pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty's new $100m debt  (Read 10878 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 10, 2015, 00:04 »
+4
I don't really understand the nature of the financial deals described, but Getty has apparently borrowed $100m (minus a $5m "discount" and a $2.5m "fee"!!)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-03/carlyle-s-getty-images-said-to-reach-creditor-deal-for-new-debt

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-05/distressed-debt-lenders-aid-getty-images-in-shutterstock-battle

There is an article from September with some more background, written while they were looking around for the ways to borrow the money:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-10/goldman-said-among-firms-pushing-carlyle-s-getty-for-debt-swap

"Getty, which is controlled by Carlyle, is seeking to raise between $50 million and $100 million of new debt as it attempts to bulk up its flagging stock-photo business, people with knowledge said earlier this week."

I don't know what they mean by "bulk up" - improve sites and software? advertise? acquire new collections? There is this quote, which also is a bit short on specifics: "Getty will use the cash in part to increase its marketing efforts and develop a consumer-facing business,..."

I guess the 10.5% interest Getty will pay reflects the perception of risk involved in lending a company already $2.46 billion in debt. Moody's downgraded their debt rating to Caa1. This Barrons article refers to the deal as a "limited default"

http://blogs.barrons.com/incomeinvesting/2015/11/05/getty-images-distressed-debt-exchange-called-limited-default/


I can't see any way this can be good for contributors, but thought it was worth noting for those still significantly dependent on iStock income.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2015, 00:09 by Jo Ann Snover »


« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2015, 00:29 »
+3
Well, it is good for contributors, if the money goes into marketing of the business.

But it shows how much they really are struggling. 10% means they are at a really big risk of defaulting. Although  even then, someone will probably come in and buy the business, probably will be cut up between Adobe and SS.
 
What would help them overall is a drive for clarity and transparency, not the usual doubletalk announcements where it is hard to understand what they actually want to do.

I really hope they have a plan. And fresh money means, the place won't be gone in the next 10 months.

So, I think it is good news for us.

op

« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2015, 01:21 »
+8
Getty is just trying to find ways to survive but do not know how.. Which is sad because I work exclusively with them >_>

It looks like macro stock is about to disappear but I cannot see the future in microstock either..

« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2015, 01:29 »
0
I thought their macrostock side was growing well, that it was their istock and micro returns that were struggling.

At least I thought I read that somewhere.

« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2015, 01:29 »
+4
"Bulk up" is exactly like it sounds, get as fat as possible, preferably on someone else's dime.

Hongover

« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2015, 01:36 »
+3
Let's see what they can do with that money. They're burning roughly $15 million per quarter, which means this money will last them roughly 1.5 years from today...assuming they keep the currently burn rate. If they spend more on marketing and it's ineffective, we're looking at about 1 year of run rate before they need more money again.

I feel like Getty is becoming a bit of a zombie company. An old dog trying to keep the status quo in a changing industry. If they don't make some drastic changes, they'll have one foot in the grave in a year.

« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2015, 01:39 »
+5
Let's see what they can do with that money. They're burning roughly $15 million per quarter, which means this money will last them roughly 1.5 years from today...assuming they keep the currently burn rate. If they spend more on marketing and it's ineffective, we're looking at about 1 year of run rate before they need more money again.

I feel like Getty is becoming a bit of a zombie company. An old dog trying to keep the status quo in a changing industry. If they don't make some drastic changes, they'll have one foot in the grave in a year.
They a profitable company saddling an atrocious debt load.

Hongover

« Reply #7 on: November 10, 2015, 01:40 »
+2
I thought their macrostock side was growing well, that it was their istock and micro returns that were struggling.

At least I thought I read that somewhere.

Their macro side is declining every year. The decline was slightly lower this year, but it's still in decline. You patch a few holes and slow the leak, but it's still leaking. The micro side is also on decline because of Fotolia and SS...actually both sides are on decline because of SS.

Hongover

« Reply #8 on: November 10, 2015, 01:41 »
+2
Let's see what they can do with that money. They're burning roughly $15 million per quarter, which means this money will last them roughly 1.5 years from today...assuming they keep the currently burn rate. If they spend more on marketing and it's ineffective, we're looking at about 1 year of run rate before they need more money again.

I feel like Getty is becoming a bit of a zombie company. An old dog trying to keep the status quo in a changing industry. If they don't make some drastic changes, they'll have one foot in the grave in a year.
They a profitable company saddling an atrocious debt load.


http://petapixel.com/2015/02/26/getty-images-is-burning-through-cash-as-its-earnings-shrink/

According to his report, it doesn't seem like they're profitable at all.

« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2015, 03:59 »
+8
http://petapixel.com/2015/02/26/getty-images-is-burning-through-cash-as-its-earnings-shrink/

According to his report, it doesn't seem like they're profitable at all.


They certainly would be if they didn't have to pay hundreds of millions in interest on their debts. And the debts mostly didn't come from running the business or acquisitions but from the two hedge funds financing their purchase of the company by paying out special dividends and letting the company go into debt for it.

« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2015, 04:01 »
+8
It worked so well the last time Getty was saddled with a huge debt.  Not for us but for the hedge fund that sold them to another hedge fund.  I really wouldn't want to be exclusive with all this going on.

« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2015, 09:11 »
+9
It doesn't matter how much they spend on marketing when the site is so badly run.
Confusing user interface, bugs that take months if ever to fix, badly thought out and implemented search, uncontrolled spamming, constantly changing pricing plans.
A potential new customer visiting the site and finding such a mess won't bother coming back.

« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2015, 10:04 »
+1
Let's see what they can do with that money. They're burning roughly $15 million per quarter, which means this money will last them roughly 1.5 years from today...assuming they keep the currently burn rate. If they spend more on marketing and it's ineffective, we're looking at about 1 year of run rate before they need more money again.

I feel like Getty is becoming a bit of a zombie company. An old dog trying to keep the status quo in a changing industry. If they don't make some drastic changes, they'll have one foot in the grave in a year.
They a profitable company saddling an atrocious debt load.


http://petapixel.com/2015/02/26/getty-images-is-burning-through-cash-as-its-earnings-shrink/

According to his report, it doesn't seem like they're profitable at all.
Shrink is a relative term. There is nothing about what their payment to creditors is. People go bankrupt with good jobs and income, not much different.

« Reply #13 on: November 10, 2015, 11:14 »
+2
If they go bankrupt, can they still sell images without paying the contributors?

« Reply #14 on: November 10, 2015, 11:29 »
+3
If they go bankrupt, can they still sell images without paying the contributors?
Of course, see Revostock posts on this site.

« Reply #15 on: November 10, 2015, 11:33 »
+2
Corbis is in big trouble too, executives are running out like mice out of a sinking ship

« Reply #16 on: November 10, 2015, 11:56 »
+2
Corbis is in big trouble too, executives are running out like mice out of a sinking ship
Corbis has a very talented shipwright below decks. If he chooses to plug some of the holes, he will.

« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2015, 13:03 »
+2
Let's see what they can do with that money. They're burning roughly $15 million per quarter, which means this money will last them roughly 1.5 years from today...assuming they keep the currently burn rate. If they spend more on marketing and it's ineffective, we're looking at about 1 year of run rate before they need more money again.

I feel like Getty is becoming a bit of a zombie company. An old dog trying to keep the status quo in a changing industry. If they don't make some drastic changes, they'll have one foot in the grave in a year.

To go with the other foot thats already in there?

« Reply #18 on: November 10, 2015, 13:06 »
0
There is senior debt and un secured lower postion debt. - this just looks like someone moving their debt up to a more senior position in exchnage for some cash for Getty

Not real encouraging the way i read it.
I agree if getty wadnt saddled with so much debt they would be in a better position
The debt  is holding them back in every way

« Reply #19 on: November 10, 2015, 13:08 »
+2
Getty is just trying to find ways to survive but do not know how.. Which is sad because I work exclusively with them >_>

It looks like macro stock is about to disappear but I cannot see the future in microstock either..
So Microstockers claim the current model is unsustainable and Macrostockers appear to believe that macro will disappear.

Most likely neither will happen but it is just the sheer oversupply of imagary in both market segments that dilute individual contributors' earnings.

« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2015, 13:28 »
+7
Not a particularly good sign for people counting on them. Their debt is holding them back almost as much as their repeated boneheaded moves. Or maybe it is the other way around.

IS certainly could have owned micro and midstock with a few more clever and less greedy moves.

« Reply #21 on: November 10, 2015, 13:45 »
+6
At this point I think the only thing they can do with that money that might make any difference would be to drastically increase contributor royalty rates and get photographers back in the game. Photographers word of mouth campaigns and happy contributors that are also buyers were their greatest asset at one time. Of course they didn't realize it then and there's no reason to believe they "get it" now either.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2015, 18:01 by stockmn »

« Reply #22 on: November 10, 2015, 14:53 »
+1
like Michael said - the debt isn't really anything to do with Getty. It's the hedge funds that
created it to pay themselves.  I think they have to go bankrupt if they ever want to really
get aggressive and hopefully grow in new ways.  It's just to much money to make the debt payments leaving them no room to do what they traditionally are good at. Buying other companies. They have great work imo and great clients. yes its a real rough business but their debt is holding them back imo.

« Reply #23 on: November 10, 2015, 14:55 »
+6
Getty probably has 200,000,000 photos so they really dont need more photographers or happy photographers, its the least of their concerns, they need sales, theyre losing ground

« Reply #24 on: November 10, 2015, 15:04 »
+4
yup more sales and less debt.
I don't know but this looks to me like planning for a bankruptcy
550 million in unsecured debt gets bumped up to top tier secured debt in exchange for cash.  Thats how I read it anyway

they should have bought Fotolia and maybe dreamstime/corbis. they use to buy everyone
before the debt.


Hongover

« Reply #25 on: November 10, 2015, 15:07 »
+2
Getty probably has 200,000,000 photos so they really dont need more photographers or happy photographers, its the least of their concerns, they need sales, theyre losing ground

I partially agree with that. They have 200 Million images but at least 1/2 of them are outdated and more and becoming are becoming outdated as technology advances. Those 90's concept images don't sell well anymore and neither does images that contain outdated technology or their database of irrelevant photo of celebrities of yesteryear.

They do need images to keep an updated library, but they don't need that much. There's still an oversupply.

Hongover

« Reply #26 on: November 10, 2015, 15:10 »
0
yup more sales and less debt.
I don't know but this looks to me like planning for a bankruptcy
550 million in unsecured debt gets bumped up to top tier secured debt in exchange for cash.  Thats how I read it anyway

they should have bought Fotolia and maybe dreamstime/corbis. they use to buy everyone
before the debt.

Buying Corbis would probably kill them at this point. I'm glad they stopped buying. Buying up competition means they want to have a monopoly and that's never good for anyone.

« Reply #27 on: November 10, 2015, 15:38 »
0
If i was getty (pre debt) i would have tried to buy dreamstime and fotolia and created an exclusive program for the group leaving contributors to choose shutterstock or the getty group.  to me anything is better than having only shutterstock growing fast and noone else except niche players.  Thats how Getty use to roll.  now they have there hands tied.
Well see what happens with adobe/fotolia and if shutterstock can maintain growth.
I would not like to see getty or Corbis keep shrinking as they are the two most likely to produce big sales.  Thats just me wishing macro and midstock a healthy life but yes we all know getty has a less than perfect history with contributors and its dominant past position.

the getty image creative search brings up like 10 million images - its never been much more than that even though they have a lot of images, video, and editorial. the actual creative search is around 10 million for me and that is up and growing.

« Reply #28 on: November 10, 2015, 17:37 »
+3
I was invited to Getty Headquarters a couple of weekends ago to meet the top execs! I was given lots of behind the scenes information. Bound by a confidentiality agreement, I cannot say anything more than this is GREAT for istock by Getty exclusive contributors.

ShadySue

« Reply #29 on: November 10, 2015, 17:54 »
+22
... this is GREAT for istock by Getty exclusive contributors.
If only we had $10 for every time we've heard THAT song before!
« Last Edit: November 10, 2015, 18:01 by ShadySue »

« Reply #30 on: November 10, 2015, 17:59 »
+1
For some reason, I thought of this.
https://youtu.be/KjmjqlOPd6A

« Reply #31 on: November 10, 2015, 18:17 »
+3
I stayed exclusive and it payed off for me. Can't talk about anyone else except myself. I am very happy to hear what is going on behind the scenes at Istock by Getty. It is happening now, not in the future. So no one is fooling anyone.

ShadySue

« Reply #32 on: November 10, 2015, 18:34 »
+7
I stayed exclusive and it payed off for me. Can't talk about anyone else except myself. I am very happy to hear what is going on behind the scenes at Istock by Getty. It is happening now, not in the future. So no one is fooling anyone.

It's happening now?
Well, I'm happy for you, Jodi, but your experience isn't echoed by many other people (who have shared their experience), for sure including myself.
Last year it was Yuri saying, "Give me three months project managing at Getty" and many people felt a sharp decline in income after that.
We've also had vague promises, but nothing ever spelled out, by admin, with no improvement.
So forgive me if I don't hold my breath; even though I'll be relieved if you turn out to be right.

U11


« Reply #33 on: November 10, 2015, 20:47 »
+1
I stayed exclusive and it payed off for me. Can't talk about anyone else except myself. I am very happy to hear what is going on behind the scenes at Istock by Getty. It is happening now, not in the future. So no one is fooling anyone.

googled your name  out of curiosity http://www.gettyimages.ca/search/photographer?family=creative&photographer=jodi%20jacobson&sort=best&excludenudity=true

FlowerPower

« Reply #34 on: November 10, 2015, 21:17 »
+9
It worked so well the last time Getty was saddled with a huge debt.  Not for us but for the hedge fund that sold them to another hedge fund.  I really wouldn't want to be exclusive with all this going on.

Hedge fund H&F gutted Getty and sold out all of us, including Getty. Now the last hope is trying to bring back what was left dying. Exclusive is still the best way to work them.

I was invited to Getty Headquarters a couple of weekends ago to meet the top execs! I was given lots of behind the scenes information. Bound by a confidentiality agreement, I cannot say anything more than this is GREAT for istock by Getty exclusive contributors.

I know a guy who knows a guy who knows somebody who says he has inside information. BS alert on your nothing claim with nothing behind it. If you can't say anything why did you write this?

At this point I think the only thing they can do with that money that might make any difference would be to drastically increase contributor royalty rates and get photographers back in the game. Photographers word of mouth campaigns and happy contributors that are also buyers were their greatest asset at one time. Of course they didn't realize it then and there's no reason to believe they "get it" now either.

I like the way you think. Back up, bring back artists. They don't have to give away the agency, but bring back artists who care and pay them for their work. Goodwill is a non-profit, but it pays on the long term. Drastic increase isn't the answer. Fair pay would be good enough for most of us.

Not a particularly good sign for people counting on them. Their debt is holding them back almost as much as their repeated boneheaded moves. Or maybe it is the other way around.

IS certainly could have owned micro and midstock with a few more clever and less greedy moves.

Right, but read the latest news, they are so far in denial that they call iStock mid-stock and can't bring themselves to admit it's really Microstock. How can I trust somebody who isn't honest with theirself?

IS is a bomb ready to explode and blow itself into dust with denial and lies. They can't see that they are beiliving their own lies inside corporate. If they would face the truth and face us, there might be hope. Rebuild with a new attitude instead of the closed minded arrogant views. They are moving down and dying if they can't see that Getty and iStock are not leaking water, but are about to capsize and sink!

Raise artist confidence, fair wages for good work. Raise consumer confidence, stop the trickery and 28 different packages. The impossible is possible. Istock which was the top agency, could die from neglect and over confident attitudes.

Where's the Holy Roman empire? Where's the monarchy of France. Spain and Portugal ruled the seas. These are much bigger politics and civil control governments. And once iStock ruled Microstock but no longer. If they want to survive against competition, they need to make a giant attitude revision and marketing adjustment.

Otherwise we may be watching the sinking of the Titanic or Bismark. Unsinkable? Where's Blockbuster? Remember when IBM, Commodore, Atari and Zeinth made computers. Dbase, Polariod, Pan Am, Woolworth, Kodak, lived from the top and don't really matter or don't exist anymore.

Getty or iStock are on the verge of financial collapse the same as any of the above.

« Reply #35 on: November 10, 2015, 21:49 »
+9
I searched for all the details on this deal and in doing so came across a Moodys credit report that had a headline in September that Getty had warned of continuing deterioration in its mid-stock business.  Unfortunately I couldn't access the full report, but the headline suggests a further warning of reduced or stagnant revenues.

It seems to me that Carlyle has abandoned Getty as a viable investment.  They have billions under their control, and usually if a business has a temporary hiccup and needs extra cash, the major shareholder will contribute further equity.  Indeed, this was the recommendation of Moodys, but it's clear that Carlyle didn't want to, so it forced Getty to raise cash in the junk bond market.  The fact that Carlyle didn't come to the rescue speaks volumes.  They've passed the buck onto investors who are prepared to consider higher risk investments.  And the higher risk is compensated somewhat by the high 10% coupon.

And what junk this is: it seems they had to come to an arrangement with existing bondholders to repay those bonds at only 65% of face value, hence the 'partial default' flagged by Moodys.  Those Bonds were actually trading at only 30c, so it's an improvement on market price, but still represents a loss of 35% on par.  They replaced those Bonds with a new issue, paying 10% interest and issued them at 95% of par.  Most extraordinary was the huge fee of 2.5% they had to pay the middleman to place those Bonds.  Make no mistake - this is a junk Bond issue.

If they have to go to such extraordinary lengths just to refinance a relatively small Bond, imagine what will happen when the $1.9 billion Bond expires in a few years.  That Bond is currently trading at only 60c on the Dollar, suggesting that the Bond market doubts that the Bond will ever be repaid at par.

Of course these fun and games can carry on for years and years.  Eventually it will come to a head, particularly if Getty/iStocks's gross revenue continues to deteriorate, but the climax is likely to be years away.

« Reply #36 on: November 10, 2015, 22:05 »
+7
I was invited to Getty Headquarters a couple of weekends ago to meet the top execs! I was given lots of behind the scenes information. Bound by a confidentiality agreement, I cannot say anything more than this is GREAT for istock by Getty exclusive contributors.

I guess it's been about twelve months.  Welcome back! Lol :)

« Reply #37 on: November 10, 2015, 23:13 »
+5
I like all the analysis but in the end all I have to do is look at my royalty report. It's like a fractal, same shape and character as the big picture.

« Reply #38 on: November 11, 2015, 03:20 »
+4
jodijacobson, that sounds like they are desperate to keep exclusives on board and they used their oldest trick sticks and carrots, history teaches us lessons, learn from them

« Reply #39 on: November 11, 2015, 03:43 »
+4
The exclusive model doesn't work any more unless you are exceptional too much competition out there

« Reply #40 on: November 11, 2015, 08:13 »
+7
jodijacobson, that sounds like they are desperate to keep exclusives on board and they used their oldest trick sticks and carrots, history teaches us lessons, learn from them

I was kind of thinking the same thing. Yuri came out with similar comments and it looks like he is losing that battle, or scarred from it anyway. I mean, how many exclusives get to keep playing on other micros and run their own site while being exclusive at Istock? That's probably the only thing saving him.  Or Getty is paying his a guaranteed rate and it is Getty who regrets the move...either way if exclusivity were a golden nugget for him I am sure we'd hear about it one way or another.

« Reply #41 on: November 11, 2015, 10:52 »
+6
No I think that IStock by Getty is genuinely about to turn things around. I mean Jodi has been to the IStock by Getty offices recently so she has the inside scoop on what is going on at IStock by Getty and things are looking up at IStock by Getty. Can't wait to hear what is going on at IStock by Getty in clearly natural IStock by Getty prose and not through a mouth piece or IStock by Getty press release. IStock by Getty.

« Reply #42 on: November 11, 2015, 11:06 »
+6
How many times has the phrase show me the money been used in our culture. I think it's quite appropriate here. I don't care how but show me the money and I'll be a believer, otherwise its just hot air.

« Reply #43 on: November 11, 2015, 13:17 »
+4
Make an announcement in plain English that everyone can understand.

Follow through on that announcement in a timely manner.

Dont break the site.

Dont break the site.

Increase sales.

Repeat.


Basic recipe for building up trust and a good reputation. Its really not that difficult. If you can do it with friends and family, you can do it in business.

« Reply #44 on: November 11, 2015, 13:25 »
+2
No I think that IStock by Getty is genuinely about to turn things around. I mean Jodi has been to the IStock by Getty offices recently so she has the inside scoop on what is going on at IStock by Getty and things are looking up at IStock by Getty. Can't wait to hear what is going on at IStock by Getty in clearly natural IStock by Getty prose and not through a mouth piece or IStock by Getty press release. IStock by Getty.
Don't think so.  Jodi has always believed all the false promises made by iStock/Getty and blindly supported all their plans however bad they clearly were for us.  So...

ShadySue

« Reply #45 on: November 11, 2015, 14:03 »
+5
No I think that IStock by Getty is genuinely about to turn things around. I mean Jodi has been to the IStock by Getty offices recently so she has the inside scoop on what is going on at IStock by Getty and things are looking up at IStock by Getty. Can't wait to hear what is going on at IStock by Getty in clearly natural IStock by Getty prose and not through a mouth piece or IStock by Getty press release. IStock by Getty.
Don't think so.  Jodi has always believed all the false promises made by iStock/Getty and blindly supported all their plans however bad they clearly were for us.  So...
While what you say is true, I don't think you understand satire.

« Reply #46 on: November 11, 2015, 14:26 »
0
No I think that IStock by Getty is genuinely about to turn things around. I mean Jodi has been to the IStock by Getty offices recently so she has the inside scoop on what is going on at IStock by Getty and things are looking up at IStock by Getty. Can't wait to hear what is going on at IStock by Getty in clearly natural IStock by Getty prose and not through a mouth piece or IStock by Getty press release. IStock by Getty.
Don't think so.  Jodi has always believed all the false promises made by iStock/Getty and blindly supported all their plans however bad they clearly were for us.  So...
While what you say is true, I don't think you understand satire.
Oops! I just did it.  I'm slow today.  :)
« Last Edit: November 11, 2015, 14:30 by Digital66 »

« Reply #47 on: November 22, 2015, 17:33 »
+3
[...] I am very happy to hear what is going on behind the scenes at Istock by Getty. It is happening now, not in the future. So no one is fooling anyone.
You happy with the new carousel? Is that one of the wonders they were doing behind the scenes? You think that's great for exclusives?

« Reply #48 on: November 22, 2015, 18:58 »
+3
Happy?? ahh been there since 2006 as an exclusive and NOT HAPPY! New Carousel is a slap in the face. 6 dollar Getty dl's for 4k video is a kick in the pants!

« Reply #49 on: November 22, 2015, 19:02 »
+1
Happy?? ahh been there since 2006 as an exclusive and NOT HAPPY! New Carousel is a slap in the face. 6 dollar Getty dl's for 4k video is a kick in the pants!

Isn't Getty asking to be boxed out of the video industry by doing this? I have stopped uploading video there since May and I have to believe a lot of others have too. If you leave that would be another very obvious hint.  Would you keep all of your 4K content on IS if you left and enjoy $6? 

« Reply #50 on: November 22, 2015, 19:22 »
0
I would leave the little bit I have on there and focus my energy in new directions. I lot to decided on here

« Reply #51 on: November 22, 2015, 19:30 »
0
I would leave the little bit I have on there and focus my energy in new directions. I lot to decided on here

Well you have my respect. You are in a tough spot.

« Reply #52 on: November 23, 2015, 04:58 »
+4
$6 for 4k?  They make the decision for me.  I don't supply them anyway because I can't do it for less than 20% but if I had kept my clips there, they would be gone now.  I did leave 1 on there but it has never sold, I don't think buyers like the really low prices either, they must know that if contributors can't make any money, they aren't going to upload anything worth buying.

« Reply #53 on: November 23, 2015, 06:27 »
0
To be fair the $6 is a promotion of some kind not all 4k or HD is that low. That being said 18 out of my 28 Dl's in Oct. were below $20.00. I have a few at really good prices but those 1 and 6 dollar sales kill me.

« Reply #54 on: November 23, 2015, 13:07 »
+12
To be fair the $6 is a promotion of some kind not all 4k or HD is that low. That being said 18 out of my 28 Dl's in Oct. were below $20.00. I have a few at really good prices but those 1 and 6 dollar sales kill me.

It's called Premium Access. It's where large companies pay getty $$$ upfront every year to be able to license a large quantity of images or footage at highly reduced rates. G keeps all the money upfront and pays the contributor their contractual royalty percentage on very small dollar amount sales. They've been doing this for years and it blows. It's just a way to payout less to contributors.

« Reply #55 on: November 23, 2015, 13:15 »
0
To be fair the $6 is a promotion of some kind not all 4k or HD is that low. That being said 18 out of my 28 Dl's in Oct. were below $20.00. I have a few at really good prices but those 1 and 6 dollar sales kill me.

It's called Premium Access. It's where large companies pay getty $$$ upfront every year to be able to license a large quantity of images or footage at highly reduced rates. G keeps all the money upfront and pays the contributor their contractual royalty percentage on very small dollar amount sales. They've been doing this for years and it blows.

« Reply #56 on: November 23, 2015, 15:40 »
+6
To be fair the $6 is a promotion of some kind not all 4k or HD is that low. That being said 18 out of my 28 Dl's in Oct. were below $20.00. I have a few at really good prices but those 1 and 6 dollar sales kill me.

It's called Premium Access. It's where large companies pay getty $$$ upfront every year to be able to license a large quantity of images or footage at highly reduced rates. G keeps all the money upfront and pays the contributor their contractual royalty percentage on very small dollar amount sales. They've been doing this for years and it blows. It's just a way to payout less to contributors.
PA is a heartless corporate move to dig ever deeper into our nearly empty pockets.

« Reply #57 on: November 23, 2015, 20:29 »
+1
To be fair the $6 is a promotion of some kind not all 4k or HD is that low. That being said 18 out of my 28 Dl's in Oct. were below $20.00. I have a few at really good prices but those 1 and 6 dollar sales kill me.

It's called Premium Access. It's where large companies pay getty $$$ upfront every year to be able to license a large quantity of images or footage at highly reduced rates. G keeps all the money upfront and pays the contributor their contractual royalty percentage on very small dollar amount sales. They've been doing this for years and it blows. It's just a way to payout less to contributors.

^ Is this true? Is this how Getty does business? Is this a known fact or speculation? Does anyone have any evidence to support this assertion..??

« Reply #58 on: November 23, 2015, 21:15 »
+3
This is a fact I have been exclusive there since 2006. This program is confirmed.

« Reply #59 on: November 23, 2015, 22:23 »
+3
It's a fact. If you are Getty contributor, those PA sales always appear on the statement.

« Reply #60 on: November 24, 2015, 05:52 »
+1
This is a fact I have been exclusive there since 2006. This program is confirmed.

...and it's definitely the case that Getty keeps 100% of the fee that clients pay to be part of the programme - and only pass on a royalty based on the sale of the heavily discounted license..?

« Reply #61 on: November 24, 2015, 06:16 »
+2
Yes, artist do not get a cut on the access fee Getty charges. I have no clue what that is.

« Reply #62 on: November 24, 2015, 13:41 »
+3
It's not much different than a subscription; the whole idea is to get the real money in upfront 'fees' which contributors never see, then pay royalties on a token  'sale price'.    If you're at an agency and your conscience bothers you for more than a moment, just say that buyers are really paying for search functionality, not imagery.  Eventually I think some agencies will stop using the word "royalty" altogether. 

There's nothing we can do except stop giving our work to companies that operate like this.


op

« Reply #63 on: November 24, 2015, 17:02 »
+1
It's not much different than a subscription; the whole idea is to get the real money in upfront 'fees' which contributors never see, then pay royalties on a token  'sale price'.    If you're at an agency and your conscience bothers you for more than a moment, just say that buyers are really paying for search functionality, not imagery.  Eventually I think some agencies will stop using the word "royalty" altogether. 

There's nothing we can do except stop giving our work to companies that operate like this.

And what to do when stock companies copy what the others do and all end up doing the same thing?..

« Reply #64 on: November 24, 2015, 17:10 »
+3
It's not much different than a subscription; the whole idea is to get the real money in upfront 'fees' which contributors never see, then pay royalties on a token  'sale price'.    If you're at an agency and your conscience bothers you for more than a moment, just say that buyers are really paying for search functionality, not imagery.  Eventually I think some agencies will stop using the word "royalty" altogether. 

There's nothing we can do except stop giving our work to companies that operate like this.

And what to do when stock companies copy what the others do and all end up doing the same thing?..

Fortunately, there *are* some stock agencies that want to distance themselves from this kind of deceptive behaviour and create sustainable business practices for both agency and photographer. Feed them, starve the charlatans.

ShadySue

« Reply #65 on: November 24, 2015, 18:12 »
0
Fortunately, there *are* some stock agencies that want to distance themselves from this kind of deceptive behaviour and create sustainable business practices for both agency and photographer. Feed them, starve the charlatans.
Care to name names (of those with open access).

« Reply #66 on: November 24, 2015, 18:37 »
+2
Fortunately, there *are* some stock agencies that want to distance themselves from this kind of deceptive behaviour and create sustainable business practices for both agency and photographer. Feed them, starve the charlatans.
Care to name names (of those with open access).

I'm not sure there are many with open access, I'm afraid  (with the exception of perhaps Pond 5 and maybe GL). The agencies that are providing a sustainable future tend select their contributors diligently and curate their collections with great care. They also offer minimum 50% royalties (yes, iStock, that is both possible and sustainable). I see a future where crowd sourced agencies continue to erode royalties whilst talented contributors gravitate away from them and towards the agencies that *are* working to create a sustainable future. The better paying clients will increasingly follow the more talented contributors whilst the crowd sourcing agencies will continue to dilute their own ponds with more of the same...

ShadySue

« Reply #67 on: November 24, 2015, 18:51 »
0
Fortunately, there *are* some stock agencies that want to distance themselves from this kind of deceptive behaviour and create sustainable business practices for both agency and photographer. Feed them, starve the charlatans.
Care to name names (of those with open access).

I'm not sure there are many with open access, I'm afraid  (with the exception of perhaps Pond 5 and maybe GL).
Neither of which have a reputation for selling (stills)
Quote
The agencies that are providing a sustainable future tend select their contributors diligently and curate their collections with great care. They also offer minimum 50% royalties (yes, iStock, that is both possible and sustainable). I see a future where crowd sourced agencies continue to erode royalties whilst talented contributors gravitate away from them and towards the agencies that *are* working to create a sustainable future. The better paying clients will increasingly follow the more talented contributors whilst the crowd sourcing agencies will continue to dilute their own ponds with more of the same...
Indeed, there are plenty of specialist macro agencies.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2617 Views
Last post January 15, 2010, 04:09
by leaf
Getty's 20%

Started by rubyroo « 1 2  All » iStockPhoto.com

46 Replies
10158 Views
Last post January 24, 2012, 12:15
by lisafx
39 Replies
9121 Views
Last post January 10, 2014, 20:33
by KimsCreativeHub
5 Replies
2061 Views
Last post June 19, 2015, 06:31
by chrisdorney
34 Replies
2377 Views
Last post March 26, 2019, 01:26
by Pauws99

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results