MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The Getty debt  (Read 2961 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: March 23, 2019, 19:43 »
+1
They would go into Chapter 11 and re-organize their debt - likely trade it for equity again. They still are the dominant market player and have a viable business without the debt load. Lenders don't want to kill the cow:  They will find a creative way to keep it supplying them with milk. I worked for a company in a similar situation. Vulture funds usually find a way to keep the tap flowing -- albeit often at the cost of employees and suppliers.   


« Reply #26 on: March 24, 2019, 07:02 »
0
If they have cash enough.

drd

« Reply #27 on: March 24, 2019, 10:55 »
0
They would go into Chapter 11 and re-organize their debt - likely trade it for equity again. They still are the dominant market player and have a viable business without the debt load. Lenders don't want to kill the cow:  They will find a creative way to keep it supplying them with milk. I worked for a company in a similar situation. Vulture funds usually find a way to keep the tap flowing -- albeit often at the cost of employees and suppliers.   

If they sell milk for 6 cents, less photographers will decide to feed the cow. If photographers don't feed the cow it won't give any milk to produce the cheese. Lenders will not get the cheese and Getty will end up with a dead cow in the barns.

https://twitter.com/jonathandklein/status/690559911252471808?lang=en

« Reply #28 on: March 24, 2019, 11:18 »
+2
I deleted my port and quit with my first sale, 0.05 USD. My pictures are not master pieces, but are not for free.

I was thinking about coming back and how to do it (small port, similar pictures with same keywording...) but I think Getty is not for me.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #29 on: March 25, 2019, 11:05 »
+4
They would go into Chapter 11 and re-organize their debt - likely trade it for equity again. They still are the dominant market player and have a viable business without the debt load. Lenders don't want to kill the cow:  They will find a creative way to keep it supplying them with milk. I worked for a company in a similar situation. Vulture funds usually find a way to keep the tap flowing -- albeit often at the cost of employees and suppliers.   

If they sell milk for 6 cents, less photographers will decide to feed the cow. If photographers don't feed the cow it won't give any milk to produce the cheese. Lenders will not get the cheese and Getty will end up with a dead cow in the barns.

https://twitter.com/jonathandklein/status/690559911252471808?lang=en

The way I see this, Getty doesn't care about iStock photographers or Microstock.

They make their money from the archives, entertainment and media licenses. Think of Getty in those terms, not about us.

The business and the finances aren't about chiseling us down to lowest commissions or selling our work as a cheap commodity. That's just a sign of how little they care and how unimportant Microstock is to Getty. They aren't going to recover or go under, based on Microstock or iStock.

swisschocolate

  • A girl from the Alps
« Reply #30 on: March 25, 2019, 11:13 »
0
The way I see this, Getty doesn't care about iStock photographers or Microstock.

They make their money from the archives, entertainment and media licenses. Think of Getty in those terms, not about us.


100%

Getty is a "brand", which they even tried to turn into media, then into "technology company" etc., it didn't work though.
They most probably run IS on autopilot and as an extension of their "brand".

They care more about their "image", red carpets and even Exclusive RM http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/getty-to-push-exclusive-rm than about Microstock. It seems like they've never been interested in micro at all, nor they care about it now.

They might have been interested in beating SS, but it is not the same as moving IS forward, IS was used as "weapon", nothing else. As well as "exclusives", Yuri Arcurs and others...

In my humble opinion.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 11:18 by swisschocolate »

swisschocolate

  • A girl from the Alps
« Reply #31 on: March 25, 2019, 11:32 »
0
I've noticed recently that https://photos.com owned by Getty was turned into FineArtAmerica website which costs $30 a year...
It used to be a fully functioning site with photo prints and service and marketing, etc.
If they can't afford to run an online print shop... it looks scary :D
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 11:34 by swisschocolate »

H2O

« Reply #32 on: March 25, 2019, 17:57 »
+3
Microstock originally existed to help photographers sell there work across the World, using a low priced volume business model. It started as a partnership with the Agencies, the crucial point is, it was a partnership with fair commission rates.

What has happened is the wealthy in the guise of big business, have moved in and subverted this business model suckin g the life out of the suppliers of the content and in the case of Getty mortgaging not only the companies future but the talent that supply that content.

The reality is the wealthy are double winners, as not only do they own the shares in the hedge funds that have owned Getty but they will also own the companies that supplied the loans, it's a win, win for them, paying themselves vast dividends on the backs of the talent that supply Getty.

These people who have perpetrated this on the creative talent in Microstock are the same people that have moved in to most internet based companies, a great many of them were originally set up to facilitate an easier way of working while getting paid a fair commission.

The likes of Amazon and Uber operate similar models, it is all about driving down the rates paid to the supplier and increasing the shareholder dividend.

What is really needed is a law to ban shareholder participation in these companies, this will take some defining, but you could certainly make a start with platform based business like Microstock.

swisschocolate

  • A girl from the Alps
« Reply #33 on: March 25, 2019, 18:16 »
+2
Thanks, that was interesting to read.

« Reply #34 on: March 26, 2019, 01:26 »
+1
The reality is that digital photography has made it easier and cheaper to produce images  therefore creating massive over supply. In addition the web makes international trading and a fully open market possible. That's how capitalism works. The only way to change that is to overthrow the world order. Sure you could maybe Tax the rich a bit more and break up the larger companies and regulate some of the more questionable investment practices. But it wont change the fundamentals.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2679 Views
Last post January 15, 2010, 04:09
by leaf
39 Replies
9280 Views
Last post January 10, 2014, 20:33
by KimsCreativeHub
5 Replies
2270 Views
Last post June 19, 2015, 06:31
by chrisdorney
67 Replies
11263 Views
Last post November 24, 2015, 18:51
by ShadySue
1 Replies
2173 Views
Last post May 13, 2018, 19:50
by fritz

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results