Private equity' is just the latest name for leveraged buyout firms after those got a really-really bad name for themselves among people who actually work for a living.


Yes, it's too much money. Shutterstock must be worth way more than Fotolia. I've seen one surprisingly low number for the SS IPO but I don't know whether it was real or was just made up by someone. I don't see how Fotolia could buy SS, it would be like the minnow swallowing the shark.


thats why it's usually a 'leveraged' buyout. These buyout ppl never use any money of their own, not a cent. Are there any more details about the SS IPO? Maybe it's something minor, way-way below a controlling interest. Lets hope its something like that.

rubyroo

« Reply #96 on: May 19, 2012, 18:19 »
0
Maybe it's something minor, way-way below a controlling interest. Lets hope its something like that.

Yes, that's my hope too in the case of SS.  Well below a controlling interest.  They are in the first 'quiet period' now, so I don't imagine we'll hear any more detail for some time.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 23:32 by rubyroo »

« Reply #97 on: May 19, 2012, 21:34 »
0
FT was sold to an Idiot investor, who payed 300m for the half of noting. From now on FT will do nothing more.
There was never any other target than to sell the company.
FT is death.

lagereek

« Reply #98 on: May 20, 2012, 01:37 »
0
Fotolia sells 50% stake for $300m


thats waaay too much money. They are leveraging up to buy something, likely shutterstock. 'Private equity' is just the latest name for leveraged buyout firms after those got a really-really bad name for themselves among people who actually work for a living.


Yes, it's too much money. Shutterstock must be worth way more than Fotolia. I've seen one surprisingly low number for the SS IPO but I don't know whether it was real or was just made up by someone. I don't see how Fotolia could buy SS, it would be like the minnow swallowing the shark.


They are lining up for a Getty takeover. The world is changing.

« Reply #99 on: May 20, 2012, 02:05 »
0

They are lining up for a Getty takeover. The world is changing.

Who is? Either Fotolia or SS could buy Getty now, I should think, with all that unsustainable debt piled onto it. H&F always wanted to sell it and now that they've mortgaged the property for pretty much all its value (or maybe more than all its value, depending on whether it can repay the loans or not) what's left should have a bargain basement type price tag.

Getty would be a better fit for SS than for Fotolia. It could merge TS into SS (hopefully not the other way round) and continue to run the trad side and iStock in parallel. For Fotolia the clash between iS and Fot would be awkward.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
6605 Views
Last post May 20, 2010, 12:55
by click_click
15 Replies
4318 Views
Last post July 24, 2012, 07:51
by heywoody
32 Replies
6948 Views
Last post May 06, 2014, 18:08
by Noedelhap
22 Replies
5034 Views
Last post November 12, 2015, 15:22
by VB inc
6 Replies
4028 Views
Last post June 09, 2017, 22:47
by iBeluc

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle