Quote from: jsnover on September 28, 2010, 11:56

I want iStock to succeed long term too. In addition to liking it as a business partner (in the past), the recent GD survey confirmed their market leadership position.

Absolutely. I wish iStock only success.

Though I, like many exclusives, am frustrated and disappointed by recent developments and changes, I would like nothing more than to be won back over and return to an exclusive contract at some point down the line - when/if I can be (more) sure that it is the most beneficial business move for me/my work.

It is for that reason that I intend to leave my portfolio on iStock as I build up new ports with other agencies as a non-exclusive. That way, if something changes, I don't have to start from scratch again with IS. Although, at present, I do not intend to upload new work to IS. I want to focus on other agencies as my time for port-building is so limited at present.

If my non-exclusive sales at a paltry 15% are notable, I will reconsider my decision not to load new work on IS.

Really hoping the company pulls through and gets its act together. It would be a godsend to, again, work with just a single agent, exclusively.

I couldn't agree with you more.   

I think what you say is logical, but past events with other acquisitions suggest that buyers don't always see the full picture before they purchase, due diligence notwithstanding. It's easiest when the buyer really doesn't know much about the business they're purchasing (i.e. they're money people, and know nothing about photography, stock, etc.). They don't know enough to see the writing on the wall for what it is.

Of course this is possible, but to overlook the coincidence of a profit boost and a significant change in the supplier contracts at the same time (or to not overlook it but failing to ask for the future consequences) would be a more than just a small mistake.
But yes, past history shows that mistakes are made although all information is available.

Quote from: lisafx on September 28, 2010, 10:50

My husband and I were discussing the same thing last night.  Seems clear they are fattening up the balance sheets for the 4th quarter and the 1st quarter of next year - at the expense of the long term health of the company - in preparation for a sale early in the year.  I am certain that Getty will be on the auction block by June 2011 at the very latest.

This idea has come up several times in multiple threads over the last weeks: That the changes made are only done to boost short term profits to increase a sale price - at the cost of long term profitability or even survival of Istock.

But there is one thing that strikes me as strange when looking closer at this scenario:
Any investor who would be willing to pay a substantial amount of money for Getty / Istock will certainly perform a very thorough due diligence. And they will certainly find out about what changes to their business model Istock has done in the recent past. And then they will make their assessment on what these changes mean for the future of the business (that's how the process works, you don't simply extrapolate past numbers into the future, as a potential buyer you actively search for risk factors that allow you to discount from that extrapolation and therefore your bid).

So there are two possibilities:
Either a potential buyer comes to a different conclusion about Istock's future than those people here on MSG that predict a negative outcome for Istock.
And they will have all the information at hand that we don't have, they will be able to look into Istock's books. And then they will buy.

Or they come to the same conclusion as some of us here - then they will not buy.

It's just hard for me to believe that the Getty / Istock management - if they are trying to sell - would knowingly make changes that maybe boost profits short term but carry too high risks for the longer term, because then they would be achieving exactly the opposite of what we are assuming - driving the price up.

So either we are missing some facts and are mis-interpreting the impact of these changes on Istock's future business or their management must have completely underestimated the impact these changes will have.

I don't believe at all that they're doing all this to sell up... well not this early anyway.  Their balance sheet wouldn't be looking too good at the moment and their P&L even worse.  I think they're doing this to differentiate themselves from the rest of the market... you know, be the Rolls Royce of the microstock industry.  Their business model isn't a bad one but they've gone about it the wrong way during a bad time and it's backfiring.

If the economy was stronger the model could work if they tackled it differently.  Vetta and these collections should be completely separate from the rest of the stock and these collections should be filled with images that are spectacular and nothing like any other images found in their database or anywhere else.  At the moment, they're adding images that are from a series and making them five times more expensive than other similar images.  This only highlights to the buyer that Vetta is overpriced and that istock is a ripoff.

Anyone remember iStock Pro?

but of course.  I'm sure it was just too ahead of its time.  Now we have the Agency Collection, The Retro Files, Vetta Collection, the Hulton Archive, the Exclusive Plus collection, the Exclusive Collection, and the General Collection.  it's the new Getty family of iStockCollections

Anyone remember iStock Pro?

I think I sold one photo at 'Pro. Other than that, there's not much to remember....

Quote from: blackwaterimages on September 28, 2010, 22:15

Quote from: caspixel on September 28, 2010, 20:34

Anyone remember iStock Pro?

I think I sold one photo at 'Pro. Other than that, there's not much to remember....

in all honesty, aside from "ahead of its time"  I don't think istockPro was marketed all that well.  the current iStockphoto site has a huge following and huge buyer base.  it's a shrewd business move to start bringing in all these high priced collections.  but it will be interesting in these economic times to see if the buyers will stay or go.  I guess only time will tell.

I dunno. This midstock thing has been tried again and again and failed. Designers don't want to pay a premium for stock that could also appear in their competitor's ads. If they are going to pay more, they are going to want image exclusivity (to themselves) and hence go RM. And if they don't care about exclusivity, they aren't going to want to pay a premium for something that could also appear in their competitor's ads.

Strange I had 3 vetta sales in the last 24hours and I only have 2 vetta images.