The IPO thing is an interesting theory  but it could also be that Getty, as a whole, is just making less money. Way less money. I doubt they could sell the business for anything close to what was paid for it. It could be just their way of trying to maintain an money stream by taking it from their contributors, the ones least likely to effect their business. We'll know fairly soon if it is IPO.

I don't know what insults me more, the veiled attempt to hide what is an obvious commission cut or this statement:

''With that overriding objective, we wanted to produce a solution that:
- would not change most contributors' total compensation (except for the better)
- adjusts the model to better reward contributors of premium content"

Either the person who wrote that is incredibly naive or they're hoping that everyone who reads it is.

I'm guessing this will change over 95% of contributors commissions for the worse, and that not one single "premium content" contributor will be better rewarded.

I can see two explanations for this remark.  The first is that it's an outright lie and they think we're either stupid or sheep.  Or possibly both.

Okay, let's move on to the second explanation, that they really believe that total compensation for the majority of contributors won't go down.  Since it's clear that most contributor's royalty percentages will drop, that suggests they're planning to increase prices.  If they raise them enough, most contributors will earn a smaller percentage of a larger amount and will at least break even.  Of course, raising prices will likely decrease sales, so they have to find the sweet spot before they hit a point of diminishing returns.  The result is that Getty makes a lot more money, most contributors don't lose anything (except their anal virginity), and a few even make a little more.  But if they've calculated wrong, well, they may make a lot more but everybody else loses.

All of this reminds me of why I love Shutterstock. 

All of this reminds me of why I love Shutterstock. 

Don't kid yourself. You'll eventually need vaseline over there too.

Quote from: dehooks on September 07, 2010, 19:38

All of this reminds me of why I love Shutterstock. 

Don't kid yourself. You'll eventually need vaseline over there too.

Well, they don't have a track record of screwing over contributors.  They keep it simple.  In the 4 1/2 years I've been there, there has never been a decrease in contributor's share.  There have been increases though.  I like it.  You could be right.  I don't know.  I just know about my past experience and it's been good. 

Quote from: Zeus on September 07, 2010, 19:14

The IPO thing is an interesting theory  but it could also be that Getty, as a whole, is just making less money. Way less money. I doubt they could sell the business for anything close to what was paid for it. It could be just their way of trying to maintain an money stream by taking it from their contributors, the ones least likely to effect their business. We'll know fairly soon if it is IPO.

People, there's NO IPO coming soon.  If there is, its silly.  There's no money in the capital markets for anything at the moment, so an IPO will be a long ways away and will happen when they can get premium dollar - not for iStock, but for Getty as a whole.  iStock without Getty and vice versa isn't going to work

I think they are trying to drive off non-exclusives and keep exclusives (not sure how) and I'm borderline for a pay raise.  This isn't over yet, and its going to be interesting.  Yay for industry shakeup?

When i brought up IPO, I meant Getty. They are currently owned by a private equity firm, and I think they can see the writing on the wall. The best move it can make is to squeeze profits for 6 months and make the earnings grow ( at the price of destroying the franchise). Microstock is the only growth in the whole space, and the value will never be better than now.
As for no money in the capital markets, it's quite the opposite- corporations have never had more money on the balance sheet than right now. Investors are getting 1% on treasuries. I think there will be a ton of deals getting done soon.

 
1. They are now fat with content and its time  to grab as much cash as they can.
2. Buyers will know what's going on and they do care about the people who make the images rather than a website.
3. A new stock site will rise quickly with great stuff, the'll pay the talent fairly and justly and  buyers will flock to it.
4. Buyers will always follow the talents not greedy websites.  

You'all CHEER UP

and BYEstock !

All of this reminds me of why I love Shutterstock. 

All this reminds me of why I have always loved Dreamstime too. Achilles makes a conscious effort to create a level playing field for contributors new and old, the opposite of what IS has always done.

this has made a pretty good ripple in the pond, Got this on my FB page today

Fotolia ‎@sjlocke Our Non-Exclusives start at 25% with no reset. Just saying... microstock istockphoto istock

Quote from: jbarber873 on September 07, 2010, 20:00

Quote from: ichiro17 on September 07, 2010, 19:44

Quote from: Zeus on September 07, 2010, 19:14

The IPO thing is an interesting theory  but it could also be that Getty, as a whole, is just making less money. Way less money. I doubt they could sell the business for anything close to what was paid for it. It could be just their way of trying to maintain an money stream by taking it from their contributors, the ones least likely to effect their business. We'll know fairly soon if it is IPO.

People, there's NO IPO coming soon.  If there is, its silly.  There's no money in the capital markets for anything at the moment, so an IPO will be a long ways away and will happen when they can get premium dollar - not for iStock, but for Getty as a whole.  iStock without Getty and vice versa isn't going to work

I think they are trying to drive off non-exclusives and keep exclusives (not sure how) and I'm borderline for a pay raise.  This isn't over yet, and its going to be interesting.  Yay for industry shakeup?

When i brought up IPO, I meant Getty. They are currently owned by a private equity firm, and I think they can see the writing on the wall. The best move it can make is to squeeze profits for 6 months and make the earnings grow ( at the price of destroying the franchise). Microstock is the only growth in the whole space, and the value will never be better than now.
As for no money in the capital markets, it's quite the opposite- corporations have never had more money on the balance sheet than right now. Investors are getting 1% on treasuries. I think there will be a ton of deals getting done soon.

Corporations don't buy stock, they are holding it for acquisitions.  That has nothing to do with IPOs.

The number of investment firms looking at stuff like this in a time of uncertainty is small - hence the few IPOs and startiving investment bankers.  Just saying, you can make it look pretty but no one has to buy you a drink just because you may look nice

But they always DO buy me drinks!
As for the IPO, we'll see.

Forgive this question which not many people will care about, but as an exclusive with the smallest portfolio around, what happens to exclusives with less than 2,000 credits?

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=861

@adijr - the lowest commission for exclusives stays at 25%

Thanks alot for the answer! are you guessing this from what you've read, or did you see this somewhere specific? I'd like to give it a read and re-consider this whole exclusivity thing.

Thanks again!

0.76$ for my lowest

I get 0.19$ as my lowest XXXXXXS   - Half of SS.