MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: bunhill on May 16, 2012, 10:32
-
Fotolia sells 50% stake for $300m (http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/05/16/fotolia-scores-300m-in-equity-debt-financing-from-pe-firm-kkr-in-exchange-for-50-stake/)
-
A private equity firm paid 300mil for a 50% stake. Wow. Makes Istock's $50mil sale a few years ago look like peanuts. :o
Does this mean they will take the same approach to contributors that Hellman and Friedman did?
-
Fascinating news.
Two of the top three or four microstock agencies taking momentous steps to raise large amounts of money. Looks like we might see some big developments soon: acquisitions; expansion; big new marketing campaigns?
The valuation of FT is $600 million. Wow, more than I would have guessed.
-
what is senior debt financing ? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_debt)
-
Everyone should pull all their images from Fotolia, and see how much it is worth then.
-
Michael, I think you're dead right. According to the Financial Times article, KKR plans to use Fotolia as a platform to purchase other digital rights groups, and consolidate the industry. Apparently they did something similar in a 2009 joint venture in the music business that allowed them to become an "acquisition powerhouse" in the music industry.
Here's the article - you can read for free, but do have to sign up:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b8f30ddc-9eb0-11e1-9cc8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1v0iiKKuN]
[url]http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b8f30ddc-9eb0-11e1-9cc8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1v0iiKKuN (http://[url)[/url]
-
What is it with these companies thinking we're not professional photographers? First it was iStock's buyer survey, now this...
The New York-based company, founded in 2005, bills itself as a crowdsourced photography service, offering 17m images and videos that users can purchase, often at a fraction of the price of professional pictures.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b8f30ddc-9eb0-11e1-9cc8-00144feabdc0.html (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b8f30ddc-9eb0-11e1-9cc8-00144feabdc0.html)
This news, plus the 75% drop in my normal earnings ( :o ), is making it so much easier to finally leave Fotolia behind. I've already started removing non-sellers.
-
Fotolia, 300million for a 50% stake, it's not April first is it?
-
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.
-
Everyone should pull all their images from Fotolia, and see how much it is worth then.
Hear hear!
-
Fotolia, 300million for a 50% stake, it's not April first is it?
Oh boy. The rate at which my images sell there makes it worth about sixpence to me.
-
giving Fotolia an enterprise value of $450m.
.....
The deal values Fotolias equity at about 10 times earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation
So does that mean that Fotolia's earnings are $45m ? Isn't earnings the same as actual profit - ie revenue less costs ? If so then Fotolia is earning more than Shutterstock - even after all of the money which SS has spent on growing revenues.
^ that cannot be correct can it ? So what does this mean ?]
ETA: I see my schoolboy error. Even so !
-
and how are we(contributors) going to get benefited by all these stuffs going on with fotolia and shutterstock? (except of buying equity)
-
and how are we(contributors) going to get benefited by all these stuffs going on with fotolia and shutterstock? (except of buying equity)
How will we be benefited? Sort of the same way a new prisoner is "benefited" when he drops the soap in the prison shower.
-
Everyone should pull all their images from Fotolia, and see how much it is worth then.
haha that would be too cool! Unfortunately this will never happen :-(
-
Whatever an agency does, WE will NEVER benefit! the quicker we realize that, all the better, saving ourselves lots of frustration and anguish.
-
Fotolia sells 50% stake for $300m ([url]http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/05/16/fotolia-scores-300m-in-equity-debt-financing-from-pe-firm-kkr-in-exchange-for-50-stake/[/url])
"We are pleased to announce that one of your files has just been sold under subscription on Fotolia."
Yeah right!
-
and how are we(contributors) going to get benefited by all these stuffs going on with fotolia and shutterstock? (except of buying equity)
How will we be benefited? Sort of the same way a new prisoner is "benefited" when he drops the soap in the prison shower.
Lisa, Lisa . . . . . . such language! . . . . and I thought you were a lady! :o
-
and how are we(contributors) going to get benefited by all these stuffs going on with fotolia and shutterstock? (except of buying equity)
How will we be benefited? Sort of the same way a new prisoner is "benefited" when he drops the soap in the prison shower.
Ha, ha! screwed up the spout! ;D
-
In my prison (US Army) we now use liquid soap thus no more benefits for then newbies lol...
-
and how are we(contributors) going to get benefited by all these stuffs going on with fotolia and shutterstock? (except of buying equity)
How will we be benefited? Sort of the same way a new prisoner is "benefited" when he drops the soap in the prison shower.
Maybe we should get used to that, find the positive and pleasant part of it, and, so, learn to enjoy these little moments, because this one won't be the last.
-
Everyone should pull all their images from Fotolia, and see how much it is worth then.
easy for you to say. (and me) That would be awesome if it happened - and to H&F/Getty too.
-
Everyone should pull all their images from Fotolia, and see how much it is worth then.
easy for you to say. (and me) That would be awesome if it happened - and to H&F/Getty too.
I just finished pulling about 100 images. 1900+ more to go!
-
Everyone should pull all their images from Fotolia, and see how much it is worth then.
easy for you to say. (and me) That would be awesome if it happened - and to H&F/Getty too.
I just finished pulling about 100 images. 1900+ more to go!
Seriously? any case, whats the point?, you will be replaced by one or two tomorrow. Wont even make a dent. This has been my whole point for years, its a numbers game and nobody is irreplacable.
-
And after Fotolia was telling all and sundry that it is being destroyed by cheap competition? Either it was lying or the buyers have got shafted or, maybe, both.
-
I pulled all of my images in February. Granted, I didn't have much....but I don't see how anyone can contribute to an agency that incorrectly reports the money you receive to the IRS at year end, and also plays a shell game with image levels. If you can't trust your agent then who can you trust?
Quite frankly, I think after all the commission drops at various agencies, my suspicion is they are not looking to acquire...they're looking to restructure debt at more favorable interest rates. The cost of capital is cheap these days compared to 4 or 5 years ago.
-
Lisa, Lisa . . . . . . such language! . . . . and I thought you were a lady! :o
LOL! Really? I thought I used very ladylike language. Not a ladylike act, certainly, but nothing wrong with the language ;)
-
Seriously? any case, whats the point?, you will be replaced by one or two tomorrow. Wont even make a dent. This has been my whole point for years, its a numbers game and nobody is irreplacable.
It's a two way street. FT was pretty easy to replace as well. ;D
-
Seriously? any case, whats the point?, you will be replaced by one or two tomorrow. Wont even make a dent. This has been my whole point for years, its a numbers game and nobody is irreplacable.
It's a two way street. FT was pretty easy to replace as well. ;D
Yeah, with a differance: 300 mil. ;D
-
ETA: I have no idea why the link I have posted is tiny and so far down the page.
video interview - Oleg Tsceheltzoff (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xqv5ql_oleg-tscheltzoff-co-fondateur-et-pdg-de-fotolia_tech)
-
Everyone should pull all their images from Fotolia, and see how much it is worth then.
easy for you to say. (and me) That would be awesome if it happened - and to H&F/Getty too.
I just finished pulling about 100 images. 1900+ more to go!
Seriously? any case, whats the point?, you will be replaced by one or two tomorrow. Wont even make a dent. This has been my whole point for years, its a numbers game and nobody is irreplacable.
Seriously. I've been planning on leaving for over a year now. Just wanted to wait until I finished pulling my iStock portfolio first. I could care less if leaving impacts either company or not. Leaving them will give me peace of mind and that's all that matters.
-
Seriously? any case, whats the point?, you will be replaced by one or two tomorrow. Wont even make a dent. This has been my whole point for years, its a numbers game and nobody is irreplacable.
It's a two way street. FT was pretty easy to replace as well. ;D
Haha! Thumbs up!
-
If things did get any worse with FT, it will be quite easy to leave now. A few years ago when the commission was reasonable and it was possible to rise up the rankings, I wouldn't of thought about leaving. Now, it's hard to see how I will still be there in a few years time.
-
Agreed. I've come close to leaving FT several times. Will see how things are by the end of this year, but may pull the plug.
-
Seriously. I've been planning on leaving for over a year now. Just wanted to wait until I finished pulling my iStock portfolio first. I could care less if leaving impacts either company or not. Leaving them will give me peace of mind and that's all that matters.
Exactly. For me, it wasn't about them at all, it was about me. And I had enough. With FT and IS both, a couple of years ago. And if the bull$hit continues, I'll pull all of my images. When it gets to a point where my images are being given away, well, they won't be, not on my watch.
-
What if they're going to use that money to buy shutterstock? :'( :(
-
What if they're going to use that money to buy shutterstock? :'( :(
That would be hilarious. I think people's heads would just explode.
-
and how are we(contributors) going to get benefited by all these stuffs going on with fotolia and shutterstock? (except of buying equity)
How will we be benefited? Sort of the same way a new prisoner is "benefited" when he drops the soap in the prison shower.
:D :D :D Hysterical. Care if I use this one in the future?
-
It might be good for us if all the sites were owned by greedy investors that kept lowering commissions. We would eventually have to do something about it. I'm tired of this long slow death of microstock. At some point we are going to have to get together and do something or forget about making money from microstock.
I still think if we all withdrew from sites that paid less than 50% commission, everything would change. Buyers will go to wherever they can find what they need. We have the lifeblood of the sites and some of them have taken it for granted that we will supply them whatever they do. Some people have left sites but it would have to be a big coordinated effort to make a real change. Just imagine how the valuation of sites would change if their suppliers left and buyers moved elsewhere. It might seem impossible but it could be much easier to do than we think.
-
...I still think if we all withdrew from sites that paid less than 50% commission, everything would change...
"We" who? The small number of us in the forums? We're a drop in the bucket compared to the vast majority of contributors who are content to be in the microstock business but not in the community. Any community effort to pull our images from any particular company would go largely unnoticed, while the majority don't care about the inner workings of these companies and will contribute anywhere that they can make a buck.
-
...I still think if we all withdrew from sites that paid less than 50% commission, everything would change...
"We" who? The small number of us in the forums? We're a drop in the bucket compared to the vast majority of contributors who are content to be in the microstock business but not in the community. Any community effort to pull our images from any particular company would go largely unnoticed, while the majority don't care about the inner workings of these companies and will contribute anywhere that they can make a buck.
I fear that you are right but still hope that might sharpshot is right in the end. If 50% of all contributors would drop Fotolia over the night this would change our business completely but yeah this will probably be a dream forever.
-
and how are we(contributors) going to get benefited by all these stuffs going on with fotolia and shutterstock? (except of buying equity)
How will we be benefited? Sort of the same way a new prisoner is "benefited" when he drops the soap in the prison shower.
:D :D :D Hysterical. Care if I use this one in the future?
Be my guest ;D
-
And after Fotolia was telling all and sundry that it is being destroyed by cheap competition? Either it was lying or the buyers have got shafted or, maybe, both.
All in the 'corporation' game. Screw everyone to make the business appear as profitable as possible because the owners know that there is interest from the Noo Yawk money men.
-
...I still think if we all withdrew from sites that paid less than 50% commission, everything would change...
"We" who? The small number of us in the forums? We're a drop in the bucket compared to the vast majority of contributors who are content to be in the microstock business but not in the community. Any community effort to pull our images from any particular company would go largely unnoticed, while the majority don't care about the inner workings of these companies and will contribute anywhere that they can make a buck.
As much as I don't want to. I have to agree.
-
Lately it has happend, squeez out the constributors make numbers what make someone buy! It needs two years, now FT is going to death.
-
It might be good for us if all the sites were owned by greedy investors that kept lowering commissions. We would eventually have to do something about it. I'm tired of this long slow death of microstock. At some point we are going to have to get together and do something or forget about making money from microstock.
I still think if we all withdrew from sites that paid less than 50% commission, everything would change. Buyers will go to wherever they can find what they need. We have the lifeblood of the sites and some of them have taken it for granted that we will supply them whatever they do. Some people have left sites but it would have to be a big coordinated effort to make a real change. Just imagine how the valuation of sites would change if their suppliers left and buyers moved elsewhere. It might seem impossible but it could be much easier to do than we think.
It's never too early to start working on your own personal escape plan. ;D
-
It might be good for us if all the sites were owned by greedy investors that kept lowering commissions. We would eventually have to do something about it. I'm tired of this long slow death of microstock. At some point we are going to have to get together and do something or forget about making money from microstock.
I still think if we all withdrew from sites that paid less than 50% commission, everything would change. Buyers will go to wherever they can find what they need. We have the lifeblood of the sites and some of them have taken it for granted that we will supply them whatever they do. Some people have left sites but it would have to be a big coordinated effort to make a real change. Just imagine how the valuation of sites would change if their suppliers left and buyers moved elsewhere. It might seem impossible but it could be much easier to do than we think.
It's never too early to start working on your own personal escape plan. ;D
Escape-plan! You might just have hit on something. I have seen this coming for over a year and with all agencies. I have pumped in so much RM and RF, during the last 8 months and for those who think RM, RF, is dead, think again, the returns have been great.
I could easily pull my port from all micros tomorrow and still be on a winner.
true though, we are a small bunch here and our contributions to micro is microscopical compared to the masses out there, they are happy with a sale now and then, frankly theyre happy just to say they are photographers. :)
-
...I still think if we all withdrew from sites that paid less than 50% commission, everything would change...
"We" who? The small number of us in the forums? We're a drop in the bucket compared to the vast majority of contributors who are content to be in the microstock business but not in the community. Any community effort to pull our images from any particular company would go largely unnoticed, while the majority don't care about the inner workings of these companies and will contribute anywhere that they can make a buck.
While we may be a very small percentage of the number of contributors I suspect we hold a large percentage of the most successful images. There may be 1,000 contributors who account for 90%+ of all sales. The top 100 may account for 50% of sales.
-
I wonder how would the value of agencies drop if Shutterstock would come up with possibility of going exclusive with them with reasonable royalties. I think that it would destroy many of agencies.
-
I wonder how would the value of agencies drop if Shutterstock would come up with possibility of going exclusive with them with reasonable royalties. I think that it would destroy many of agencies.
That might even be something I would consider.
-
It might be good for us if all the sites were owned by greedy investors that kept lowering commissions. We would eventually have to do something about it. I'm tired of this long slow death of microstock. At some point we are going to have to get together and do something or forget about making money from microstock.
I still think if we all withdrew from sites that paid less than 50% commission, everything would change. Buyers will go to wherever they can find what they need. We have the lifeblood of the sites and some of them have taken it for granted that we will supply them whatever they do. Some people have left sites but it would have to be a big coordinated effort to make a real change. Just imagine how the valuation of sites would change if their suppliers left and buyers moved elsewhere. It might seem impossible but it could be much easier to do than we think.
If you (or someone else) could organise this then it would make a difference, but its not going to happen. When Istock pulled the RC move most people couldn't even stop uploading let alone delete their ports. I stopped uploading for awhile but resumed when it was obvious that all was happening was I was disadvantaging myself. It isn't like the train company goes on strike and there is an immediate effect.
If you could get people to pull their ports it would make an effect but for some people this is like asking people to resign from their job.
How do you organise a group of people spread across the world you don't even know ? Its not like you've got to cross a picket line. You don't have to work in a crew with the people you didn't back up in the fight for fair pay and conditions.
My take is that we'll need to carefully keep control of costs for shoots if you want to keep being involved seriously in microstock. The return will be reduced by the agency cuts and competition down to the level where it becomes unprofitable for alot of shoots. The only way to make profit will be to be able to produce the best balance between quality and production cost. Lots of people trying to earn a living will move onto other things as the effective hourly rate for their efforts simply won't be worth it. (I believe this is already happening). I hope I'm wrong. People who have more talent will be able to make a higher effective hourly rate for their work.
Have we already seen the peak in production costs for shoots ? Is it profitable now for the factories to do those mega team shots with 30-40 models hiring out a whole office building ?
People who microstock is something on the side for them supplying only 10's of percentage of their total income will continue on living the microstock dream.
-
The only way would be a Union, that would allow for collective bargaining. No one would have to take the risk of stopping uploads alone and being the only one left hanging.
A Union could go in there saying, our Union members own X million best selling images and will collectively withdraw them if you don't start offering higher commissions.
I also think it is a long shot that this will ever happen, but if it was the way to start is by someone collecting names of people who commit to sign up anonymously, so that action cannot be taken by agencies against individuals while the list is being drawn up.
Then when there are x million images owned by Union members, only then take any action.
-
The only way would be a Union, that would allow for collective bargaining. No one would have to take the risk of stopping uploads alone and being the only one left hanging.
A Union could go in there saying, our Union members own X million best selling images and will collectively withdraw them if you don't start offering higher commissions.
I also think it is a long shot that this will ever happen, but if it was the way to start is by someone collecting names of people who commit to sign up anonymously, so that action cannot be taken by agencies against individuals while the list is being drawn up.
Then when there are x million images owned by Union members, only then take any action.
How about forming a "fairstock" contributor. You submit images via some portal that combines them into a single contributor account and automatically submits to the non-evil agencies. The combined collective would (in a perfect world) secure a better deal because they had control of 100,000's of high selling files and could actually have some clout. (15 uploads per week limit at Istock could be a problem ;))
Who runs it, who's funds it, makes decisions on what is fair or acceptable,accounting, distributing funds etc. all too hard for me.
I don't know what the critical amount of files would be to actually hold some power. 20% of the sales ? $1m in revenue ??
-
A union isn't the only solution. Although it's been tried before and failed, developing a professional organization for stock artists (this time one that includes everyone) would be another solution. Legislation, court challenges to the one-sided, all-or-nothing contracts, etc. would also have an impact. I'd rather see that kind of an effort than collective bargaining or "strikes" (and no, I'm not anti-union), because I think it has a better chance of getting us somewhere. Collective bargaining only works with cooperation between the two parties, and we don't have that with most of these companies.
We do, however, have the ability to pool our resources and hire an attorney to examine our contracts and this situation where the microstock companies are in full control of the percentages of how much money they and we receive from our images. I've always found it odd that we allow these companies to control and determine the percentages of the royalties for property they don't own (seems backwards), and I'm starting to get really pi$$ed seeing all these vulture capitalists swooping in and demanding more of MY money earned from MY investments just so they can pay off increasingly larger debts and obligations to outside investors.
-
The only way would be a Union...
That always comes up in these discussions, but probably will never happen and even if it did, I would probably never get involved. I'm not really the joining type.
The one and only thing I can imagine shaking things up and forcing other companies to take notice would be the emergence of a new company that is contributor-run and has unprecedented support from the community. Something that has the right price point to lure buyers in, coupled with fair rates for contributors to motivate support and full-portfolio uploading. Honestly I think it could look something like StockFresh, only with some good money behind it to ramp up marketing quickly. I think SF has the best pricing in the business and a good rate for contributors. They just didn't start out with enough money to ramp up fast enough. They also didn't have the full support of the community, having come from the whole Getty/Jupiter deal and leaving some folks feeling like they couldn't trust the new StockXpert.
A contributor-run company like this would have the trust of the community and could very quickly build up a multi-million-image collection. With the money in place to quickly market the business, they might even start to take buyers away from other companies. With the right marketing and advertising plan, of course. One that I think needs to go for the jugular. BigStock's "iStuck" taken to the next level.
With the full support of the contributor community, with every independent artist throwing their support and recommendation behind this new company, I think things could change.
It's probably a long-shot that it will ever happen. It would take millions of dollars to start up a company like this. But I'm hopeful, even optimistic that we'll see a company like this some day. I had a conversation with someone about this, a guy who actually has the kind of money needed to do it. He's not pursuing it, but someone like him will. And I think that will be a game-changer. A company like this would force the others to sit up and take notice.
-
I think well-intentioned efforts to create "fair" agencies are almost always doomed to decay into crowdshafting. It happened with iS, then Fotolia emerged as the photographer's friend. Even with the big daddy of all photo stock co-ops, Magnum, I saw someone complain that he had been fiddled out of being paid on the grounds the honour of them having his images should be enough (I don't know if that was true or just bragging).
A photo co-op will always have insiders at the centre of it and if it grows the newbies will find they don't get as good a deal as the old guard. That's a function of human nature.
-
I wasn't necessarily suggesting a co-op. More of a contributor-owned business. Something with one (or a few) contributors involved who know what it's like to be a contributor and are less likely to so easily turn around and screw the rest of us.
-
I'm surprised you guys haven't thought of creating your own agency yet. I'm even surprised Yuri took this long. I think we have enough qualified/experienced people around here to make it happen, technically and financially. The best features from every site.
Oh well, just thinking out loud lads, don't mind me.
-
I'm surprised you guys haven't thought of creating your own agency yet. I'm even surprised Yuri took this long. I think we have enough qualified/experienced people around here to make it happen, technically and financially. The best features from every site.
Oh yeah, it's been "thought" of. It's easy to think of it.
-
I'm surprised you guys haven't thought of creating your own agency yet. I'm even surprised Yuri took this long. I think we have enough qualified/experienced people around here to make it happen, technically and financially. The best features from every site.
Oh yeah, it's been "thought" of. It's easy to think of it.
Lol ;D
-
what agency will follow SS, FT moves? thats why I love stock really, I donīt need much money to be happy too ;D
p.s: thanks for sharing the new and the video too, appreciated it
-
I agree that everyone should have his own agency, there will be no immediate results but buyers use more and more Google for image-searching if they find the images that they are looking through smaller agencies than this a win for us because it weakens the position of the biggies. It's a little investing in the beginning (but you can have a very good site easily under 1000,- dollars) once it up it costs nearly nothing to host and keep it running it's just a few dollars a month.
-
I wonder how would the value of agencies drop if Shutterstock would come up with possibility of going exclusive with them with reasonable royalties. I think that it would destroy many of agencies.
That might even be something I would consider.
This comes up every so often, and it's just never going to happen. Their model doesn't support any more money without raising prices, and when you're promoting your key business proposition (read the S-1) as huge selection with fair prices, I don't see how they can be thinking of a switch to higher pricing for unique images.
-
giving Fotolia an enterprise value of $450m.
.....
The deal values Fotolias equity at about 10 times earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation
Apparently Apple, with all their wonderful products, intellectual property, cash mountain and the devotion of their customers, is currently trading at about 14x earnings. The idea of Fotolia ever trading (if they actually went public) at 10x earnings is utterly preposterous to me.
My portfolio currently earns about 3x more at SS as it does on FT so therefore I'd assume that SS might be worth about 3x the value of FT. More to the point SS are enjoying consistent growth whilst FT appear to be slipping badly, judging by my own sales and the reports of others, so I'd probably value SS at more like 10x the value of FT.
There's something about this story, the numbers being quoted, the $150M 'loan', etc that ... just seems more than a little weird to me.
Could this be a complex shuffling of the money prior to a sell out ... to SS?
-
Whatever an agency does, WE will NEVER benefit! the quicker we realize that, all the better, saving ourselves lots of frustration and anguish.
exactly.
i keep telling everyone the only way to stay afloat in this business is by making a huge portfolio, anything else is B-S.
good or bad or good-enough, doesnt matter, it's all about big numbers nowadays.
-
we're in the midst of yet another bubble, even bigger than in 2000 and 2001.
facebook soon launching its IPO for more than 100 billions, Groupon being valued tens of billions, Instagram being sold for 1 billion worth of Facebook stock, and now Pinterest getting 100 millions from crazy VCs ...
now, Groupon is losing tons of money and will never be profitable, facebook took many years to even become profitable but its net earning are barely 15% of what they spend and they're quickly losing users everywhere, Instagram never made a single dollar so far and so did Pinterest.
looking at the numbers, 600 for a very profitable company like Fotolia is money well invested in my opinion.
it's probably an answer to shutterstock's IPO and they certainly plan to go public as well.
in the next year or two most of the small micro agencies will be acquired by the big-4 agencies and the market will finally become yet another cartel and monopoly like RM in the past.
-
My portfolio currently earns about 3x more at SS as it does on FT
Another question for you since as you are good at this :) -
SS earnings are more or less static according to the IPO despite all of the money they have been spending building revenue. So doesn't that mean that it has basically been costing them money to sell so many pictures - i.e. that greater sales do not necessarily add up to greater earnings ?
-
My portfolio currently earns about 3x more at SS as it does on FT
Another question for you since as you are good at this :) -
SS earnings are more or less static according to the IPO despite all of the money they have been spending building revenue. So doesn't that mean that it has basically been costing them money to sell so many pictures - i.e. that greater sales do not necessarily add up to greater earnings ?
Well I noticed that SS also shoved nearly $10M extra into R&D last year. They must expect that to produce a return in the future and anyway, if they hadn't done so, then earnings would have been up nearly 50% irrespective of the additional money on marketing.
It may also be that SS sensed an opportunity, in the perceived weakness of their competitors, that made additional marketing worth the punt to grow market share. One thing's for sure is that SS are still very much operating the business for long-term growth rather than short-term profit __ quite unlike another microstock agency (or two) that comes to mind.
-
The only way would be a Union...
That always comes up in these discussions, but probably will never happen and even if it did, I would probably never get involved. I'm not really the joining type.
That's kind of how I feel. I think I disagree with 100% of people on this forum about the "right" direction for microstock, so it would be hard to find a union to represent my interests.
-
The only way would be a Union...
That always comes up in these discussions, but probably will never happen and even if it did, I would probably never get involved. I'm not really the joining type.
That's kind of how I feel. I think I disagree with 100% of people on this forum about the "right" direction for microstock, so it would be hard to find a union to represent my interests.
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
-
That's kind of how I feel. I think I disagree with 100% of people on this forum about the "right" direction for microstock, so it would be hard to find a union to represent my interests.
Haha... same here. Today especially is one of those days where I wonder why I'm here.
Don't be surprised if my username goes black some day soon. :)
-
That's kind of how I feel. I think I disagree with 100% of people on this forum about the "right" direction for microstock, so it would be hard to find a union to represent my interests.
Haha... same here. Today especially is one of those days where I wonder why I'm here.
Don't be surprised if my username goes black some day soon. :)
honestly I donīt understand why there is always huge "competition" between here and SS forum, why cannot people get along?
cool how we blame agencies when we cannot even talk with each other :o
-
@ Luis ... I think we have a few who come here just to antagonize and argue; a few egotistical experts and a few who actually do know what they are talking about.
A lot of people who need to eat a Snickers Bar. (maybe only makes sense in USA?) ;D
-
@ Luis ... I think we have a few who come here just to antagonize and argue; a few egotistical experts and a few who actually do know what they are talking about.
A lot of people who need to eat a Snickers Bar. (maybe only makes sense in USA?) ;D
you are spot on!
sure we cannot forget competition between us photographers/illustrators, thats our nature but we need to balance it, the real problem starts when our ego gets way bigger than it should ;D
-
Everyone should pull all their images from Fotolia, and see how much it is worth then.
Ditto for istock - let them take 85% of nothing...
-
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]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlrgAGiv9ZY#ws)
-
Love the Snicker's commercials - especially the first one (I think it was) - with the guy in the back-seat of the car...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 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 havenīt 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
-
I believe they havenīt 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.
-
I believe they havenīt 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..
-
I believe they havenīt 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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
Have you seen the English version?
ROFL! Hilarious! And wow, Joan Collins looks great - good plastic surgery, I guess... :)
-
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.
-
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) ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlrgAGiv9ZY#ws[/url])
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]
-
I believe they havenīt 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!
-
Fotolia sells 50% stake for $300m ([url]http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/05/16/fotolia-scores-300m-in-equity-debt-financing-from-pe-firm-kkr-in-exchange-for-50-stake/[/url])
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.
-
Fotolia sells 50% stake for $300m ([url]http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/05/16/fotolia-scores-300m-in-equity-debt-financing-from-pe-firm-kkr-in-exchange-for-50-stake/[/url])
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.
-
Fotolia sells 50% stake for $300m ([url]http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/05/16/fotolia-scores-300m-in-equity-debt-financing-from-pe-firm-kkr-in-exchange-for-50-stake/[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Fotolia sells 50% stake for $300m ([url]http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/05/16/fotolia-scores-300m-in-equity-debt-financing-from-pe-firm-kkr-in-exchange-for-50-stake/[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
It has to be extremely unlikely that SS would accept any offers from FT . FT might be looking at a lot of the other sites. There could be a bit of a battle between FT and SS for several of the sites that have a reasonable market share.
Or they could be using the money to take on Getty and get some of the traditional market while Getty is being run by a hedge fund that doesn't look interested in growing the business.
Or perhaps now is the time that Getty and Istock are going to be sold off and SS and FT are getting their cash ready.
-
1. Techno Cash (http://blog.melchersystem.com/2012/05/17/techno-cash/)
2. Getty has annual revenues of almost $1bn. It is a portfolio of brands across many different markets. It seems hugely unlikely that any little brand would buy them. Especially a company with no experience in many of their markets.
^ that isn't me being for or against any company. I tend to think they are all interesting and often amazing companies and brands in different ways. It's exciting seeing how it all evolves and what happens next.
3. The exciting Shutterstock IPO is not a certainty until it happens. Suppose the markets are way down before then. Suppose the Facebook share price collapses over the next months. There are all sorts of factors which can affect sentiment.
-
1. Techno Cash ([url]http://blog.melchersystem.com/2012/05/17/techno-cash/[/url])
2. Getty has annual revenues of almost $1bn. It is a portfolio of brands across many different markets. It seems hugely unlikely that any little brand would buy them. Especially a company with no experience in many of their markets.
^ that isn't me being for or against any company. I tend to think they are all interesting and often amazing companies and brands in different ways. It's exciting seeing how it all evolves and what happens next.
3. The exciting Shutterstock IPO is not a certainty until it happens. Suppose the markets are way down before then. Suppose the Facebook share price collapses over the next months. There are all sorts of factors which can affect sentiment.
With all unsutainable, debts, etc, etc, and whatnots, it wouldnt take too much to buy Getty nowdays.
However Im not at all sure any of these wants to takeover or buy anything, I think possibly, the owners, CEOs, etc, just want to get out of the business with as much as possible, its been 10 years now, people get burnt out, stress level, etc, 20 hour a day work, etc. Tough indeed.
I know I would, get 100 mil, and just retire, period.
-
It has to be extremely unlikely that SS would accept any offers from FT . FT might be looking at a lot of the other sites. There could be a bit of a battle between FT and SS for several of the sites that have a reasonable market share.
Or they could be using the money to take on Getty and get some of the traditional market while Getty is being run by a hedge fund that doesn't look interested in growing the business.
Or perhaps now is the time that Getty and Istock are going to be sold off and SS and FT are getting their cash ready.
Accepting offers? It's an IPO.
-
^^^An IPO doesn't mean they're for sale. The current owners will probably keep enough shares to control the company. FT can't just buy shares and own SS unless the current owners want to lose control of the company.
-
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.
You might not be too far from the truth there. I've thought for ages that FT was little more than a get-rich-quick scheme for the owners. I think they're in the selling business not the acquisition business.
-
^^^An IPO doesn't mean they're for sale. The current owners will probably keep enough shares to control the company. FT can't just buy shares and own SS unless the current owners want to lose control of the company.
We already talked about whether it' can be a controlling interest or not. But if it's an IPO, you can't go around rejecting shares from ppl.
-
1. Techno Cash ([url]http://blog.melchersystem.com/2012/05/17/techno-cash/[/url])
2. Getty has annual revenues of almost $1bn. It is a portfolio of brands across many different markets. It seems hugely unlikely that any little brand would buy them. Especially a company with no experience in many of their markets.
^ that isn't me being for or against any company. I tend to think they are all interesting and often amazing companies and brands in different ways. It's exciting seeing how it all evolves and what happens next.
3. The exciting Shutterstock IPO is not a certainty until it happens. Suppose the markets are way down before then. Suppose the Facebook share price collapses over the next months. There are all sorts of factors which can affect sentiment.
With all unsutainable, debts, etc, etc, and whatnots, it wouldnt take too much to buy Getty nowdays.
However Im not at all sure any of these wants to takeover or buy anything, I think possibly, the owners, CEOs, etc, just want to get out of the business with as much as possible, its been 10 years now, people get burnt out, stress level, etc, 20 hour a day work, etc. Tough indeed.
I know I would, get 100 mil, and just retire, period.
Yup. Enough to spend the rest of your life without worry and stress!
-
1. Techno Cash ([url]http://blog.melchersystem.com/2012/05/17/techno-cash/[/url])
2. Getty has annual revenues of almost $1bn. It is a portfolio of brands across many different markets. It seems hugely unlikely that any little brand would buy them. Especially a company with no experience in many of their markets.
^ that isn't me being for or against any company. I tend to think they are all interesting and often amazing companies and brands in different ways. It's exciting seeing how it all evolves and what happens next.
3. The exciting Shutterstock IPO is not a certainty until it happens. Suppose the markets are way down before then. Suppose the Facebook share price collapses over the next months. There are all sorts of factors which can affect sentiment.
With all unsutainable, debts, etc, etc, and whatnots, it wouldnt take too much to buy Getty nowdays.
However Im not at all sure any of these wants to takeover or buy anything, I think possibly, the owners, CEOs, etc, just want to get out of the business with as much as possible, its been 10 years now, people get burnt out, stress level, etc, 20 hour a day work, etc. Tough indeed.
I know I would, get 100 mil, and just retire, period.
Yup. Enough to spend the rest of your life without worry and stress!
Thats right! if you got millions of bucks, who . wants any part of this or any similar venture? retire, house and yacht in the Carribean, wine, women and song and ofcourse, take a shot now and then.
-
I remember reading that Richard Harris was very happy when he made so much money on a film he referred to it as finally having f*** off money. Made me laugh, that. :D
-
However Im not at all sure any of these wants to takeover or buy anything, I think possibly, the owners, CEOs, etc, just want to get out of the business with as much as possible
Doesn't the SS announcement say that one purpose of raising cash is to fund acquisitions? I doubt if they could say that in an IPO announcement unless they intended to do it.
-
I remember reading that Richard Harris was very happy when he made so much money on a film he referred to it as finally having f*** off money. Made me laugh, that. :D
Amen! Wouldn't mind having some f*** off money myself :D
-
:D