pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Interesting figures on Getty and Shutterstock  (Read 15905 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: May 05, 2012, 14:26 »
0
Put me in "it's the beginning of the end" column.   The IPO is a Rubicon that, once crossed, commits the company to endless pursuit of ever-increasing profit targets.   IPO investors want one thing: for the perceived value of the company to increase, so they can sell at a profit.   But typically the value of the company has already been pretty well inflated just to promote the IPO, and after that, reality starts to reassert itself.  The pressure to churn top management, to bring in new marketing "experts", and to keep changing the business model, is irresistable.   Both buyers and contributors can expect a progressively worse deal, amid constant hype about exciting new changes.

For those who found this post too long to read, here's the summary:  higher prices and lower commissions.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2012, 14:28 by stockastic »


« Reply #76 on: May 05, 2012, 14:28 »
0
Why has my post been edited? And edited silently. Very sneaky and questionable behaviour if you ask me.

You lost me - was a post removed, or just a word deleted? There's some automatic editing that the forum does on certain words (the name of the party in Germany's third reich, for example, just gets deleted if you include it); could that have been what happened?

Yep.. it looks like whatever word you used is automatically removed.  I've changed it so all automatically removed words are replace with a * so you know what happened.

wut

« Reply #77 on: May 05, 2012, 14:51 »
0
Why has my post been edited? And edited silently. Very sneaky and questionable behaviour if you ask me.

That's exactly what happened to one of my posts a few months ago. When it was edited in such a way that it became a personal attack on a forum member :o . I started a thread about it back then...

antistock

« Reply #78 on: May 05, 2012, 14:52 »
0
Put me in "it's the beginning of the end" column.   The IPO is a Rubicon that, once crossed, commits the company to endless pursuit of ever-increasing profit targets.   IPO investors want one thing: for the perceived value of the company to increase, so they can sell at a profit.   But typically the value of the company has already been pretty well inflated just to promote the IPO, and after that, reality starts to reassert itself.  The pressure to churn top management, to bring in new marketing "experts", and to keep changing the business model, is irresistable.   Both buyers and contributors can expect a progressively worse deal, amid constant hype about exciting new changes.

For those who found this post too long to read, here's the summary:  higher prices and lower commissions.

yes, but if they want to grow they must steal customers from all the other agencies, there's no other way, and to do this they need to both rethink their whole marketing mix and invest a ton of money in aggressive advertising.

so, lower commissions for sure, but also MORE SALES.

« Reply #79 on: May 05, 2012, 17:02 »
0
Funny how people seem to ignore the fact that things have become far worse with Getty/Istock since they were bought by a private hedge fund.  We were better off when they had shareholders.  What would Google and Amazon be like if they had remained private companies?  Having shareholders isn't always a disaster.  Might as well wait and see the details of the IPO before jumping to conclusions.  I would rather SS go this way than be bought by someone like H&F.

« Reply #80 on: May 05, 2012, 17:16 »
0


That could be a good thing. In fact how could it get any worse? Images are sold for peanuts and we get, on average, 30% out of it.

Too funny. You obviously weren't there at the beginning of microstock, when the images were free and then started selling for something like 25 cents. :D

wut

« Reply #81 on: May 05, 2012, 17:27 »
0


That could be a good thing. In fact how could it get any worse? Images are sold for peanuts and we get, on average, 30% out of it.

Too funny. You obviously weren't there at the beginning of microstock, when the images were free and then started selling for something like 25 cents. :D

So things are already too good to be true? :o

« Reply #82 on: May 05, 2012, 17:35 »
0


That could be a good thing. In fact how could it get any worse? Images are sold for peanuts and we get, on average, 30% out of it.

Too funny. You obviously weren't there at the beginning of microstock, when the images were free and then started selling for something like 25 cents. :D

the competition was a lot smaller/weaker, not saying I want that time back (myself only from 2009) but perhaps if we all started back in 2002 microstock would be even worst..


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
3928 Views
Last post October 17, 2009, 09:15
by sharpshot
53 Replies
14255 Views
Last post January 04, 2011, 17:33
by pixel86
7 Replies
5842 Views
Last post June 07, 2012, 17:13
by Karimala
1 Replies
1566 Views
Last post September 29, 2013, 15:37
by Ron
15 Replies
3651 Views
Last post May 12, 2015, 15:11
by Hobostocker

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results