Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 390247 times)

caspixel · « **Reply #525 on:** December 03, 2010, 21:08 »

I am rooting for iStock to fail.

Sorry, I just can't stand their arrogance.

djpadavona · « **Reply #526 on:** December 03, 2010, 23:40 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 03, 2010, 19:48

Quote from: cclapper on December 03, 2010, 16:19

What I would really like IS to do is to get their act together and get a decent website working so buyers can easily find images and buy. I would really like to see my commissions rising proportionately with the increase in cost of images. I would really like to see independents treated as respectfully as the exclusives are.

^^ Well said, Cathy. This sums up my feelings too. I would even be willing to cut them some slack on the treating independents as well as exclusives thing. I'd be satisfied if they just treated independents as well as we are treated on the other Big 4 sites.

If I felt exclusives were being treated respectfully at iStock I would still be exclusive there. We as independents have a right to feel mistreated by the commission structure. But I felt things were much worse when I was exclusive. First, they were going to lower my commission percentage by 18% after I had gone exclusive with them. Then they brought in outside competition from the Agency Collection and gave them preferential search position ahead of exclusives. On top of that, iStock messed up several key site features including search. And they announced that they had the right to "move the targets" on the commission percentages without warning.

So how would you like to have all of your eggs in that basket? Exclusives are taking far more risk than any of us. For the few who end up profiting from the changes - more power to you and congratulations.

I'm insulated as an independent. At the end of the day Shutterstock, Fotolia and Dreamstime keep bringing in the sales. So if iStock collapses or lowers commissions even more it won't affect me that much.

lagereek · « **Reply #527 on:** December 04, 2010, 02:25 »

Back in early 90s and in the Getty-RM, we were all on a 50/50 basis, few years later we were on a 60/40 basis and a few years later on a 70/30 basis, in gettys favour ofcourse and blah, blah.
revenues from RM, in them days were a lot bigger then today, much, much more, so a cut down to 30%, hell that could mean thousands of dollars, which it did.
There was some serious holloring and shouting, this and that, pretty much same as now but with one big differance. It was business, not personal!

I do feel that some here are taking this very, very personal, as if this change is directed ONLY to them and its turning into a habbit to use a magnifying glass just to find the slightest, most microscopical fault and then enlarge it to a billboard poster.
Me? Im far from happy with this new deal and I agree, the site needs fixing in just about everything and Im pretty sure that will come, once this has blown over.
IS, can survive without their independants, thats for sure but thats it, just survive! IS, is still today barely the only company within the Getty-sphere that consistantly shows a profit and I dont think they want to venture that by throwing out lots of independants, considering there are hundereds of independants with the higher rankings supplying.

Im not taking anybodys side in this, not sticking up for anybody but I think we should steady-on untill we really know whats going to happen.

best.

sharpshot · « **Reply #528 on:** December 04, 2010, 04:03 »

^^^Was there a forum like this when Getty were making the commission cuts? It always looks worse on a forum, people don't feel the need to be polite.

And I'm not surprised the reaction to the Getty cuts would be more business like because I presume most of their contributors were professionals that relied a lot on Getty for their income. It isn't the same with istock, a lot of people can leave them and still pay their mortgage.

And after seeing how Getty acquired a lot of their rival sites and then cut commissions, I'm not surprised there's a big negative reaction when they try to do the same with microstock.

cathyslife · « **Reply #529 on:** December 04, 2010, 09:23 »

Quote from: djpadavona on December 03, 2010, 23:40

snip
f I felt exclusives were being treated respectfully at iStock I would still be exclusive there. We as independents have a right to feel mistreated by the commission structure. But I felt things were much worse when I was exclusive. First, they were going to lower my commission percentage by 18% after I had gone exclusive with them. Then they brought in outside competition from the Agency Collection and gave them preferential search position ahead of exclusives. On top of that, iStock messed up several key site features including search. And they announced that they had the right to "move the targets" on the commission percentages without warning.

Excellent point, Dan. A whole lot changed a couple of months ago.

lisafx · « **Reply #530 on:** December 04, 2010, 12:14 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 04, 2010, 02:25

Back in early 90s and in the Getty-RM, we were all on a 50/50 basis, few years later we were on a 60/40 basis and a few years later on a 70/30 basis, in gettys favour ofcourse and blah, blah.
revenues from RM, in them days were a lot bigger then today, much, much more, so a cut down to 30%, hell that could mean thousands of dollars, which it did.
There was some serious holloring and shouting, this and that, pretty much same as now but with one big differance. It was business, not personal!

I do feel that some here are taking this very, very personal, as if this change is directed ONLY to them and its turning into a habit to use a magnifying glass just to find the slightest, most microscopical fault and then enlarge it to a billboard poster.

Christian, I think most of us lack the decades of experience that you have in stock. For many of us, this is the first time we have experienced Getty's business practices firsthand. It's extremely upsetting.

Even having heard about Getty's pasts behavior, it came as a surprise that they would cut commissions at Istock. The amounts of money involved in individual microstock sales are so small, relative to the amounts in Getty's trad business, it seemed there was nowhere to cut! To cut 5-20% from someone who is already getting paid the lowest rates in the industry (pennies on the dollar) seems shockingly greedy, even for a company that already has a reputation for greed.

I completely agree with you that this is, bottom line, a business decision. But considering that Istock has always billed itself as a "community" first, and a majority of their contributor base are hobbyists who joined for the community and fun of it, the hurt feelings and anger are understandable. Only a tiny minority of microstock contributors are doing it FT as a business. For most this feels like, not only an insulting business decision, but also a personal betrayal.

Personally, I am somewhat in the middle. I appreciate your willingness to share your years of experience. In many ways you even predicted developments similar to these long ago, so perhaps you are able to take them in stride. I hope one day to match your objectivity, but for the moment, I am still pretty royally pi$$ed

lagereek · « **Reply #531 on:** December 04, 2010, 12:48 »

Hi Lisa! how goes?

I know exactly what you mean and it is upsetting. Their decision came as a shock for me as well ( not surprised though) I never thought they would go as far with IS, as they did.
What I mean is: now supposing there are in fact a lot of buyers leaving and all hell has broken loose, things which we dont know about, things that can make Getty come to a compromize or whatever?? perhaps we should relax a bit, wait and see what will REALLY happen after new-year. I mean there are so many here who are just guessing, they dont know, cant know but just guessing. Its a danger to listen too much to all this.

I dont believe this has got anything at all to do with IS, exclusives, independants or whatever. Getty needs more money, thats all, its as simple as that, more dosh and IS, being successfull, well, it was an easy prey.

all the best Lisa.

lisafx · « **Reply #532 on:** December 04, 2010, 13:22 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 04, 2010, 12:48

I dont believe this has got anything at all to do with IS, exclusives, independants or whatever. Getty needs more money, thats all, its as simple as that, more dosh and IS, being successfull, well, it was an easy prey.

I'm sure you are right - Getty needs money and Istock was ripe for harvesting. Will definitely be interesting to see how this plays out over the next 6 months....

jbarber873 · « **Reply #533 on:** December 04, 2010, 13:32 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 04, 2010, 02:25

Back in early 90s and in the Getty-RM, we were all on a 50/50 basis, few years later we were on a 60/40 basis and a few years later on a 70/30 basis, in gettys favour ofcourse and blah, blah.
revenues from RM, in them days were a lot bigger then today, much, much more, so a cut down to 30%, hell that could mean thousands of dollars, which it did.
There was some serious holloring and shouting, this and that, pretty much same as now but with one big differance. It was business, not personal!

I do feel that some here are taking this very, very personal, as if this change is directed ONLY to them and its turning into a habbit to use a magnifying glass just to find the slightest, most microscopical fault and then enlarge it to a billboard poster.
Me? Im far from happy with this new deal and I agree, the site needs fixing in just about everything and Im pretty sure that will come, once this has blown over.
IS, can survive without their independants, thats for sure but thats it, just survive! IS, is still today barely the only company within the Getty-sphere that consistantly shows a profit and I dont think they want to venture that by throwing out lots of independants, considering there are hundereds of independants with the higher rankings supplying.

Im not taking anybodys side in this, not sticking up for anybody but I think we should steady-on untill we really know whats going to happen.

best.

I agree with you that it's not personal. Part of the issue with microstock is that it came from without. As you know, it was hard to get into the big agencies back then and the costs of production were much higher. I used to make 4x5 dupes of my images to send out for approval via fedex, so i expected a big payday when a sale was made. The digital revolution turned that all over. Even though Getty was ,as I recall, the first to sell on a website, the abilty to send out CD's instead of film changed a lot of business models. Photodisc killed my market, and eventually a great deal of RM as well. When getty was publicly owned, they were constantly being second guessed by the analysts about the trend of low priced competition. They didn't have an answer, which is why they were taken private at such a low ( compared to previous sales numbers) price. I don't think getty has any idea how to change this, because I don't think there is an answer. It's like a Western Union telegram. There was a time when you had to pay a lot of money to send a message quickly to the other side of the world. Now it's free. Western Union tried for years to salvage a business model out the past, and still has the money transfer business, but even that is being killed by paypal. So what's going to happen? I don't know. All I know is that you look for the best oppourtunity and try to make the most of it. Which is why I'm here.

donding · « **Reply #534 on:** December 04, 2010, 15:54 »

It seems somewhere I read that Hellman & Friedman, a private investment firm who bought Getty in 2008, usually sales their business within 3 years. I can't find the article now, maybe someone else knows.

Edit:...if you notice the timing is just right...2011

SNP · « **Reply #535 on:** December 04, 2010, 16:22 »

there are a few articles that say that about H&F. that's really their whole shtick I believe. from everything I read, their purpose is to add value to a company, build its profit margin/future potential and sell it off intact. I forget which other companies they VCed but I think there were some big ones. I want to say Google, but that doesn't seem right. maybe they sold something TO Google. who knows, can't remember. it wouldn't surprise me to see Getty sold. hopefully intact and iStock intact as well.

RT · « **Reply #536 on:** December 04, 2010, 17:58 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 04, 2010, 12:48

Getty ~~needs~~ wants more money, thats all, its as simple as that, more dosh and IS, being successfull, well, it was an easy prey.

That's my take on it.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #537 on:** December 04, 2010, 18:35 »

Hi DonDing,

I read the article from Jonathan Klein saying the company would be looking build up the value to sell in 3-5 years once they were purchased by Hellman & Friedman, they were planning on "for lack of a better term" spinning it. Stock dropped from 90 to 24 in one year more or less and they bought it up to keep their information under wraps and not have to have to answer to stock holders. What is going on inside the machine is so hard to say these days and I think that is the way they want it to stay. I've been looking for the old article on Google but still haven't found it. I'll keep looking.

Best,
Jonathan

donding · « **Reply #538 on:** December 04, 2010, 18:57 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on December 04, 2010, 18:35

Hi DonDing,

I read the article from Jonathan Klein saying the company would be looking build up the value to sell in 3-5 years once they were purchased by Hellman & Friedman, they were planning on "for lack of a better term" spinning it. Stock dropped from 90 to 24 in one year more or less and they bought it up to keep their information under wraps and not have to have to answer to stock holders. What is going on inside the machine is so hard to say these days and I think that is the way they want it to stay. I've been looking for the old article on Google but still haven't found it. I'll keep looking.

Best,
Jonathan

I was trying to find it and couldn't, but what you said is what I remember. There is no way to tell what is going on since they are a private investment company, but personally the way things are going at iStock....I think they are getting ready for a big sale.

donding · « **Reply #539 on:** December 04, 2010, 18:59 »

Quote from: SNP on December 04, 2010, 16:22

there are a few articles that say that about H&F. that's really their whole shtick I believe. from everything I read, their purpose is to add value to a company, build its profit margin/future potential and sell it off intact. I forget which other companies they VCed but I think there were some big ones. I want to say Google, but that doesn't seem right. maybe they sold something TO Google. who knows, can't remember. it wouldn't surprise me to see Getty sold. hopefully intact and iStock intact as well.

They sold the portfolio company DoubleClick to Google for $3.1 billion in, I believe it was 2007.

SNP · « **Reply #540 on:** December 04, 2010, 19:09 »

thank you - that was it.....I couldn't remember the details

gostwyck · « **Reply #541 on:** December 04, 2010, 19:12 »

Bottom paragraph of this article;

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6877227.ece

donding · « **Reply #542 on:** December 04, 2010, 19:14 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 04, 2010, 19:12

Bottom paragraph of this article;

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6877227.ece

Thanks gostwyck...that was it.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #543 on:** December 04, 2010, 20:43 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on December 04, 2010, 18:35

Hi DonDing,

I read the article from Jonathan Klein saying the company would be looking build up the value to sell in 3-5 years once they were purchased by Hellman & Friedman, they were planning on "for lack of a better term" spinning it. Stock dropped from 90 to 24 in one year more or less and they bought it up to keep their information under wraps and not have to have to answer to stock holders. What is going on inside the machine is so hard to say these days and I think that is the way they want it to stay. I've been looking for the old article on Google but still haven't found it. I'll keep looking.

Best,
Jonathan

I was a shareholder with Getty until about 6 months before they got taken out. The stock was climbing like mad until the last year before the buyout, but they started getting a lot of questions in the conference calls about RF taking away the RM share. At that time, Getty was trying to up the price of RF and got no where with that strategy. They came in with a couple of bad quarters and the stock fell through the floor. All this time, they kept saying that RF wouldn't hurt RM. Microstock wasn't an issue at that time, it was just declining revenue from RM. They didn't have an answer, so they just stopped taking questions. Most private equity firms try to turn a company in 3-5 years, after putting in new management and improving operations. That's the spin they will put on it for the roadshow- how they are positioned for growth with a profitable microstock model in a dominant position in the market. It's been off the analyst radar for so long they will only be able to judge the growth from getty's numbers. Anyone with an insight into the microstock business can see that Getty is sacrificing the future for the present jump in earnings, but no one on the street is going to say that, because Getty will sue them. ( it's happened to more than one analyst recently). The bottom line is that the present owners will cash out, and the new owners will wonder what happened in a few years. H&F knows they have to dump this company because it's a declining asset. It's just a question of waiting for the IPO market to heat up.

donding · « **Reply #544 on:** December 04, 2010, 21:20 »

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 04, 2010, 20:43

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on December 04, 2010, 18:35
Hi DonDing,

I read the article from Jonathan Klein saying the company would be looking build up the value to sell in 3-5 years once they were purchased by Hellman & Friedman, they were planning on "for lack of a better term" spinning it. Stock dropped from 90 to 24 in one year more or less and they bought it up to keep their information under wraps and not have to have to answer to stock holders. What is going on inside the machine is so hard to say these days and I think that is the way they want it to stay. I've been looking for the old article on Google but still haven't found it. I'll keep looking.

Best,
Jonathan

I was a shareholder with Getty until about 6 months before they got taken out. The stock was climbing like mad until the last year before the buyout, but they started getting a lot of questions in the conference calls about RF taking away the RM share. At that time, Getty was trying to up the price of RF and got no where with that strategy. They came in with a couple of bad quarters and the stock fell through the floor. All this time, they kept saying that RF wouldn't hurt RM. Microstock wasn't an issue at that time, it was just declining revenue from RM. They didn't have an answer, so they just stopped taking questions. Most private equity firms try to turn a company in 3-5 years, after putting in new management and improving operations. That's the spin they will put on it for the roadshow- how they are positioned for growth with a profitable microstock model in a dominant position in the market. It's been off the analyst radar for so long they will only be able to judge the growth from getty's numbers. Anyone with an insight into the microstock business can see that Getty is sacrificing the future for the present jump in earnings, but no one on the street is going to say that, because Getty will sue them. ( it's happened to more than one analyst recently). The bottom line is that the present owners will cash out, and the new owners will wonder what happened in a few years. H&F knows they have to dump this company because it's a declining asset. It's just a question of waiting for the IPO market to heat up.

IMO I think they are getting ready to sell and since all the uproar over the rising prices and contributor cuts I really wonder how that will effect it. If I was investing, I would really pay attention to what is being said around the net cause it sure sounds like they are fluffing the pillows so they look fuller and as a buyer I'd be very cautious.

SNP · « **Reply #545 on:** December 04, 2010, 21:34 »

I'd think more importance will be placed on the bottom line. I doubt they'll be primarily concerned with forum banter. as much as some people would like to believe this is all over the net, it's not. as for Getty being a declining asset, I don't know if I buy that. they certainly were a declining asset. the point was to turn that around with the acquisition by H&F and going private. but, I guess we'll see as soon as they're sold. I think it's just a matter of when, not if, they're sold. I hope it's an innocuous transition at the contributor level.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #546 on:** December 05, 2010, 01:31 »

Quote from: donding on December 04, 2010, 21:20

IMO I think they are getting ready to sell

I'd agree. Which is probably where the "unsustainable" stuff ties in.

What buyer would want a company whose business model shows a declining profit margin year over year? Probably none at a premium price. So they adjusted some things to make the company more attractive.

Oddly, I haven't heard about any major changes to Gettyimages.com.

lagereek · « **Reply #547 on:** December 05, 2010, 02:42 »

When good old Mark-Getty ( belonging to one of the richest families in the world) was the owner of Getty in early 90s, OH! man, there was lots of complaints, etc but one thing is for sure, he was a damned sight much better for contributors/clients, etc, then the present crew.

Now if there is a sell-out on the horizon, lets hope it goes back to being a creative buyer rather then these Mamon worshipping bankers crap.

RT! not too sure about wanting, and I teel you why: I personally know some of the most prolific photographers within the main-core of their RM, Im talking about pretty big names here, guys that used to rake in really serious revenues and today, they are not doing well, down with 50%.
Further more, their handling of IS, indicates desperation, its a desperate act, indicating the need to quickly show a better balance-page.

sharpshot · « **Reply #548 on:** December 05, 2010, 04:05 »

Any thoughts on who would buy Getty/Istock? I presume Corbis wouldn't be allowed to for competition reasons? I think they would already own Getty if they thought they could buy them.

Perhaps with the poor economic situation, they could buy Getty and split it up, selling off some parts.

Who else is there?

lagereek · « **Reply #549 on:** December 05, 2010, 04:41 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 05, 2010, 04:05

Any thoughts on who would buy Getty/Istock? I presume Corbis wouldn't be allowed to for competition reasons? I think they would already own Getty if they thought they could buy them.

Perhaps with the poor economic situation, they could buy Getty and split it up, selling off some parts.

Who else is there?

Corbis certainly have the money. Probably not a smart move but they would have world dominance thats for sure. Another brillant buyer would be old Steve-Jobs, imagine, what a set up, Apple-mac and IS/Getty.

In any event, doesnt have to be a big buyer, a small business would certainly get banks behind them for this type of purchase. Im actually thinking about it myself.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 390247 times)

caspixel

djpadavona

lagereek

sharpshot

cathyslife

lisafx

lagereek

lisafx

jbarber873

donding

SNP

RT

Jonathan Ross

donding

donding

SNP

gostwyck

donding

jbarber873

donding

SNP

PaulieWalnuts

lagereek

sharpshot

lagereek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors