pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Blog post on Getty's SPAC deal with some (spotty) history of the company  (Read 1375 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 14, 2022, 15:09 »
+4
I've no idea who the author is - I don't follow SPAC much and think it's most likely a bad idea to try and bypass typical IPO reporting and checks - but I thought this was interesting

https://subspac.substack.com/p/gettys-spac-deal-is-two-decades-in

Very quick gloss over Getty's history, leaving out how many times it squeezed contributors (both of Getty Images and acquisitions like PumpAudio) or its sideline in sky-high demand notices for image uses it deemed to be unlicensed. Or licensing public domain images, or...

The dig at iStock - that it licensed low quality photos for $5-$10 - is missing the point. Lots of iStock images were at least as good as lots of Getty images - that's why iStock did so well. Getty did have amazing stuff that none of the microstocks had, but huge piles of Getty's "everyday" stock images weren't any better than anyone else's but still licensed for a premium. But I digress :)

Interesting that the SPAC blog says that Getty's total addressable market is quite a bit smaller than Shutterstock's investor microsite claims its TAM to be.

Getty: "The current addressable market for Getty is estimated to be $3.3 billion and grow to $4.8 billion by 2028"
Shutterstock: "Stock Imagery $4.2BN, Music $1.3BN, Video $0.7BN"

Talk of "margin expansion" shows up in the blog post and in Shutterstock's recent earnings call - all the agencies are on that page :(

For an overview of SPACs:

https://www.fool.com/investing/how-to-invest/stocks/spac/#:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/spac.asp



« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2022, 16:23 »
0
I thought the line about unsplash serving the semi-professional creators was cute.

I doubt they will be paying any more than 15% so they won't be getting new content from me.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2022, 12:26 »
+1

The dig at iStock - that it licensed low quality photos for $5-$10 - is missing the point. Lots of iStock images were at least as good as lots of Getty images - that's why iStock did so well. Getty did have amazing stuff that none of the microstocks had, but huge piles of Getty's "everyday" stock images weren't any better than anyone else's but still licensed for a premium. But I digress :)


Thanks for finding this. Good reading.

"Getty started facing fierce competition from low-end agencies on the market, such as iStockPhoto, which was selling low-quality photos for as little $5-$10."

Getty removed sports and entertainment images from iStock and stopped approving them. Another area were Istock "low quality" was digging into the earnings. Problem is and was, I can go to an event and shoot standing right next to a Getty team, work in the same media room, and produce what I'd say, might be, in many cases, just as good of a quality and coverage.

The problem for Getty, even when they underpaid anyone of us doing sports and entertainment was, the hired guns are paid for their work and Getty owns the images, forever. We own our own images and get paid a commission. Getty makes more, even if they pay the photographers, because in the long run, Getty owns the content.

Getty in one more way cut off iStock contributors and was competing with the company they own.

I thought the line about unsplash serving the semi-professional creators was cute.

I doubt they will be paying any more than 15% so they won't be getting new content from me.

Sounds right, I never considered anything personally, having to do with Unsplash. Visibility, Exposure, Giving Back, Praise, The Thrill of Competition? The idea of working for free and giving away my images for nothing, never really piqued my interest. Scuffling for nickels and dime on Microstock is degrading enough.

Are you saying with Getty buying Unsplash, they are actually going to pay something, even if it's 15%?

Well I could be the next modern van Gogh? Although I'm far to old to be a tragic early death, rising star. What I mean in reality is: Van Gogh died penniless in 1890 at the age of 37 And the money someone can make from Unsplash, they could also die penniless.  ???

« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2022, 13:27 »
+1
SN
SNIP...

I thought the line about unsplash serving the semi-professional creators was cute.

I doubt they will be paying any more than 15% so they won't be getting new content from me.

Sounds right, I never considered anything personally, having to do with Unsplash. Visibility, Exposure, Giving Back, Praise, The Thrill of Competition? The idea of working for free and giving away my images for nothing, never really piqued my interest. Scuffling for nickels and dime on Microstock is degrading enough.

Are you saying with Getty buying Unsplash, they are actually going to pay something, even if it's 15%?

Well I could be the next modern van Gogh? Although I'm far to old to be a tragic early death, rising star. What I mean in reality is: Van Gogh died penniless in 1890 at the age of 37 And the money someone can make from Unsplash, they could also die penniless.  ???

The first was about Unsplash - cutting into sales at the bottom end (or more pressure to lower prices). The second was about Getty as a whole - No sign that they will pay over 15% to general suppliers, so I have no real interest in supplying them other than keeping a general eye on them in case they do more to ruin the industry or actually do something good to make me want to contribute.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2022, 07:57 »
0
SN
SNIP...

I thought the line about unsplash serving the semi-professional creators was cute.

I doubt they will be paying any more than 15% so they won't be getting new content from me.

Sounds right, I never considered anything personally, having to do with Unsplash. Visibility, Exposure, Giving Back, Praise, The Thrill of Competition? The idea of working for free and giving away my images for nothing, never really piqued my interest. Scuffling for nickels and dime on Microstock is degrading enough.

Are you saying with Getty buying Unsplash, they are actually going to pay something, even if it's 15%?

Well I could be the next modern van Gogh? Although I'm far to old to be a tragic early death, rising star. What I mean in reality is: Van Gogh died penniless in 1890 at the age of 37 And the money someone can make from Unsplash, they could also die penniless.  ???

The first was about Unsplash - cutting into sales at the bottom end (or more pressure to lower prices). The second was about Getty as a whole - No sign that they will pay over 15% to general suppliers, so I have no real interest in supplying them other than keeping a general eye on them in case they do more to ruin the industry or actually do something good to make me want to contribute.

Right and Agree - 15% isn't going to change, I'll think you'll find more agreement the longer they stick with the current policies.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
7579 Views
Last post May 04, 2011, 09:00
by CD123
0 Replies
3357 Views
Last post March 31, 2013, 15:42
by Sylvia - YAY Images
15 Replies
7523 Views
Last post June 11, 2013, 14:12
by Imagenomad
12 Replies
6639 Views
Last post June 28, 2017, 11:59
by stockastic
20 Replies
3355 Views
Last post December 14, 2021, 14:51
by Pixingphotos

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle