MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: red on July 03, 2012, 19:10
-
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/h-f-presses-4-billion-224345818.html?l=1 (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/h-f-presses-4-billion-224345818.html?l=1)
Private equity firm Hellman & Friedman LLC is pushing ahead with a $4 billion sale of Getty Images Inc, the largest supplier of stock photos, video and other digital content, to private equity, two people familiar with the matter said on Tuesday.
The business has seen little growth in earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) since Hellman bought it but has enjoyed increasing demand for its online imagery products and services. This could lead to Getty fetching a higher EBITDA valuation multiple, the sources said.
Representatives of Getty and Hellman did not respond to a request for comment while KKR, TPG and Bain declined to comment.
In March, Hellman and the company's minority shareholders reaped a $379 million dividend from Getty funded with debt and $115 million of cash. This followed a $504 million dividend at the end of 2010.
In credit notes in March, ratings agency Moody's said Getty's latest dividend recapitalization led to a "moderately high" debt-to-EBITDA leverage of 4.4 times compared to 3.5 times pre-dividend. Getty had revenues of about $945 million in 2011.
-
^^^ Ha, ha, ha. I did check the date but it doesn't appear to be April 1st. Dream on H&F. Prepare for major haircut.
-
Ugh. What a disgrace - the part about the obscene dividends they took, while running the company into many millions of debt.
Agree with Gostwyck. They aren't going to get nearly what they are asking. This stone has been bled dry...
-
[url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/h-f-presses-4-billion-224345818.html?l=1[/url] ([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/h-f-presses-4-billion-224345818.html?l=1[/url])
The business has seen little growth in earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) since Hellman bought it but has enjoyed increasing demand for its online imagery products and services.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand. With all the cost cutting, price raising, and increased demand EBITDA has not improved? Where is the money going? Is it all dividends paid to H&F? Was Kelly really right about it being unsustainable after all ::)
And yes, the mortgage/dividend thing is again obscene. And the idea that you can sell this for $4 billion... Somebody call PT Barnum.
-
I find the deeply depressing part of this is the buyers are more private equity firms. So - assuming they somehow get someone to buy them out at close to the high asking price - we are faced with more belt tightening and squeezing suppliers (i.e. us) as the second round of vultures want to collect their "dividends" on this deal.
While the business is in the hands of those who want to drain profits from it versus invest in improving it over the long haul, I can't see how it can be a good thing for anyone but the financial firms advising on the deals and those receiving the "dividends".
-
A good reason not to be exclusive anywhere. When businesses are being run as debt engines and not as businesses trying to make profits through customer growth etc it's what you call unsustainable.
-
"KKR & Co LP and TPG Capital LP, are still in the process, which is now in the second round, the sources said."
"KKR showed its appetite for such companies last month, investing $150 million in New-York based image database firm Fotolia."
Anyone else putting this together into something fearful?
If I invested in something I would want my dividends too, or I wouldn't invest in that company again. That's what H&F is all about.
-
"In March, Hellman and the company's minority shareholders reaped a $379 million dividend from Getty funded with debt and $115 million of cash. This followed a $504 million dividend at the end of 2010."
Highlighted the typo for correction
-
If 50% of Fotolia is worth $300m, I can see how Getty could be valued at $4 billion. Does it matter if the valuation goes down after floatation if they can get it underwritten? They're experts at doing this, so I wouldn't expect to see them exit with a big loss. Unfortunately, the new shareholders might not be so lucky.
-
@ Microbius: LOL a 'reaped' typo.
On this:
"In credit notes in March, ratings agency Moody's said Getty's latest dividend recapitalization led to a "moderately high" debt-to-EBITDA leverage of 4.4 times compared to 3.5 times pre-dividend."
I clearly don't understand the world of big finance. It sounds to me as though they can pay themselves dividends out of nothing... put the company in further debt so they can get their 'jollies' and then just sell that debt to someone else. Is that right, or am I reading that wrong?
Is debt not considered a bad thing in that world?
-
Quick search on debt-to-EBITDA leads here:
http://www.readyratios.com/reference/debt/debt_ebitda_ratio.html (http://www.readyratios.com/reference/debt/debt_ebitda_ratio.html)
"Ratios higher than 4 or 5 usually set off alarms because they indicate that a company is likely to face difficulties in handling its debt burden, and thus is less likely to be able to raise additional loans required to grow and expand the business."
-
@ Microbius: LOL a 'reaped' typo.
On this:
"In credit notes in March, ratings agency Moody's said Getty's latest dividend recapitalization led to a "moderately high" debt-to-EBITDA leverage of 4.4 times compared to 3.5 times pre-dividend."
I clearly don't understand the world of big finance. It sounds to me as though they can pay themselves dividends out of nothing... put the company in further debt so they can get their 'jollies' and then just sell that debt to someone else. Is that right, or am I reading that wrong?
Is debt not considered a bad thing in that world?
Yep pay big dividends out of debt. They've just got to find a buyer now that thinks they can suck some more blood from the stone.
Big Business however play to some self created rules. One giant pyramid scheme built on debt.
Works fine until your last one left holding the cards and everybody wants to play a different game.
-
Thanks ffNixx (wow! They took a risk there then...) and qwerty. "The last one holding the cards..." that's a great way to explain it, thank you. Now I understand the short-termism in their mentalities perfectly.
I can only hope that some of the agencies will manage to hold on to control and direction of their business. Private equity makes us all a bunch of nothings. Just miniscule numbers of past performance on a spreadsheet. If debt pays the dividends, then there seems no point in us at all.
ETA: From their perspective, I mean... if I don't add that it sounds awfully depressing!
-
Another private investor as the new owner? That would be very scary. At least if they went for an IPO they would be forced to have transparency.
What happened to the idea of being debt free, growing the business for the future and getting a real dividend from profits earned? Innovative leadership that creates new markets? It must be hard for the top people at istock/getty.
I wouldn´t be surprised if the same people who invested in fotolia would try to et a stake in getty and then try to consolidate the microstock market by merging us all...
Anyway, news like this depresses me, time to get to work and think about something else.
-
Anyway, news like this depresses me, time to get to work and think about something else.
Yep. Control only what's in your control. Therein lies sanity.
-
Manchester United seem to be going through a similar process. I hope these strange financial arrangements will be outlawed one day.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/04/manchester-united-debt-cayman-islands?newsfeed=true (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/04/manchester-united-debt-cayman-islands?newsfeed=true)
-
Bottom line, I don't want Getty/Istock to fail. I make too much money there...still. But I fear Joan and a few others are right when they say that another venture capitalist group = vulture capitalist and we will once again see a pruning of our commissions....something along the same line of what has already happened. If Getty believes in themselves so much, then buy themselves and go private again.
-
Personally I'd love to see Getty and Fotolia crash and burn. I can see why others that still have lots of eggs in those baskets wouldn't be so happy.
There is definitely something wrong with the whole finance business though. Lots of smoke and mirrors and people that think they are the smartest people in the room * the money out and leaving a mess in their wake.
-
The gullibility of investors never ceases to amaze me. Take the Facebook fiasco or recent months. Dress it up, put a bit of lipstick on it and ask 4 billion.
-
Bottom line, I don't want Getty/Istock to fail. I make too much money there...still. But I fear Joan and a few others are right when they say that another venture capitalist group = vulture capitalist and we will once again see a pruning of our commissions....something along the same line of what has already happened. If Getty believes in themselves so much, then buy themselves and go private again.
I don't want to see Getty and iStock fail either, even though I'm almost done pulling my portfolio from IS. Why? Because...where are all those photographers going to go to sell their stock images? To smaller traditional agencies? To the micros? Both? Either way, we would all of a sudden be faced with a flash flood of competitors looking for new outlets to sell their stock imagery...and then BOOM...our earnings suddenly drop. Losing Getty and iStock is bad news for all photographers!
-
Bottom line, I don't want Getty/Istock to fail. I make too much money there...still. But I fear Joan and a few others are right when they say that another venture capitalist group = vulture capitalist and we will once again see a pruning of our commissions....something along the same line of what has already happened. If Getty believes in themselves so much, then buy themselves and go private again.
I don't want to see Getty and iStock fail either, even though I'm almost done pulling my portfolio from IS. Why? Because...where are all those photographers going to go to sell their stock images? To smaller traditional agencies? To the micros? Both? Either way, we would all of a sudden be faced with a flash flood of competitors looking for new outlets to sell their stock imagery...and then BOOM...our earnings suddenly drop. Losing Getty and iStock is bad news for all photographers!
Completely agree with you. Great post.
-
they will never go away guys, why would they? slowly perhaps? if so buyers need to get pictures from some place else no? more competition but more buyers too
iStock doing 59k downloads per day, they need to be insanely dumb to drop that volume of sales!
During 2011 alone a minimum of 18,615,558+ images (and probably about 21.5 million) were licensed for use.
(http://blog.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-2012-semi-annual-analysis/ (http://blog.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-2012-semi-annual-analysis/))
-
While the business is in the hands of those who want to drain profits from it versus invest in improving it over the long haul, I can't see how it can be a good thing for anyone but the financial firms advising on the deals and those receiving the "dividends".
I fear you're right. I'd also like to see Getty owned by a real company again, with a stake in the business and respect for its suppliers, rather than a PE firm all over again. though KKR seems a better run than H&F, it freaks me out that they've invested in Fotolia.
-
they will never go away guys, why would they? slowly perhaps? if so buyers need to get pictures from some place else no? more competition but more buyers too
iStock doing 59k downloads per day, they need to be insanely dumb to drop that volume of sales!
During 2011 alone a minimum of 18,615,558+ images (and probably about 21.5 million) were licensed for use.
([url]http://blog.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-2012-semi-annual-analysis/[/url] ([url]http://blog.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-2012-semi-annual-analysis/[/url]))
It's not all that hard to imagine. The US government had to save General Motors and the auto industry from collapse with a massive government bailout. Who would have ever thought that an entire industry could collapse from one or two large companies failing? And who would have ever thought General Motors or Chrysler could fail?
And we wouldn't necessarily see a parallel increase in buyers. Many buyers already purchase images from multiple agencies and independent artists, so they wouldn't be new buyers. Only buyers who purchase exclusively from Getty and iStock would become new buyers.
-
Bottom line, I don't want Getty/Istock to fail. I make too much money there...still. But I fear Joan and a few others are right when they say that another venture capitalist group = vulture capitalist and we will once again see a pruning of our commissions....something along the same line of what has already happened. If Getty believes in themselves so much, then buy themselves and go private again.
I don't want to see Getty and iStock fail either, even though I'm almost done pulling my portfolio from IS. Why? Because...where are all those photographers going to go to sell their stock images? To smaller traditional agencies? To the micros? Both? Either way, we would all of a sudden be faced with a flash flood of competitors looking for new outlets to sell their stock imagery...and then BOOM...our earnings suddenly drop. Losing Getty and iStock is bad news for all photographers!
I agree about the extra competition but the other sites would also be flooded with new buyers from Getty/istock, so I don't think it would be such a bad thing. I don't think it will happen though, it's about as likely as FT raising commissions.
-
....though KKR seems a better run than H&F, it freaks me out that they've invested in Fotolia.
Me too. I find the the most worrying thing of all
-
The industry needs a good house cleaning....
and all to the blame goes on these greedy hedge funds and investment houses, the brokers of which should be in jail for bilking money from little investors - in this case its the photographers that contribute to Getty.
Pyramid schemes are illegal per se but as someone aptly entioned, this is what iit is essentially, and we are the suckers on the bottom... :P
-
Carlyle, CVC, TPG weigh final bids for Getty (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/27/us-gettyimages-bids-idUSBRE86Q15220120727) - Reuters
Three private equity firms, including Carlyle Group LP (CG.O) and CVC Capital Partners CVC.UL, are weighing final bids for Getty Images, as the auction of the digital media company enters its last leg, according to people familiar with the matter.
TPG Capital TPG.UL also remains in the auction and is considering a final bid for Getty, the people said. The largest supplier of stock photos, video and other digital content could be valued at as much as $4 billion, they said.
Final bids for Getty Images are due on August 6, they added.
Other buyout firms that had earlier taken a look, such as KKR & Co (KKR.N) and Charterhouse CHCAP.UL, have dropped out of the process, the people said.
A sale would come more than four years after private equity firm Hellman & Friedman LLC bought a majority stake in Getty in a $2.4 billion deal.
I wonder who people familiar with the matter actually are.
-
Carlyle, CVC, TPG weigh final bids for Getty ([url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/27/us-gettyimages-bids-idUSBRE86Q15220120727[/url]) - Reuters
Three private equity firms, including Carlyle Group LP (CG.O) and CVC Capital Partners CVC.UL, are weighing final bids for Getty Images, as the auction of the digital media company enters its last leg, according to people familiar with the matter.
TPG Capital TPG.UL also remains in the auction and is considering a final bid for Getty, the people said. The largest supplier of stock photos, video and other digital content could be valued at as much as $4 billion, they said.
Final bids for Getty Images are due on August 6, they added.
Other buyout firms that had earlier taken a look, such as KKR & Co (KKR.N) and Charterhouse CHCAP.UL, have dropped out of the process, the people said.
A sale would come more than four years after private equity firm Hellman & Friedman LLC bought a majority stake in Getty in a $2.4 billion deal.
I wonder who people familiar with the matter actually are.
The sad thing is that it's another equity firm who will likely acquire them. With all the debt Getty has resulting from the H&F leaches, another private equity firm isn't going to sit back and say, "lets nurture our contributors since they are part of the backbone of this business". They are going to say, "we want our money and we want it now and in this volume." It will use simple business principles: cut commissions and raise prices........AGAIN. For Getty/IS, the RC system was a brilliant move since it is a living, breathing, expanding, contracting target.
-
I wonder who people familiar with the matter actually are.
Getty?
-
Note that "Other buyout firms that had earlier taken a look, such as KKR & Co (KKR.N) and Charterhouse CHCAP.UL, have dropped out of the process, the people said."
If KKR, who purchased 50% of FT in May for $150 million (and convinced some banks to lend FT $150 million more) http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/fotolia-sells-50-stake-in-business/, (http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/fotolia-sells-50-stake-in-business/,) has passed, then I can't see anyone paying $4 billion.
Being the owner of FT, KKR is clearly interested in the industry, but I think also understands the financials and has realized that what H&F is asking for a mortgaged Getty is ridiculous.
Here is another article.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/private-equity-firms-vying-for-getty-images-as-final-bids-are-due-on-august-6-20120728-00001 (http://www.nasdaq.com/article/private-equity-firms-vying-for-getty-images-as-final-bids-are-due-on-august-6-20120728-00001)
-
I dont want to see them go, but if they do, there will be no escape route for photographers. Slowly the industry, as we know it will die out and left will be nothing but little hole in the wall outfits, not even worth bothering with.
-
Carlyle, CVC, TPG weigh final bids for Getty ([url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/27/us-gettyimages-bids-idUSBRE86Q15220120727[/url]) - Reuters
Three private equity firms, including Carlyle Group LP (CG.O) and CVC Capital Partners CVC.UL, are weighing final bids for Getty Images, as the auction of the digital media company enters its last leg, according to people familiar with the matter.
TPG Capital TPG.UL also remains in the auction and is considering a final bid for Getty, the people said. The largest supplier of stock photos, video and other digital content could be valued at as much as $4 billion, they said.
Final bids for Getty Images are due on August 6, they added.
Other buyout firms that had earlier taken a look, such as KKR & Co (KKR.N) and Charterhouse CHCAP.UL, have dropped out of the process, the people said.
A sale would come more than four years after private equity firm Hellman & Friedman LLC bought a majority stake in Getty in a $2.4 billion deal.
I wonder who people familiar with the matter actually are.
The sad thing is that it's another equity firm who will likely acquire them. With all the debt Getty has resulting from the H&F leaches, another private equity firm isn't going to sit back and say, "lets nurture our contributors since they are part of the backbone of this business". They are going to say, "we want our money and we want it now and in this volume." It will use simple business principles: cut commissions and raise prices........AGAIN. For Getty/IS, the RC system was a brilliant move since it is a living, breathing, expanding, contracting target.
And this is why, I believe, we have not seen our 2012 RC levels. They will let the new buyers deal with that. I am hoping the new owners do not impose the 20% for all like the Getty main collection. But with Getty's debt load and investors squeezing them dry -- who knows.
On the other hand, there will always be millions of buyers for low cost images and great portfolios will sell well even if they have to move around to where the buyers migrate to.
-
... I am hoping the new owners do not impose the 20% for all like the Getty main collection. But with Getty's debt load and investors squeezing them dry -- who knows.
The new RC levels may be quite brutal, but I don't see why Getty would go down to 20% for all. It would make no sense as it would either end exclusivity or end Getty's participation in microstock. I don't see it happening, iStock would die without exclusives.
-
And this is why, I believe, we have not seen our 2012 RC levels. They will let the new buyers deal with that. I am hoping the new owners do not impose the 20% for all like the Getty main collection.
I don't think this would happen for the reasons ffNixx states above. But if it did happen, I would have mixed feelings. After all, 20% would actually be a raise for non-exclusives. ::)
-
And this is why, I believe, we have not seen our 2012 RC levels. They will let the new buyers deal with that. I am hoping the new owners do not impose the 20% for all like the Getty main collection.
I don't think this would happen for the reasons ffNixx states above. But if it did happen, I would have mixed feelings. After all, 20% would actually be a raise for non-exclusives. ::)
Yes, it would be a 5% raise for me, a bottom feeding, indy. ;)
Someone help me out here. Income for Getty comes from many sources. What percentage comes from IS only (us) and what comes from the rest? It seems to me that people are looking at this from a Microstock perspective when there are some bigger assets involved, the Getty news service, the Getty archives, and what else? How important is IS in the future and the value?
This is OLD DATA: but take a look at RF anyway.
Portfolio 2004 2005 2006
RM still imagery 33% 33% 34%
RF still imagery 24% 20% 16%
Editorial Imagery 18% 22% 26%
Footage 28% 29% 28%
"Getty Images was sold to a private equity firm Hellman & Friedman for $ 2.4 Billion at a 55% premium of their January 18 share price."
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Getty_Images_%28GYI%29 (http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Getty_Images_%28GYI%29)
-
Quick search on debt-to-EBITDA leads here:
[url]http://www.readyratios.com/reference/debt/debt_ebitda_ratio.html[/url] ([url]http://www.readyratios.com/reference/debt/debt_ebitda_ratio.html[/url])
"Ratios higher than 4 or 5 usually set off alarms because they indicate that a company is likely to face difficulties in handling its debt burden, and thus is less likely to be able to raise additional loans required to grow and expand the business."
Just think of it in terms of your own income situation. If your outstanding loans (mortgage, auto, school, credit card debt, etc) are 4 to 5 times your base pay before taxes, you can imagine how difficult it will be to pay off those loans and still have money for the basic necessities of life. Studies show that 4x-5x is the critical threshold, but even 2x puts a normal family in a world of hurt.
-
Bottom line, I don't want Getty/Istock to fail. I make too much money there...still. But I fear Joan and a few others are right when they say that another venture capitalist group = vulture capitalist and we will once again see a pruning of our commissions....something along the same line of what has already happened. If Getty believes in themselves so much, then buy themselves and go private again.
I don't want to see Getty and iStock fail either, even though I'm almost done pulling my portfolio from IS. Why? Because...where are all those photographers going to go to sell their stock images? To smaller traditional agencies? To the micros? Both? Either way, we would all of a sudden be faced with a flash flood of competitors looking for new outlets to sell their stock imagery...and then BOOM...our earnings suddenly drop. Losing Getty and iStock is bad news for all photographers!
I agree about the extra competition but the other sites would also be flooded with new buyers from Getty/istock, so I don't think it would be such a bad thing. I don't think it will happen though, it's about as likely as FT raising commissions.
I agree with Sharpshot. If the worst case scenario were to happen, I seriously doubt the entire customer base would throw up its hands and say, "Welp, I guess we can't buy stock photos anymore." No, they would just move on to other agencies. And if those agencies pay higher than a 15 to 20% commission to its artists, I'm not seeing how this would be a loss for contributors.
-
I would say this is good news for everyone in the industry. If a few equity firms are competing to purchase Getty at $ 4 billion, that means they see a strong potential for growth in the next 5 years ( usual time they take to spin around and resale). Combined with the investment of $150 million in Fotolia, it confirms that big investors see a growth in the image licensing market.
With companies like Instagram selling for $1billion, there is certainly room for a profitable company to sell for more.
What does it mean for photographers? well, first, that the market is expected to grow. Wether the profits of that growth will trickle down to them, that is another question. This is a great time to be very aware of what is going on in the market and to look for new opportunities. Microstock agencies might not be the only players in the next 5 years as a lot of tech companies are entering the market with new ideas.
Finally, new owners of Getty does not mean new management. In fact, they will keep the same team in place to guarantee their investments. Thus the risk of more percentage pression might not be as strong as you might think. There is always the risk of massive exodus to other platform if they squeeze photographers too much.
We should see, but overall, I think this is good news.
Paul Melcher
author/owner "thoughts of a bohemian"
ex CKO of Zimmetrical
-
And this is why, I believe, we have not seen our 2012 RC levels. They will let the new buyers deal with that.
I rather doubt that whoever buys Getty is at this stage going to be in anyway concerned (or indirectly involved with) micro-managing something like RC levels at one of the constituent brands.
My assumption would be that, for the moment at least, the business at all its various different levels carries on as usual. I might be wrong but I would guess that it would be detrimental to a company and its brands (and therefore to the value) if there was ever any sort of idea that everything was somehow in limbo until after a sale.
-
...I am hoping the new owners do not impose the 20% for all like the Getty main collection. But with Getty's debt load and investors squeezing them dry -- who knows...
I wouldn't be surprised to see something like 15% for independents, 25% for exclusives, no RC levels, canisters, etc. Just flat rates for all. Paying more than 20% to istock artists has always been a thorn in Getty's side. I'm sure they'd love to bring down the percentages even more.
I suspect we'll see cuts again soon, possibly this year, regardless of what happens with the Getty sale.
-
I would say this is good news for everyone in the industry. If a few equity firms are competing to purchase Getty at $ 4 billion, that means they see a strong potential for growth in the next 5 years ( usual time they take to spin around and resale). Combined with the investment of $150 million in Fotolia, it confirms that big investors see a growth in the image licensing market.
They might be looking at it but it is far from a done deal. It would appear that Getty's revenue has only increased from $858M in 2007 to $945M last year. That's not much to say the least. Istock would have been a tiny contributor to revenue in 2007 but now might be as much as 30% of the entire business. That suggests to me that most of the business has been in fairly serious decline (as indeed it had been prior to the H&F buyout) since then. Getty has also been stripped of $900M cash in 'dividends' over the last 18 months and saddled with tons of debt instead.
How can Getty be worth $4B or anything even remotely close to that figure? I think H&F must be hoping to find a mug punter with more spare cash than business sense but I doubt that they will be successful. We'd need to see more financial details but from what we know already I struggle to see why anyone would even offer the $2.4B that H&F originally paid for Getty.
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Getty_Images_(GYI)/Filing/10-K/2008/F2564506 (http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Getty_Images_(GYI)/Filing/10-K/2008/F2564506)
-
In addition to price, there does seem to be a lot of discouraging factors to buying it. They kind of created a mess when they decided to cross-pollinate their content to all their different sites. I don't even know how you would untangle that. I definitely would not want that job, and I wonder if anyone else would. I guess I'd be worried (if I was a contributor) about the entity that does buy it. They might just want to gut it for parts.
-
In addition to price, there does seem to be a lot of discouraging factors to buying it. They kind of created a mess when they decided to cross-pollinate their content to all their different sites. I don't even know how you would untangle that. I definitely would not want that job, and I wonder if anyone else would. I guess I'd be worried (if I was a contributor) about the entity that does buy it. They might just want to gut it for parts.
---------------------------
Gutting Getty for parts might be the best thing that could happen for Istock, if it is split out as a single entity. If the SS IPO goes well, maybe there would be a demand for an Istock IPO?
-
In addition to price, there does seem to be a lot of discouraging factors to buying it. They kind of created a mess when they decided to cross-pollinate their content to all their different sites. I don't even know how you would untangle that. I definitely would not want that job, and I wonder if anyone else would. I guess I'd be worried (if I was a contributor) about the entity that does buy it. They might just want to gut it for parts.
This is the second round of bidding for Getty at that price. If the price was too high, there wouldn't be any bidders. Thus my strong belief that they see a strong growth for Getty in the next 5 years ( like trimming down the human salesforce by automating). Furthermore, Getty is too tightly integrated to try and sell it in parts. While possible, it might not reap the revenue expected. Getty makes more sense for an investor as whole than the sum of it's part.
-
This is the second round of bidding for Getty at that price. If the price was too high, there wouldn't be any bidders. Thus my strong belief that they see a strong growth for Getty in the next 5 years ( like trimming down the human salesforce by automating). Furthermore, Getty is too tightly integrated to try and sell it in parts. While possible, it might not reap the revenue expected. Getty makes more sense for an investor as whole than the sum of it's part.
It's not the 'second round of bidding', it's just that the deadline for bidding has yet to arrive (one week from today) and yet 2 interested parties have already taken flight. Businesses are (massively) over-priced and yet still attract bidders all the time. Facebook's IPO was fully subscribed at $38 but is already down 39% in value just 10 weeks later ... and IMHO is likely to drop to a fraction of the original launch price.
I'd agree it would make little sense to break Getty up for a sale. Getty's greatest strength (and therefore value) is in it's size and market share. H&F have squeezed all the cash out of Getty, mortgaged it to the hilt and now just want to get rid of it as quick as they can. I'm sure if you offered them $2B they would bite your hand off.
-
We are never going to totally loose getty. It's like a house property. Even if the owner goes bankrupt, the house doesn't disappear. It just falls into someone else's hands at a discounted rate. If Getty was in the discount bin, some other investor, business man, company would gobble them up.
-
We are never going to totally loose getty. It's like a house property. Even if the owner goes bankrupt, the house doesn't disappear. It just falls into someone else's hands at a discounted rate. If Getty was in the discount bin, some other investor, business man, company would gobble them up.
Maybe for now they have only name and old content and new content is nothing special (Vetta DeBileta most) + * money from "both" IS contributors (ex and non ex). Money which they just sucked and testing a ground how they will give Mooooreeeeee
Maybe I am too boooooorring to all of you because this is my 3rd or 4th post about the same sick history at that subject.
For me it perfectly fits in my theory about black mailing old daddy Getty when he was live.
----------------------------------------------------------
First
Daddy Getty when he was a live was some kind of rich collector and he was blackmailed by Mafia.
Because of that how he can avoid that, he made public Foundation.
As in term of any Foundation is that it is to be sustainable as itself.
This is more visible as GettyImages site which can even afford that to by iStock site.
Second
Somehow Getty Foundation which is sustainable as it self which is not on free market with somehow process was purchased with murky Offshore lets say "investors" H&F(uckers) MAFIA.
Third
Seam As is
H&F = hidden MAFIA which came back to take easy money and they suck it now
This is front end
--------------------
For contributor back end is constantly lowering commissions throwing sand in the contributors eyes and selling the story of exclusivity and unsustainability?! what?!
Anyhow H&F is sckin Getty> Getty is sckin iStock> iStock is cheating us contributors.
H&F(uckers) (read Mafia not in figurative sense but in real) are making more murky debt and they deposit is Getty whole sucked and Gettys for now Livestock branches.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ Leaf
Disable that lobotomy IGNORE button
I am boring to my self in repeating same old story: How fish is stinking from head, and this forum laments of minor technical problems while Greedy sharks grabs our money in tons from our eyes, and here we have fantastic IGNORE button which will help all us to share our thoughts.
Briliant
Will something Like/Dislike button wouldnt be enough in ranking useful vs trolling?
@ GostWyck Excellent post
They might be looking at it but it is far from a done deal. It would appear that Getty's revenue has only increased from $858M in 2007 to $945M last year. That's not much to say the least. Istock would have been a tiny contributor to revenue in 2007 but now might be as much as 30% of the entire business. That suggests to me that most of the business has been in fairly serious decline (as indeed it had been prior to the H&F buyout) since then. Getty has also been stripped of $900M cash in 'dividends' over the last 18 months and saddled with tons of debt instead.
How can Getty be worth $4B or anything even remotely close to that figure? I think H&F must be hoping to find a mug punter with more spare cash than business sense but I doubt that they will be successful. We'd need to see more financial details but from what we know already I struggle to see why anyone would even offer the $2.4B that H&F originally paid for Getty.
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Getty_Images_(GYI)/Filing/10-K/2008/F2564506 (http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Getty_Images_(GYI)/Filing/10-K/2008/F2564506)
-
We are never going to totally loose getty. It's like a house property. Even if the owner goes bankrupt, the house doesn't disappear. It just falls into someone else's hands at a discounted rate. If Getty was in the discount bin, some other investor, business man, company would gobble them up.
Oh yes we will __ one day. Nothing is permanent in business. Getty didn't exist 50 years ago and it probably won't exist 50 years from now, other than having been absorbed decades earlier by a more successful business. The only real question (for us) is when that might happen and what might replace it.
The FTSE100 was started in 1984 comprising of the top 100 companies, valued by market share, listed on the LSE and collectively they had a market capitalisation of over 80% of all companies listed on the LSE. A decade later fewer than 40% of the businesses originally listed were still qualified to be registered on the FTSE100. Things change. Massively. Always.
-
Since you seem to follow this closer and understand better, and I agree it's not bidding, it's just interest.
Do you know the 2011 figure for income percentage from IS? Or from RF? That's what I couldn't find and it seems like so many people are looking at this whole Getty thing from a personal MicroStock perspective, I'm wondering, how important is iStock/ThinkStock, in the big picture. (oh was that an inappropriate cliche in this case?) :)
This is the second round of bidding for Getty at that price. If the price was too high, there wouldn't be any bidders. Thus my strong belief that they see a strong growth for Getty in the next 5 years ( like trimming down the human salesforce by automating). Furthermore, Getty is too tightly integrated to try and sell it in parts. While possible, it might not reap the revenue expected. Getty makes more sense for an investor as whole than the sum of it's part.
It's not the 'second round of bidding', it's just that the deadline for bidding has yet to arrive (one week from today) and yet 2 interested parties have already taken flight. Businesses are (massively) over-priced and yet still attract bidders all the time. Facebook's IPO was fully subscribed at $38 but is already down 39% in value just 10 weeks later ... and IMHO is likely to drop to a fraction of the original launch price.
I'd agree it would make little sense to break Getty up for a sale. Getty's greatest strength (and therefore value) is in it's size and market share. H&F have squeezed all the cash out of Getty, mortgaged it to the hilt and now just want to get rid of it as quick as they can. I'm sure if you offered them $2B they would bite your hand off.
-
We are never going to totally loose getty. It's like a house property. Even if the owner goes bankrupt, the house doesn't disappear. It just falls into someone else's hands at a discounted rate. If Getty was in the discount bin, some other investor, business man, company would gobble them up.
Oh yes we will __ one day. Nothing is permanent in business. Getty didn't exist 50 years ago and it probably won't exist 50 years from now, other than having been absorbed decades earlier by a more successful business. The only real question (for us) is when that might happen and what might replace it.
The FTSE100 was started in 1984 comprising of the top 100 companies, valued by market share, listed on the LSE and collectively they had a market capitalisation of over 80% of all companies listed on the LSE. A decade later fewer than 40% of the businesses originally listed were still qualified to be registered on the FTSE100. Things change. Massively. Always.
well, I agree that getty proper won't exist but what I mean is that all their photos (which is what gives them value) aren't going to disappear. Getty could be owned and run and called google in the future but the getty images would still be there.
-
There are no official/public figures for Getty in 2011. Just what has been released. Thus any evaluation of % of IS vs rest of business is pure speculation at this point. With that said, considering the evolution of the marketplace, it is safe to say that it certainly for a substantial amount of Getty's overall revenue and certainly offers the most potential for growth.
-
Hasn't Thinkstock taken a lot of the istock business? How can istock have the most potential for growth when very few of us are earning more there than a few years ago? Perhaps they've deliberately made it look like the threat of istock to Getty has diminished. That might boost the Getty valuation.
-
Hasn't Thinkstock taken a lot of the istock business? How can istock have the most potential for growth when very few of us are earning more there than a few years ago? Perhaps they've deliberately made it look like the threat of istock to Getty has diminished. That might boost the Getty valuation.
Thinkstock and iStock are part of Getty.
-
Hasn't Thinkstock taken a lot of the istock business? How can istock have the most potential for growth when very few of us are earning more there than a few years ago? Perhaps they've deliberately made it look like the threat of istock to Getty has diminished. That might boost the Getty valuation.
Thinkstock and iStock are part of Getty.
???
If you follow the above discussion, it was about how large a % Istock might make up of Getty's overall revenue. So the fact that Istock and TS are part of Getty is a given.
-
I agree with Leaf. Getty, Istock or TS may be sold to other owners and called something else, but our images will always be there. If you have a good collection of images, someone will buy.
-
There are no official/public figures for Getty in 2011. Just what has been released. Thus any evaluation of % of IS vs rest of business is pure speculation at this point. With that said, considering the evolution of the marketplace, it is safe to say that it certainly for a substantial amount of Getty's overall revenue and certainly offers the most potential for growth.
OK 2010? :D
Here's what started me asking.
Getty Earnings
RF still imagery
2004 24%
2005 20%
2006 16%
I'd say it was falling, not growing. So if someone has 2007, 2008, 2009, or 2010 it would be good information to see what percentage of the sales come mainly from IS and ThinkStock.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bidders-looks-to-snap-up-getty-in-3bn-deal-8034465.html#disqus_thread (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bidders-looks-to-snap-up-getty-in-3bn-deal-8034465.html#disqus_thread)
Report slim on facts suggests bids were actually submitted last week.
I've no idea what it means when they say Jonathan Klein will "roll over" his ownership stake, cash out or continue to retain some ownership. Any idea?
-
Sounds like the new owners will take over the company completly and that Jonathan Klein will no longer have voting rights as an owner. But it doesn´t say, if he will stay on as CEO.
Anyway, nothing we can do about it. Until Getty goes public we will never know how the business is really doing and I doubt the new owners will take the company public soon.
Back to the camera...
-
We are never going to totally loose getty. It's like a house property. Even if the owner goes bankrupt, the house doesn't disappear. It just falls into someone else's hands at a discounted rate. If Getty was in the discount bin, some other investor, business man, company would gobble them up.
Maybe for now they have only name and old content and new content is nothing special (Vetta DeBileta most) + * money from "both" IS contributors (ex and non ex). Money which they just sucked and testing a ground how they will give Mooooreeeeee
Maybe I am too boooooorring to all of you because this is my 3rd or 4th post about the same sick history at that subject.
For me it perfectly fits in my theory about black mailing old daddy Getty when he was live.
----------------------------------------------------------
First
Daddy Getty when he was a live was some kind of rich collector and he was blackmailed by Mafia.
Because of that how he can avoid that, he made public Foundation.
As in term of any Foundation is that it is to be sustainable as itself.
This is more visible as GettyImages site which can even afford that to by iStock site.
Second
Somehow Getty Foundation which is sustainable as it self which is not on free market with somehow process was purchased with murky Offshore lets say "investors" H&F(uckers) MAFIA.
Third
Seam As is
H&F = hidden MAFIA which came back to take easy money and they suck it now
This is front end
--------------------
For contributor back end is constantly lowering commissions throwing sand in the contributors eyes and selling the story of exclusivity and unsustainability?! what?!
Anyhow H&F is sckin Getty> Getty is sckin iStock> iStock is cheating us contributors.
H&F(uckers) (read Mafia not in figurative sense but in real) are making more murky debt and they deposit is Getty whole sucked and Gettys for now Livestock branches.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ Leaf
Disable that lobotomy IGNORE button
I am boring to my self in repeating same old story: How fish is stinking from head, and this forum laments of minor technical problems while Greedy sharks grabs our money in tons from our eyes, and here we have fantastic IGNORE button which will help all us to share our thoughts.
Briliant
Will something Like/Dislike button wouldnt be enough in ranking useful vs trolling?
@ GostWyck Excellent post
They might be looking at it but it is far from a done deal. It would appear that Getty's revenue has only increased from $858M in 2007 to $945M last year. That's not much to say the least. Istock would have been a tiny contributor to revenue in 2007 but now might be as much as 30% of the entire business. That suggests to me that most of the business has been in fairly serious decline (as indeed it had been prior to the H&F buyout) since then. Getty has also been stripped of $900M cash in 'dividends' over the last 18 months and saddled with tons of debt instead.
How can Getty be worth $4B or anything even remotely close to that figure? I think H&F must be hoping to find a mug punter with more spare cash than business sense but I doubt that they will be successful. We'd need to see more financial details but from what we know already I struggle to see why anyone would even offer the $2.4B that H&F originally paid for Getty.
[url]http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Getty_Images_(GYI)/Filing/10-K/2008/F2564506[/url] ([url]http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Getty_Images_(GYI)/Filing/10-K/2008/F2564506[/url])
Add that one to the list of posts that I couldn't understand
-
Report slim on facts suggests bids were actually submitted last week.
I've no idea what it means when they say Jonathan Klein will "roll over" his ownership stake, cash out or continue to retain some ownership. Any idea?
It certainly is 'slim on facts' to the point where they really haven't provided anything that we didn't already know. No new press releases have appeared on the subject and no-one else is reporting on the subject,
I would interpret Klein and co "rolling over" to mean that they will be retaining their stake.
-
I would interpret Klein and co "rolling over" to mean that they will be retaining their stake.
Really? I kind of envision him rolling over and getting a treat and a belly scratch ;D
-
Looks like a deal might actually happen with Carlyle Group for $3.4 billion, but why I still can't understand. H&F would make a bit less then $2 billion - $1 billion from the sale and another $900 million from dividends they paid themselves.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-14/carlyle-group-said-to-be-leading-bidder-for-getty-images.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-14/carlyle-group-said-to-be-leading-bidder-for-getty-images.html)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/14/uk-carlyle-gettyimages-deal-idUKBRE87D12220120814 (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/14/uk-carlyle-gettyimages-deal-idUKBRE87D12220120814)
-
Looks like a deal might actually happen with Carlyle Group for $3.4 billion, but why I still can't understand. H&F would make a bit less then $2 billion - $1 billion from the sale and another $900 million from dividends they paid themselves.
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-14/carlyle-group-said-to-be-leading-bidder-for-getty-images.html[/url] ([url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-14/carlyle-group-said-to-be-leading-bidder-for-getty-images.html[/url])
[url]http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/14/uk-carlyle-gettyimages-deal-idUKBRE87D12220120814[/url] ([url]http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/14/uk-carlyle-gettyimages-deal-idUKBRE87D12220120814[/url])
I'm not even going to try to follow all these high finance calculations, but are you saying that they would make a $500m loss if they sold at that price?
I wouldn't weep if they did.
-
Looks like a deal might actually happen with Carlyle Group for $3.4 billion, but why I still can't understand. H&F would make a bit less then $2 billion - $1 billion from the sale and another $900 million from dividends they paid themselves.
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-14/carlyle-group-said-to-be-leading-bidder-for-getty-images.html[/url] ([url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-14/carlyle-group-said-to-be-leading-bidder-for-getty-images.html[/url])
[url]http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/14/uk-carlyle-gettyimages-deal-idUKBRE87D12220120814[/url] ([url]http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/14/uk-carlyle-gettyimages-deal-idUKBRE87D12220120814[/url])
I'm not even going to try to follow all these high finance calculations, but are you saying that they would make a $500m loss if they sold at that price?
I wouldn't weep if they did.
I hope someone is going to make a good deal, so they wouldn't have to squeeze contribs even further. One can even dream things would take a turn for the better, at least marginally.
-
Looks like a deal might actually happen with Carlyle Group for $3.4 billion, but why I still can't understand. H&F would make a bit less then $2 billion - $1 billion from the sale and another $900 million from dividends they paid themselves.
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-14/carlyle-group-said-to-be-leading-bidder-for-getty-images.html[/url] ([url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-14/carlyle-group-said-to-be-leading-bidder-for-getty-images.html[/url])
[url]http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/14/uk-carlyle-gettyimages-deal-idUKBRE87D12220120814[/url] ([url]http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/14/uk-carlyle-gettyimages-deal-idUKBRE87D12220120814[/url])
I'm not even going to try to follow all these high finance calculations, but are you saying that they would make a $500m loss if they sold at that price?
I wouldn't weep if they did.
No, a bit less than $2billion is referring to the profit they would be making on this deal. Sadly, they will do very well if this goes through and we're left with another buyer that will want to make a big profit. Hard to see how that can be good but at least my earnings can't decline as much as they did under H&F. I would be paying them every month if that happened :)
-
It is a done deal according to the press release. Carlyle for $3.3 billion. Details not spelled out but seems like there is a lot of debt financing involved, so likely Getty will be mortgaged even further.
http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+Releases/The+Carlyle+Group+and+Getty+Images+Management+to+Acquire+Getty+Images+from+Hellman+%26amp%3B+Friedman+for+ (http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+Releases/The+Carlyle+Group+and+Getty+Images+Management+to+Acquire+Getty+Images+from+Hellman+%26amp%3B+Friedman+for+)$3.3+Billion/7662646.html
-
I see Getty falling into a bigger pool with more sharks.
-
Here's a fixed link
Getty images sold for #3.3 billion (http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2198976/getty-images-sold-for-usd33-billion)
-
Here's a fixed link
Getty images sold for #3.3 billion ([url]http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2198976/getty-images-sold-for-usd33-billion[/url])
Glad to see Mark Getty back in the swing, it was during his first years, between 1993, plus a few years on that we had a brillant time at Gettys, selling like crazy and everything went as smooth as anything.
Although I exepct he wont take a leading role in this event. Pitty.
-
It's incredible the way they pile more and more debt onto it and proclaim it's worth more and more. It reminds me of the famous Dutch tulip price bubble.
-
It's incredible the way they pile more and more debt onto it and proclaim it's worth more and more. It reminds me of the famous Dutch tulip price bubble.
are you sure about that? is Carlyle Group that dumb and GI that smart? or are you talking about a manipulated sale price?
it would surprise me to see them doing a bad business (one or other) once we are talking about top companies that must have very good employees
-
It's incredible the way they pile more and more debt onto it and proclaim it's worth more and more. It reminds me of the famous Dutch tulip price bubble.
are you sure about that? is Carlyle Group that dumb and GI that smart? or are you talking about a manipulated sale price?
it would surprise me to see them doing a bad business (one or other) once we are talking about top companies that must have very good employees
------------------------------------
Somebody in this transaction is dumb, but who it is depends on how the deal is structured. :-)
Carlyle is “buying” Getty, but some amount of the financing of the deal will be with new debt, presumably secured by Getty’s assets and that Getty will have to pay back. Suppose Carlyle is paying $1 billion in cash and somebody else is giving H&F another $2.4 billion financed by the issuance of Getty corporate bonds. Carlyle only needs to pay itself $1 billion in dividends to break even, which H&F has shown was at least possible once. The bond holders are taking some risk if Getty can’t pay them back, but they would get to seize Getty assets if that is the case, so they aren’t at too big a risk either. The ones really at risk are Getty employees and contributors who might get squeezed even further.
-
It's incredible the way they pile more and more debt onto it and proclaim it's worth more and more. It reminds me of the famous Dutch tulip price bubble.
are you sure about that? is Carlyle Group that dumb and GI that smart? or are you talking about a manipulated sale price?
it would surprise me to see them doing a bad business (one or other) once we are talking about top companies that must have very good employees
------------------------------------
Somebody in this transaction is dumb, but who it is depends on how the deal is structured. :-)
Carlyle is “buying” Getty, but some amount of the financing of the deal will be with new debt, presumably secured by Getty’s assets and that Getty will have to pay back. Suppose Carlyle is paying $1 billion in cash and somebody else is giving H&F another $2.4 billion financed by the issuance of Getty corporate bonds. Carlyle only needs to pay itself $1 billion in dividends to break even, which H&F has shown was at least possible once. The bond holders are taking some risk if Getty can’t pay them back, but they would get to seize Getty assets if that is the case, so they aren’t at too big a risk either. The ones really at risk are Getty employees and contributors who might get squeezed even further.
But didn't Getty pay HF before it had the first lot of debt piled onto it? With this new deal it has to repay the original debt, the new debt and then produce an additional billion for Carlyle to get their cash back. Is it then going to get passed on to someone else for $5b with $4b of that coming from bank loans, while Carlyle gloat over their profits? Is it some sort of create-money-from-debt perpetual motion machine?
I suppose if it becomes impossible to repay, the debt will be split up into tiny sums bundled into a "sub prime" package and sold on at twice its value to unsuspecting private punters, leaving the investment funds and bankers laughing. Or am I being too cynical?
-
It's incredible the way they pile more and more debt onto it and proclaim it's worth more and more. It reminds me of the famous Dutch tulip price bubble.
I don't get it either. It's not even as if the business is growing in any significant way. The markets into which Getty sells are getting more competitive and/or are in decline in the case of newspapers and magazines. Since H&F bought Getty they appear to have added little value, stripped it of cash and piled it with debt. I guess you have to admire them for having pulled the sale off.
-
So long as somebody is willing to buy Getty debt, this cycle can keep going. One possible endpoint would be if the economy starts to grow strongly (Ha Ha) and/or the stock market booms, Getty could be taken public again paying off the debt in the process.
-
Sounds to me as if getting the Getty family and Klein to pitch in - along with a lower price than initially sought - was the only way to get the deal done. But I don't understand what it means to have the Getty family roll their interests (thought to be 15%) into the transaction? And Klein investing equity means he borrowed against his stake?
Was H&F so horrible as a boss that Getty and Klein wanted them gone badly enough that they put up their own money to make it happen?
And all this stuff about Carlyle investing in growth doesn't square with what I've been told about how private equity firms operate - which is that they need to make money on the deal and in the short term, not the long term. But as Getty's already been through one round with private equity owners, it's hard to believe they'd have any illusions about what this really looks like day to day.
-
Lobo's press release link:
http://company.gettyimages.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=474&isource=corporate_website_ind_press_release (http://company.gettyimages.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=474&isource=corporate_website_ind_press_release)
-
Don't know if this private equity firm is any better. They all have to squeeze money out of the company that they just paid to much money for. The other scary thing is they are trying to buy focus media- the chinese getty if you will. That might not be good for istock members. Seeing that the amount is less than they hoped for must mean sales are tanking. Hence all that promoting of non exclusives for the last few years that screams buy at cheaper sites. It was all to improve the bottom line. Keeping a higher % of the sale. Not to build into the future. Its all clear now. Pump and Dump. Not exactly aimed at growth.
-
And all this stuff about Carlyle investing in growth doesn't square with what I've been told about how private equity firms operate - which is that they need to make money on the deal and in the short term, not the long term. But as Getty's already been through one round with private equity owners, it's hard to believe they'd have any illusions about what this really looks like day to day.
That does seem a bit odd, but they might have a different perspective of growth that doesn't necessarily mean more money for the contributors. I have a little trouble seeing a silver lining, but I guess it doesn't really matter to me. If the whole company folds, it's probably good news. If they keep going, then nothing really changes.
-
"Nothing will change for our contributors" --
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2199115/-nothing-will-change-for-our-contributors-says-getty-images-ceo (http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2199115/-nothing-will-change-for-our-contributors-says-getty-images-ceo)
-
"Jonathan Klein: No. Nothing will change for them, just like the Hellman deal didn't change anything for them."
I don't believe that the H&F deal changed nothing for contributors, both to Getty and to iStock. They may say that all the forced RM to RF subscription migration and cuts in royalty payments had nothing to do with it, but IMO that's just fantasy.
-
"Nothing will change for our contributors" --
[url]http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2199115/-nothing-will-change-for-our-contributors-says-getty-images-ceo[/url] ([url]http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2199115/-nothing-will-change-for-our-contributors-says-getty-images-ceo[/url])
Ooh dear __ this bit doesn't exactly sound promising;
BJP: You're now talking about taking the company into the next phase of development and growth. What is that phase?
Jonathan Klein: "The main thing around that is: more international. We're going to be investing more in Asia/Pacific, Middle East and Latin America. The second part is to grow our ThinkStock subscription business more aggressively. And thirdly, our editorial imagery business is really strong and we will be more aggressive in expanding that in particular internationally."
Expanding Thinkstock is actually the second most important area for growth (followed by taking editorial more international)? If that the best that they can come up with then the future doesn't look rosy. Not good for exclusives either if Thinkstock trumps Istock in the priority stakes.
-
"Jonathan Klein: No. Nothing will change for them, just like the Hellman deal didn't change anything for them."
Well, that is reassuring. I'm totally convinced now. ;D
-
"Jonathan Klein: No. Nothing will change for them, just like the Hellman deal didn't change anything for them."
Do you think he knows that he's full of crap? Or does he really just believe his own B.S...
I have to lean towards the former, since that seems to be the company line at istock, and it probably trickled down from somewhere. Makes me think back to that silly "unsustainable" line.
-
BJP: Why this deal? Why now?
Jonathan Klein: This deal is happening now because Hellman & Friedman typically owns a business for about three years on average. It has owned Getty Images for about four years now.
This is certainly the best reason I’ve ever heard to sell a $3.3 billion asset, we’ve exceeded our average ownership duration.
Also this –
BJP: What is the arrangement between Carlyle and the Getty family and management?
Jonathan Klein: What it means is that instead of the Getty family selling and getting cash and the management team selling and getting cash, the Getty family is not selling - they're exchanging their shares for shares in the new company, while the management team is taking some cash and investing some money back into the business for the next period of growth.
-
"Jonathan Klein: No. Nothing will change for them, just like the Hellman deal didn't change anything for them."
Do you think he knows that he's full of crap? Or does he really just believe his own B.S...
I have to lean towards the former, since that seems to be the company line at istock, and it probably trickled down from somewhere. Makes me think back to that silly "unsustainable" line.
Actually, everything he says is spot on... just not from his perspective. If you flip it around and use it to describe being a contributor iStock, it makes perfect sense. It is unsustainable and nothing will change. ;)
-
"Jonathan Klein: No. Nothing will change for them, just like the Hellman deal didn't change anything for them."
I don't believe that the H&F deal changed nothing for contributors, both to Getty and to iStock. They may say that all the forced RM to RF subscription migration and cuts in royalty payments had nothing to do with it, but IMO that's just fantasy.
No nothing will change, not for anybody, still the same old thingy.
-
At risk of repeating myself (I keep posting this thought from time to time): the agencies, and their owners, would really like everything to be subscriptions, because they want to escape the commission model entirely and have the bulk of their income in the form of up-front subscription fees. Payments to contributors become totally arbitrary amounts, with apparently no floor below which they can't sink.
And more importantly - since the link between sale price and commission is removed - they can raise prices to buyers without paying more to photographers.
The fact that Getty's new owners are immediately talking about their love for ThinkStock probably says it all in terms of a future direction.
Entirely IMHO of course.
-
At risk of repeating myself (I keep posting this thought from time to time): the agencies, and their owners, would really like everything to be subscriptions, because they want to escape the commission model entirely and have the bulk of their income in the form of up-front subscription fees. Payments to contributors become totally arbitrary amounts, with apparently no floor below which they can't sink.
I don't think so. They might keep a higher percentage of subscription sales for themselves ... but from sales that are a fraction the worth of PPD's. TS/Photos.com et al have historically been something of an afterthought for Getty with precious little investment in the websites or even garnering fresh content. They were mainly a dumping ground for their wholly-owned but dated stock. It's always been a half-hearted attempt to grab a slice of SS's pie.
By contrast SS's growth over the last couple of years has almost entirely been driven via OD sales, now worth about 44% of total revenue to them according to the IPO details. Subscriptions can only ever appeal to a relatively small section of the market.
-
"Jonathan Klein: No. Nothing will change for them, just like the Hellman deal didn't change anything for them."
I don't believe that the H&F deal changed nothing for contributors, both to Getty and to iStock. They may say that all the forced RM to RF subscription migration and cuts in royalty payments had nothing to do with it, but IMO that's just fantasy.
Excuse me, nothing changing? When did Thinkstock get created? (Feb. 2010 in case the answer is needed) When did they shut down StockXpert? (hint: new owners of StockXpert, Getty Images, have announced the site is now closed to new registrations and uploads and will stop sales later this month. = Feb. 2010)
No changes, like the commission cuts, the canister levels changing, commissions based on annual sales of some mystery formula, the whole unsustainable "money doesn't make you happy" (loosely stated, not a direct quote) thing?
That kind of nothing will change? ???
If they are expanding marketing and improving Editorial, which was protected by Getty's news service interests, that's not too bad. As for aggressively expanding subscription sales, if I make more, fine, if it's just selling out the whole industry for cheaper sales, lower prices, there's no gain in it, just more price cutting. May I simplify that? They make more, we make less.
-
"Jonathan Klein: No. Nothing will change for them, just like the Hellman deal didn't change anything for them."
I have no words...
-
"Jonathan Klein: No. Nothing will change for them, just like the Hellman deal didn't change anything for them."
I have no words...
he could have said that money doesn´t make us happy
-
"Jonathan Klein: No. Nothing will change for them, just like the Hellman deal didn't change anything for them."
I have no words...
he could have said that money doesn´t make us happy
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
At risk of repeating myself (I keep posting this thought from time to time): the agencies, and their owners, would really like everything to be subscriptions, because they want to escape the commission model entirely and have the bulk of their income in the form of up-front subscription fees. Payments to contributors become totally arbitrary amounts, with apparently no floor below which they can't sink.
And more importantly - since the link between sale price and commission is removed - they can raise prices to buyers without paying more to photographers.
The fact that Getty's new owners are immediately talking about their love for ThinkStock probably says it all in terms of a future direction.
Entirely IMHO of course.
I fully agree with you. As a Getty and Istock exclusive I am much more afraid from the subscription model than any other agencies out there. I am participating to Thinkstock to test the waters and from my experiece there and the Premium Access in Getty the income I generate from those compared to the commision model is pitiful. If they are going to dedicate their resources to that model it's going to be a tough ride.
-
he could have said that money doesn´t make us happy
Ah! No change there then! ;D
-
Yep, it's pretty clear what the direction will be here. If Thinkstock is that big of a priority there almost certainly will be changes. And big ones.
It would suggest they are going to need more and better content for Thinkstock for the big international marketing push to show off. Where will this come from? Flickr? New source? Most likely it will be from IS and GI contributors being forced into making most of all portfolio images available to Thinkstock.
They probably see a goldmine in SS's subscription model and growth. With TS Getty can collect steady revenue, pay contributors a flat rate, and make a massively fat profit.
Interestingly, there didn't seem to be any mention of IS. Probably because it will finally be absorbed into Getty as a collection. Or maybe even absorbed into Thinkstock as a single purchase option. Or maybe a little of both depending on the perceived value of the image.
Interesting times are ahead.
-
I don't mind if they concentrate on Thinkstock. Shutterstock will carry on taking more of their istock pay per download buyers. I can leave istock now and it wont harm me as much as it would of a few years ago. I'll see what happens but if we're going to have more detrimental changes, it will be time to get out of there.
-
I can't believe they're using Jonathon Klein as a spokesperson, after the last time he put his foot in his mouth. I'm glad I'm not contributing there anymore, that's for sure.
-
From the newsletter:
"...this transaction won’t change anything for contributors. ... Change in ownership will have no impact on our strategy or management. "
Wur Doomed, Entombed & Marooned... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7RIgs3eygo#)
-
"Jonathan Klein: No. Nothing will change for them, just like the Hellman deal didn't change anything for them."
It is a flagrant lie and he had to say this because they simply could not tell the new owners that they had to gouge contributors in order to show growth, ARTIFICIAL GROWTH, not organic. It's just a flagrant fnk lie while he laughs in our faces and says, wait until the next cut, SUCKERS!!
-
I didn't know I could ever hate anybody or any company THIS MUCH..
Thanks for teaching it to me, H&F and getty!
-
I didn't know I could ever hate anybody or any company THIS MUCH..
Thanks for teaching it to me, H&F and getty!
If you didn't know that you could hate a company this much, you never worked in corporate America. Especially a Not-for-profit.
-
Slightly different take on the deal in yesterday's FT;
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1343682c-e6d2-11e1-965b-00144feab49a.html#axzz23hh2TMfz (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1343682c-e6d2-11e1-965b-00144feab49a.html#axzz23hh2TMfz)
Notably the FT describes it thus "... this agreement represents the latest instance of financial sponsors swapping assets with one another, rather than selling to strategic buyers or listing their portfolio companies publicly."
So apparently it's actually a 'swap' rather than a sale then?
A certain Mr Klein is quoted as saying that the business is experiencing “an explosion of demand for rich media and visual content”. Phew! Thanks Jonny __ if you said it then it must be true! I'm now sitting on my hands waiting for the imminent explosion of demand for my port on Istock.
-
Slightly different take on the deal in yesterday's FT;
[url]http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1343682c-e6d2-11e1-965b-00144feab49a.html#axzz23hh2TMfz[/url] ([url]http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1343682c-e6d2-11e1-965b-00144feab49a.html#axzz23hh2TMfz[/url])
Notably the FT describes it thus "... this agreement represents the latest instance of financial sponsors swapping assets with one another, rather than selling to strategic buyers or listing their portfolio companies publicly."
So apparently it's actually a 'swap' rather than a sale then?
A certain Mr Klein is quoted as saying that the business is experiencing “an explosion of demand for rich media and visual content”. Phew! Thanks Jonny __ if you said it then it must be true! I'm now sitting on my hands waiting for the imminent explosion of demand for my port on Istock.
Jeez! IS?, we will be waiting forever and eveeeeeeeeeer! you sure he didnt mean the real Getty? :)
-
A swap? I wonder what they swapped....
-
A swap? I wonder what they swapped....
Apparently it was Mrs Carlyle's recipe for ratatoille and a week in their Florida time-share.
-
Dang. That's where I went wrong. I only had a lasagne recipe and a Timex.
-
Interview with rep from Carlyle Group
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/15/carlyle-getty/ (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/15/carlyle-getty/)
FORTUNE: You're paying a 37.5% premium to what Hellman paid in 2008. Why is the company worth so much more today?
Merrill: Getty was then and still is a leader in its industry with a tremendous collection of assets. But the makeup of those assets has really changed over the last several years with much more digital and other product diversification. The client base also has diversified. It has evolved into a much different business than it was in 2008.
Really? My digital images from 2006 weren’t really digital? Does he mean there is more web-based usage? But how customers use the images aren’t Getty assets.
You mentioned more digital assets. How does Getty survive when anyone can just use Google to search for, and steal, digital images?
We're wise enough to the fact that there is always going to be some piracy. But the company has a very sophisticated image recognition system that helps it find when images are being used without its authority. But unlike with music, Getty is not in the business of suing those who violate. It tries to work with them to become customers.
So all those people who get the threatening letters from Getty to fork over $1,000 are not being threatened?
-
But unlike with music, Getty is not in the business of suing those who violate. It tries to work with them to become customers.
Holy crap that is such a blatant lie! Or at the very least, Carlyle really doesn't know the inner working of the company they just bought. I personally know people and companies who have gotten those extortion letters from Getty.
This company just makes my skin crawl.
I'm going to wait it out with istock until the end of the year. See what happens. If another royalty cut happens, I'm gone in a heartbeat. I suspect that we'll know before the end of the year if that's going to happen or not. Either way, unless something changes for the better (which is supremely doubtful), I'll be happy to start 2013 without istock.
-
who am i but i am pretty sure they won´t make it any lower, its low enough, like we know its the number 1 already
yes they might pull another thing, I was thinking that by this time the indies would have new uploads redirected to thinkstock if not that worth to show up at iStock
-
But unlike with music, Getty is not in the business of suing those who violate. It tries to work with them to become customers.
Holy crap that is such a blatant lie! Or at the very least, Carlyle really doesn't know the inner working of the company they just bought. I personally know people and companies who have gotten those extortion letters from Getty.
This company just makes my skin crawl.
I'm going to wait it out with istock until the end of the year. See what happens. If another royalty cut happens, I'm gone in a heartbeat. I suspect that we'll know before the end of the year if that's going to happen or not. Either way, unless something changes for the better (which is supremely doubtful), I'll be happy to start 2013 without istock.
Well Mike, try and diversify your port a bit and you might have better luck, just a bit of an advice! apart from that its good. :)
-
But unlike with music, Getty is not in the business of suing those who violate. It tries to work with them to become customers.
Holy crap that is such a blatant lie! Or at the very least, Carlyle really doesn't know the inner working of the company they just bought. I personally know people and companies who have gotten those extortion letters from Getty.
Getty sued someone you know who had licensed the file legally and used it correctly? Or did they just send a letter?
-
Getty sued someone you know who had licensed the file legally and used it correctly? Or did they just send a letter?
Just sent the letter. I think he got it sorted out. But the letter was worded in a way that they were accusing him of infringement. Something to the effect of "pay x amount or we'll sue" sort of thing.
-
Well Mike, try and diversify your port a bit and you might have better luck, just a bit of an advice! apart from that its good. :)
I don't think my portfolio is the problem. I do fine at the 19 other agencies I sell images with. I used to pull $2k per month from istock. Now I'll be lucky if I hit $150 for the month. Meanwhile I'm having BMEs at other top agencies.
I wish it was as simple as diversification, but sadly, it's not.
-
Getty sued someone you know who had licensed the file legally and used it correctly? Or did they just send a letter?
Just sent the letter. I think he got it sorted out. But the letter was worded in a way that they were accusing him of infringement. Something to the effect of "pay x amount or we'll sue" sort of thing.
So then what you are saying is that Getty did not sue? But at same the same time you're using that as evidence that Getty is in the business of suing and saying otherwise is "a blatant lie"?
-
So then what you are saying is that Getty did not sue? But at same the same time you're using that as evidence that Getty is in the business of suing and saying otherwise is "a blatant lie"?
From the letters I've seen posted, Getty is threatening to sue. Either they intend to follow through and sue, or they are "blatantly lying" in their letters by threatening to do so. Personally, if I got a letter from a company as well financed as Getty that was threatening to sue me, I would assume they mean what they say.
ETA: But then, perhaps their threats to sue are as empty as their assurances to contributors that "nothing will change". If so, then maybe they shouldn't be taken seriously after all. :P
-
who am i but i am pretty sure they won´t make it any lower, its low enough, like we know its the number 1 already
yes they might pull another thing, I was thinking that by this time the indies would have new uploads redirected to thinkstock if not that worth to show up at iStock
It wouldn't make any sense for them to cut commissions again, lots of us are on the brink of leaving, so I'm expecting them to do it :) They've made so many bad decisions in the past few years, why would they stop now? They've said nothing is going to change, so I presume lowering the contributors commissions as much as possible is still a priority.
-
Well Mike, try and diversify your port a bit and you might have better luck, just a bit of an advice! apart from that its good. :)
I don't think my portfolio is the problem. I do fine at the 19 other agencies I sell images with. I used to pull $2k per month from istock. Now I'll be lucky if I hit $150 for the month. Meanwhile I'm having BMEs at other top agencies.
I wish it was as simple as diversification, but sadly, it's not.
Don't worry about the reeky one. When his sales are, going badly the sites are, STUPID. When! anyone else's sales are going, badly it's their own fault.
-
Well Mike, try and diversify your port a bit and you might have better luck, just a bit of an advice! apart from that its good. :)
I don't think my portfolio is the problem. I do fine at the 19 other agencies I sell images with. I used to pull $2k per month from istock. Now I'll be lucky if I hit $150 for the month. Meanwhile I'm having BMEs at other top agencies.
I wish it was as simple as diversification, but sadly, it's not.
Don't worry about the reeky one. When his sales are, going badly the sites are, STUPID. When! anyone else's sales are going, badly it's their own fault.
;D
-
Getty sued someone you know who had licensed the file legally and used it correctly? Or did they just send a letter?
Just sent the letter. I think he got it sorted out. But the letter was worded in a way that they were accusing him of infringement. Something to the effect of "pay x amount or we'll sue" sort of thing.
If it was a mistake, it was a mistake. People do them sometimes. But the general policy of defending artist's IP is one of the best things that Getty does. I support them 100% in that aspect.
-
If it was a mistake, it was a mistake. People do them sometimes. But the general policy of defending artist's IP is one of the best things that Getty does. I support them 100% in that aspect.
Are they still doing this aggressively for Istock exclusives?
-
If it was a mistake, it was a mistake. People do them sometimes. But the general policy of defending artist's IP is one of the best things that Getty does. I support them 100% in that aspect.
Are they still doing this aggressively for Istock exclusives?
As far as I know, for istock they send cease and desist letters. I've had several photos deleted from infringing sites after having written to c.e. at istock.
-
For what I read, iStock will still be run by Klein's team. The impact of Carlyle deal remains to be seen.
-
Don't worry about the reeky one. When his sales are, going badly the sites are, STUPID. When! anyone else's sales are going, badly it's their own fault.
LOL. I actually think both are true. The agencies are stupid because they could be earning more with better terms/prices and happier contributors. And, we are stupid for letting them get away with not doing it. I look at my numbers each month, and think that there is no real reason why I shouldn't be earning twice as much as I am. Move a few percentage points and some prices, and it wouldn't take much (even at half sales).
-
So then what you are saying is that Getty did not sue? But at same the same time you're using that as evidence that Getty is in the business of suing and saying otherwise is "a blatant lie"?
From the letters I've seen posted, Getty is threatening to sue. Either they intend to follow through and sue, or they are "blatantly lying" in their letters by threatening to do so. Personally, if I got a letter from a company as well financed as Getty that was threatening to sue me, I would assume they mean what they say.
ETA: But then, perhaps their threats to sue are as empty as their assurances to contributors that "nothing will change". If so, then maybe they shouldn't be taken seriously after all. :P
------------
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/ (http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/)
http://www.seotrainingsw.com/2011/09/getty-images-demand-letter/ (http://www.seotrainingsw.com/2011/09/getty-images-demand-letter/)
http://womeninbusiness.about.com/b/2011/08/23/getty-image-settlement-demand-letter-scam-or-for-real.htm (http://womeninbusiness.about.com/b/2011/08/23/getty-image-settlement-demand-letter-scam-or-for-real.htm)
Not defending infringers, just posting this to show that Getty does do exactly what the music industry does to infringers. Not necessarily a bad thing by the way, but inconsistent with what the Carlyle guy was saying.
Note that these are the first three hits in the Google search which returned 8.5 million results to “letter from Getty images”.
-
LOL. I actually think both are true. The agencies are stupid because they could be earning more with better terms/prices and happier contributors. And, we are stupid for letting them get away with not doing it. I look at my numbers each month, and think that there is no real reason why I shouldn't be earning twice as much as I am. Move a few percentage points and some prices, and it wouldn't take much (even at half sales).
So true! And very diplomatically put too :D
-
So then what you are saying is that Getty did not sue? But at same the same time you're using that as evidence that Getty is in the business of suing and saying otherwise is "a blatant lie"?
From the letters I've seen posted, Getty is threatening to sue. Either they intend to follow through and sue, or they are "blatantly lying" in their letters by threatening to do so. Personally, if I got a letter from a company as well financed as Getty that was threatening to sue me, I would assume they mean what they say.
ETA: But then, perhaps their threats to sue are as empty as their assurances to contributors that "nothing will change". If so, then maybe they shouldn't be taken seriously after all. :P
------------
[url]http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/[/url] ([url]http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/[/url])
[url]http://www.seotrainingsw.com/2011/09/getty-images-demand-letter/[/url] ([url]http://www.seotrainingsw.com/2011/09/getty-images-demand-letter/[/url])
[url]http://womeninbusiness.about.com/b/2011/08/23/getty-image-settlement-demand-letter-scam-or-for-real.htm[/url] ([url]http://womeninbusiness.about.com/b/2011/08/23/getty-image-settlement-demand-letter-scam-or-for-real.htm[/url])
Not defending infringers, just posting this to show that Getty does do exactly what the music industry does to infringers. Not necessarily a bad thing by the way, but inconsistent with what the Carlyle guy was saying.
Note that these are the first three hits in the Google search which returned 8.5 million results to “letter from Getty images”.
Didn't Johnathan Klein say in a recent interview that was linked here that they don't go after certain users as they hope to gain them as buyers later? E.g. educational use? But I've read (with no evidence, I suppose, so hearsay) that they have gone after kids for infringement.
I wonder what they do if a legitimate buyer for web use encourages its buyers to 'pin' their pages, including licensed images.
-
So then what you are saying is that Getty did not sue? But at same the same time you're using that as evidence that Getty is in the business of suing and saying otherwise is "a blatant lie"?
The letters are threats of lawsuits and demands of monetary settlement. If you want to nit-pick the details, then no, they don't sue everyone. Factually, they threaten everyone with lawsuits, then expect people to either pay the sum given in their extortion letter or go to court. Either way it's still a lie. Getty takes legal action against any suspected infringement, either in the form of a demand for settlement or in a lawsuit.
Nice way to convert people to customers.
-
Well Mike, try and diversify your port a bit and you might have better luck, just a bit of an advice! apart from that its good. :)
I don't think my portfolio is the problem. I do fine at the 19 other agencies I sell images with. I used to pull $2k per month from istock. Now I'll be lucky if I hit $150 for the month. Meanwhile I'm having BMEs at other top agencies.
I wish it was as simple as diversification, but sadly, it's not.
Same story here, I used to pull a bit more from IS then you but Im down to a pittyfull amount in comparing. Ive given up on IS though, no diversity in the world would help there as long as independant, etc.
Further more, they really dont care, since Getty took over completely, theyre all on a monthly wage, bad days or good days, they still get the same payout. They couldnt give a s##t.
-
Well Mike, try and diversify your port a bit and you might have better luck, just a bit of an advice! apart from that its good. :)
I don't think my portfolio is the problem. I do fine at the 19 other agencies I sell images with. I used to pull $2k per month from istock. Now I'll be lucky if I hit $150 for the month. Meanwhile I'm having BMEs at other top agencies.
I wish it was as simple as diversification, but sadly, it's not.
Same story here, I used to pull a bit more from IS then you but Im down to a pittyfull amount in comparing. Ive given up on IS though, no diversity in the world would help there as long as independant, etc.
Further more, they really dont care, since Getty took over completely, theyre all on a monthly wage, bad days or good days, they still get the same payout. They couldnt give a s##t.
Christian, hope you're having a nice summer! However, you're making me a bit confused - I read yesterday that you were just about to pull the trigger on going exclusive with iStock and this morning you sum them up as crap more or less and that you have given up on them - what happened in less than 24 hrs?
-
Christian, hope you're having a nice summer! However, you're making me a bit confused - I read yesterday that you were just about to pull the trigger on going exclusive with iStock and this morning you sum them up as crap more or less and that you have given up on them - what happened in less than 24 hrs?
Another few bottles of single malt ?
-
Christian, hope you're having a nice summer! However, you're making me a bit confused - I read yesterday that you were just about to pull the trigger on going exclusive with iStock and this morning you sum them up as crap more or less and that you have given up on them - what happened in less than 24 hrs?
Another few bottles of single malt ?
Yeah I wish! :D
-
Christian, hope you're having a nice summer! However, you're making me a bit confused - I read yesterday that you were just about to pull the trigger on going exclusive with iStock and this morning you sum them up as crap more or less and that you have given up on them - what happened in less than 24 hrs?
Another few bottles of single malt ?
Yeah I wish! :D
Several dozen cans of lager would have the same effect, though the reek would certainly be different.
-
Christian, hope you're having a nice summer! However, you're making me a bit confused - I read yesterday that you were just about to pull the trigger on going exclusive with iStock and this morning you sum them up as crap more or less and that you have given up on them - what happened in less than 24 hrs?
Another few bottles of single malt ?
Yeah I wish! :D
Several dozen cans of lager would have the same effect, though the reek would certainly be different.
Scotish Highland water! ;D
-
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-23/gettys-pics-worth-1-000-words-and-3-dot-3-billion (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-23/gettys-pics-worth-1-000-words-and-3-dot-3-billion)
Several mentions of "amateurs", no mention of being mortgaged but they do note that photographers are being squeezed.