Author Topic: How Are Your iStock Sales? (Read 16851 times)

bunhill · « **Reply #25 on:** February 26, 2015, 07:23 »

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on February 26, 2015, 07:00

The problem with Getty is a shortage of ready cash (liquidity) so the answer is hang on to the cash for as long as possible.

Let's go back to the water through pipe flow analogy. The same amount is still coming out of the end. So it makes no difference.

But go ahead and vote me down again.

(I'm no fan of the way they have done things - but conspiracy theories don't get us anywhere)

dpimborough · « **Reply #26 on:** February 26, 2015, 07:28 »

And I bet that Getty et al only declare a liability on contributor earnings when the payouts become due.

So if a contributor has not reached a payout threshold then they would not declare it a liability.

Hanging on the cash also fulfills one of the simple liquidity tests

"The liquidity ratios are a result of dividing cash and other liquid assets by the short term borrowings and current liabilities. They show the number of times the short term debt obligations are covered by the cash and liquid assets. If the value is greater than 1, it means the short term obligations are fully covered."

Which would make the company appear healthy financially.

Or put another way

If all your customers get 30 day payment terms and you pay all your suppliers on 7 day payment terms then you would constantly run out of cash (negative cash flow).

Which then require you to borrow usually at high interest rates (simple example an overdraft).

Other assets such as property can not be readily converted (at least not quickly) and as a result the company would constantly find itself with out ready cash to pay salaries, utilities, rent and so on as well as the burden of financing short term borrowing.

dpimborough · « **Reply #27 on:** February 26, 2015, 07:28 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 26, 2015, 07:23

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on February 26, 2015, 07:00
The problem with Getty is a shortage of ready cash (liquidity) so the answer is hang on to the cash for as long as possible.

Let's go back to the water through pipe flow analogy. The same amount is still coming out of the end. So it makes no difference.

But go ahead and vote me down again.

(I'm no fan of the way they have done things - but conspiracy theories don't get us anywhere)

Didn't vote you down

And it's not a conspiracy theory it's just company accounting that's all.

The articles say all they need to say about the state of Getty finances.

As to your hose pipe analogy well yes that would work but only if finances were steady state i.e. you sell $1million per month and your payouts are $200,000 per month.

However sales peak and trough through the year so in high months you will get a lot of payout requests from contributors but then you may have to wait two or even three months for customers to pay their bills (and you can bet Getty corporate clients squeeze as much out of Getty for credit terms).

It's more akin to a rubber band being stretched and pulled.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #28 on:** February 26, 2015, 07:29 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 26, 2015, 07:23

But go ahead and vote me down again.

You are not being voted down, people just agree or disagree

Mantis · « **Reply #29 on:** February 26, 2015, 09:02 »

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on February 26, 2015, 06:18

So that explains iStock increasing it's payout schedules to once a month and paying on the 25th of the following month in a bid to hang on to cash flow.

Contributors will continue to get screw-d

I was wondering how to word this but you did a fine job.

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #30 on:** February 26, 2015, 09:34 »

My earnings have actually stabilised for the first time in a couple of years, so maybe they have hit bottom and are now causing along.

redo · « **Reply #31 on:** February 26, 2015, 09:51 »

In dollars Q3 2014 was down 50% compared to Q3 2013 for me.
RPD Q3 2014 was down 75% compared to Q3 2013 for me.

In dollars Q3 2014 was down more than 80% compared to Q3 2009 for me.
RPD Q3 2014 was also down more than 80% compared to Q3 2009 for me.

But I don't upload new pics.
In 2009 istock-income was enough for my monthly fixed costs.

jjneff · « **Reply #32 on:** February 26, 2015, 09:58 »

Sales are stable for me with an increase in RPD for video. I like the changes iStock is making and hope for the best. My image sales are up and so is my sub sales on iStock

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #33 on:** February 26, 2015, 10:04 »

@hatman - good analysis, welcome back

cobalt · « **Reply #34 on:** February 26, 2015, 10:22 »

Yes, welcome back David, it is great to see you here.

i agree, I think the opportunities for non exclusives are now better than for exclusives, because you have the option to play all fields and give exclusive series to specialized agencies if you want to.

And yes, it is possible they will prefer indie content because it is cheaper, it would make sense financially.

However I would be interested in data on getty macro, I could imagine that all marketing efforts will be directed to their prime collections and getty itself at the expense of istock and thinkstock. I also wonder when they will close thinkstock. This would then be good for the exclusives, if all the thinkstock customers came to istock.

bunhill · « **Reply #35 on:** February 26, 2015, 10:55 »

Quote from: cobalt on February 26, 2015, 10:22

I could imagine that all marketing efforts will be directed to their prime collections and getty itself at the expense of istock and thinkstock.

Not if they are moving towards taking the company public. Which must surely be on the cards. Investors today like subscription models.

Nikovsk · « **Reply #36 on:** February 26, 2015, 11:03 »

How are my sales? Who knows until PP comes next month...

When are we getting payed, wasn't it supposed to be on the 25th?

cobalt · « **Reply #37 on:** February 26, 2015, 11:09 »

I sincerly doubt they could float getty with their history. Wallstreet needs a success story, this isn´t one. And their competitors are showing the world every day how to create growth.

No, another investor is more likely. If that doesn´t work, it will be split and sold in pieces, probably to the competition.

bunhill · « **Reply #38 on:** February 26, 2015, 11:52 »

Quote from: cobalt on February 26, 2015, 11:09

I sincerly doubt they could float getty with their history. Wallstreet needs a success story, this isn´t one. And their competitors are showing the world every day how to create growth.

No, another investor is more likely. If that doesn´t work, it will be split and sold in pieces, probably to the competition.

I firmly believe that everything indicates that they are positioning for an IPO exit. Hence the emphasis on subscription even probably at the expense of short term revenue.

Get everything working, cut costs and then slash subscription prices for growth is my bet. And don't forget that they have very significant revenue.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #39 on:** February 26, 2015, 12:33 »

There is a fundamental difference between subscriptions to software or services - things that you cannot easily switch because of workflows, tools, plugins, addons, etc. - and stock image subscriptions which you can switch any time because the images are fundamentally the same across the board.

Investors like the notion of revenues that are consistent over time and locking in customers to that company's product - that's why Wall St. has been happy with Adobe's CC changes. Getty/iStock subscriptions can be dumped any time the current term runs out with no costs of switching or any hassle to the customer.

Without some success story Getty can spin - and I don't see anything anywhere in their latest financials that looks even vaguely like success - all they have is assets (mostly in archive content they either own or have exclusive rights to for a while). I can't see any hope of an IPO.

Digital66 · « **Reply #40 on:** February 26, 2015, 13:02 »

Quote from: Nikovsk on February 26, 2015, 11:03

How are my sales? Who knows until PP comes next month...

Subscription sales volume is too low to make a real difference to the whole month. I would need a huge number of subscription sales to earn what I used to just a year ago.

ShadySue · « **Reply #41 on:** February 26, 2015, 13:20 »

Quote from: Nikovsk on February 26, 2015, 11:03

How are my sales? Who knows until PP comes next month...

You know how you did in January, and you know how credit sales are doing in February.

Quote

When are we getting payed, wasn't it supposed to be on the 25th?

Today, tomorrow, sometime ...
I was lucky and got mine within iStock's 25th Feb, if not mine.
But there are plenty of reports of people still waiting.
Don't worry, they're "incredibly embarrassed" (which doesn't pay the bills).
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=364059&messageid=7086455
I wonder if they had the people who caused the problem working serious overtime to resolve this and pay when they promised to (remembering they had three weeks to process payments), or whether they just closed at or near normal time and said "mañana".

PixelBytes · « **Reply #42 on:** February 26, 2015, 13:28 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 26, 2015, 13:20

Quote from: Nikovsk on February 26, 2015, 11:03
How are my sales? Who knows until PP comes next month...

You know how you did in January, and you know how credit sales are doing in February.

Quote
When are we getting payed, wasn't it supposed to be on the 25th?

Today, tomorrow, sometime ...
I was lucky and got mine within iStock's 25th Feb, if not mine.
But there are plenty of reports of people still waiting.
Don't worry, they're "incredibly embarrassed" (which doesn't pay the bills).
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=364059&messageid=7086455
I wonder if they had the people who caused the problem working serious overtime to resolve this and pay when they promised to (remembering they had three weeks to process payments), or whether they just closed at or near normal time and said "mañana".

Some have not yet been paid!? I guess I will count myself lucky to get my pitiful couple hundred $ on the 25th!

bunhill · « **Reply #43 on:** February 26, 2015, 13:37 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 26, 2015, 12:33

I can't see any hope of an IPO ...

... where as I can see no other reason for all of the changes over the past 2-3 years. To me, the whole strategy seems to point in that direction. Also - I cannot imagine what other outcome they would want. Though before they get there I would expect further significant changes. And I would expect them to get very aggressive about pricing sooner or later too.

It will be exciting and interesting to see which of us is right. They have good revenues and strong brand. And they are clearly half way through transforming it into a completely different business.

Freedom · « **Reply #44 on:** February 26, 2015, 14:35 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 26, 2015, 13:37

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 26, 2015, 12:33
I can't see any hope of an IPO ...

... where as I can see no other reason for all of the changes over the past 2-3 years. To me, the whole strategy seems to point in that direction. Also - I cannot imagine what other outcome they would want. Though before they get there I would expect further significant changes. And I would expect them to get very aggressive about pricing sooner or later too.

It will be exciting and interesting to see which of us is right. They have good revenues and strong brand. And they are clearly half way through transforming it into a completely different business.

As an exclusive, I wish I could share your optimism and enthusiasm. The fact is that Getty has substantially eroded their core support from buyers and suppliers esp. exclusives in the past few years by introducing constant changes detrimental to us. It seems no promised can be kept for long, and no strategic move has been proven successful.

IMHO, they need stability and build up good-will. If they continue to act recklessly, a strong brand cannot save its demise. I don't wish to see this, because it's not in my interest.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #45 on:** February 26, 2015, 14:50 »

Quote from: Freedom on February 26, 2015, 14:35

...IMHO, they need stability and build up good-will. If they continue to act recklessly, a strong brand cannot save its demise. I don't wish to see this, because it's not in my interest.

I wouldn't have left exclusivity but for the start of the cascade of bad things brought about by Hellman & Friedman turning the screws on Getty who in turn started down the long road that's led them to here.

My best guess as to what they will end up doing is the various pieces of the company will be split up and sold for whatever they can get. Sadly, I think the part of the Getty business that's been hurt the worst by all of this is iStock, and I can't imagine who'd want to buy it given its damaged state.

Site performance generally stinks, the CV is a boat anchor around the collection's neck, the collection has been polluted by masses of dreck at high prices, many long time buyers are P.O.'d at the recent (Sept '14) changes. I can't imagine the software running the site is much of an asset (given how things regularly break every time a change is introduced).

The site's name is worth something, and if a reputable outfit purchased it, dumped the Getty hand-me-downs, fixed up the site and came up with sane pricing and decent royalties for independents, I think they could turn things around. I'd contribute again as long as Getty had nothing whatever to do with the management of the site and it wasn't a private equity firm that bought it. The buyer would have to really want to make a go of the project long term - it wouldn't be a quick fixer upper and another sale.

hatman12 · « **Reply #46 on:** February 26, 2015, 15:33 »

Forget the stuff about selling iStock as an IPO. More and more of iStock's core services have been integrated into Getty, including now the monthly payments to suppliers. Istock's catalog is awash with Getty assets, duplicated at Thinkstock, and with millions of assets for sale at Getty's main site. You can't sell a business that is an integrated part of the parent.

Getty clearly has to find some assets to sell. But does it actually own anything that is saleable?

No - the most likely outlook is to continue to cut costs and reduce payments to suppliers. Istock has been reregistered as a US business, more and more of it's functions have been transferred to Getty, and everything points to shutting down Calgary this year or next. That isn't a business that can be sold. And who would want to buy it with revenues falling 17% in the last quarter? Investors want to buy growth opportunities, not flagging businesses.

bunhill · « **Reply #47 on:** February 26, 2015, 15:42 »

Quote from: Freedom on February 26, 2015, 14:35

As an exclusive, I wish I could share your optimism and enthusiasm.

From a contributor perspective I am not expressing either optimism or enthusiasm. My interest and enthusiasm relates to story itself.

Quote from: Freedom on February 26, 2015, 14:35

IMHO, they need stability etc

I do not believe that there can be any stability in this market until after this inevitable evolution from primarily selling pictures to primarily selling services.

We need to keep remembering that they have at various stages talked about being prepared to cannibalize their own business. And they have previously been good at knowing where the market is going and focusing on that.

Quote from: hatman12 on February 26, 2015, 15:33

Forget the stuff about selling iStock as an IPO.

The whole of Getty. Not iStock.

KB · « **Reply #48 on:** February 26, 2015, 22:27 »

Quote from: hatman12 on February 26, 2015, 15:33

No - the most likely outlook is to continue to cut costs

So their next bright idea will be to reduce payments to "suppliers"?

That probably means 15% indies / 25% exclusives (or worse). That'd definitely be the last straw on the camel's back.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #49 on:** February 27, 2015, 01:38 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 26, 2015, 07:23

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on February 26, 2015, 07:00
The problem with Getty is a shortage of ready cash (liquidity) so the answer is hang on to the cash for as long as possible.

Let's go back to the water through pipe flow analogy. The same amount is still coming out of the end. So it makes no difference.

But it's a longer pipe, so it's holding more water and coming out in a different place. That's increased the amount of liquid-ity. The length of the pipe is equivalent to time in this equation.

You only benefit once from extending the pipe. But it does mean an insolvent company could continue trading for longer (not that I'm saying iStock is about to go bust).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How Are Your iStock Sales? (Read 16851 times)

bunhill

dpimborough

dpimborough

Semmick Photo

Mantis

stock-will-eat-itself

redo

jjneff

PaulieWalnuts

cobalt

bunhill

Nikovsk

cobalt

bunhill

Jo Ann Snover

Digital66

ShadySue

PixelBytes

bunhill

Freedom

Jo Ann Snover

hatman12

bunhill

KB

BaldricksTrousers

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors