I watch my monitor and I cry� 

But it does not help�

___
You know about the story of "all the eggs in the same basket"?
Well I don't do that, I have many baskets with many eggs, so if I lose one it will not be a big loss

I am seeing a lot of negative feelings/predictions/expectations for the future of iStock and this is from people that seem to have notable income from from them. My question is, what is 'Plan B' for you? Selling on your own? Run to other microstock providers? Give up?

-gl

If you are exclusive, run to other agencies, give up exclusivity. If you are not exclusive, just don't visit Istock, don't look the stats, cause that just ruins your day. Be active on agencies that make money for you, like SS.

Getty has a revenue of around 800 million dollars a year. This includes everything, their microstock business, their macro business, their news business, rf and rm.

They also have around 2 billion dollars in debt, which they accumulated through being sold several times and owners paying themselves generous bonusses on a falling business or by letting the company finance it's own sale by taking on more debt.

And they still haven't reached their final destination because they are currently owned by a hedge fund who will be selling them again as well.

The Carlyle group keeps posting statements on how the getty business is doing so that investors can evaluate the risk of the Getty loans. You can find it all on the internet.

It would be great if new managers come in with really good ideas to grow the business again. Because Getty still has an excellent group of artists. I do believe it is possible to revive the business.

But as long as they keep demoralizing them, especially the exclusives, how will they turn their ship around?

At least today is 100% royalty day. I hope it brings the exclusives more income and istock a few new customers. But it is a drop of water after years of drought.

Getty has a revenue of around 800 million dollars a year. This includes everything, their microstock business, their macro business, their news business, rf and rm.

They also have around 2 billion dollars in debt, which they accumulated through being sold several times and owners paying themselves generous bonusses on a falling business or by letting the company finance it's own sale by taking on more debt.

2 billion in debt means they have to squeeze the goose without killing it.

Even worse than I remember. link to data from moodys

https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298

How could they ever pay this back?

It doesn't matter if they can't pay it back.  Look at the US National Debt - will they ever pay that back?  What matters is whether they can service the loan interest payments and remain net profitable.  One of the loans has a 7% coupon, so if we assume they are all at 7% the annual interest burden is about $182 million.  If I recall correctly the last time I saw any 'profit' numbers from Getty they were in the $300 million area (which is very high on a gross turnover of circa $800 million).  Anyway, you can see why Moodys downgraded the debt - annual interest of $182 million from profit of $300 million is more than 50%.  These numbers are just my guesses of course.

The real problem from the downgrade is that the debt can't be refinanced at the same rate.  It might have to be refinanced at junk rates of perhaps 8% or 9%.  Who knows?  And then the interest payments are higher and soak up a very high percentage of profit.

Still, as I said above, the major loan doesn't mature for another five years, and a lot can happen during that time.

Shutterstock was recently valued by the market at $3 billion or so.  That's a very high valuation of roughly 80PE, reflecting huge growth expectations.

The recent moves by Getty, notably introducing subs at iStock, seem intended on eventually convincing the markets that it, too, should command a very high rating.  Then, Carlyle can float the thing off, make a profit, and Getty repays its debts, leaving it clean again.  The 'embedding' program, pinterest links, subs etc, are all intended to change the perception of Getty from a utility supplier to a technology based growth business.  That way it will get double the valuation.

I see the strategy and agree its the right thing to do.

If you do a search at Getty you'll now see banners all over the place advertising subs at istock.  That's a big change from before and underlines Getty's determination to make istock subs a success.  Then they'll say to the market "hey - we're the same as Shutterstock, and we're worth high multiples too".

It would be nice if iStock fixed its search and all the other bugs, and actually invested enough money to make this strategy work.  Perhaps that's part of the plan and we'll see improvements in those areas soon.

I don't think about iStock anymore I think about Thinkstock - As an indie the PP accounts for 60-70% of my earnings there which means iStock is not much more than an uploading portal.

Initially Getty created Thinkstock as subs site to compete with SS, but it looks like Thinkstock failed to do it.
With the introduction of subs at iStock I guess they will soon close the Thinkstock
and move the subs business back to iStock.

Quote from: Red Dove on May 15, 2014, 04:28

I don't think about iStock anymore I think about Thinkstock - As an indie the PP accounts for 60-70% of my earnings there which means iStock is not much more than an uploading portal.

Initially Getty created Thinkstock as subs site to compete with SS, but it looks like Thinkstock failed to do it.
With the introduction of subs at iStock I guess they will soon close the Thinkstock
and move the subs business back to iStock.

Very possible. Although sometimes its safer to leave well alone. When buyers get disturbed and moved around some of them start to look around

Well, this is what I don�t understand: they had a subscription site, but where not able to make the slightest dent into Shutterstock�s progress. So why would it be different if they offer subs from istock?

Either you know how to grow a business or you don�t.

So to me it looks like the main goal really is to just create the illusion of being a similar tech story like Shutterstock, in the hope the wallstreet people are so naive to believe it and buy them free when they get floated on the stock market.

And of course introducing subs at istock will create fantastic subs growth rates on paper...as long as nobody asks how many are customers moving back from Thinkstock. So by just shifting their own customers from Thinkstock and Getty to the istock subs program they can create a huge "growth story" on paper.

Even worse than I remember. link to data from moodys

https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298

How could they ever pay this back?

Who, the new owners of the debt, because Getty sold their company to a wealth fund, who sold Getty to another wealth fund.   I don't guess they 2nd buyers of the declining Getty did their homework.  I could have told them for a fee, say $100 million and saved their behinds. 

I knew it was going badly for Getty was they were pumping up its business through squeezing out every dollar from Istock.  So now what?
If I wasn't heading towards 6 figures with IStock , until they began fleecing the photographers and buyers,  I would laugh.  But now the market is saturated and people are fighting for crumbs.  Subscription won't save there past screw ups.  The 2nd buyers bought a clunker.

Their stupid front page "support our exclusive photographers" is repulsive.   The 100% royalty day just rubs in how much money most photographers have lost.  But I know where the money went.  It's in the debt of Getty and the pockets of original owners and the next sellers. 

"you got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them"

My sales are going down month after month. I got more downloads five years ago with a much smaller portfolio...
I'll probably be forced to go independent in 4-5 months.