Author Topic: Leveraged result of sales loss (Read 4483 times)

BaldricksTrousers · « **on:** September 12, 2010, 03:59 »

Some Brit has said they have shifted $30,000 of spend away from iStock.

Nobody has asked how much greed is needed to replace this. As iStock is only making maybe 3% extra overall from screwing us, it will take 33 x $30,000 of sales before they recover the money from the price hikes that this loss has cost them. That is $990,000 of sales.

It also follows that if just 3% of buyers withdraw their business, the entire benefit to Getty of this crazy pay cut will be completely wiped out.

(Brainstorm: Initially I said "advertising" because that's what my images go to, of course, I meant "sales" and I've edited this accordingly)

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #1 on:** September 12, 2010, 04:08 »

Quote

Some Brit has said they have shifted $30,000 of advertising away from iStock.

What Brit is that then?

Quote

It also follows that if just 3% of buyers withdraw their business, the entire benefit to Getty of this crazy pay cut will be completely wiped out.

That doesn't follow at all. If 3% of the biggest buyers withdrew their business, that might have some impact, but I have no way of knowing what impact or how much that might mean in financial terms and nor do you. If 3% of the smallest buyers left it would be nothing more than a gnat bite on the arse of an elephant. The numbers of buyers leaving and joining is in a constant state of flux at any time, it will only be in some months that the effect of this may or may not be obvious. Don't kid yourself that the vast majority of buyers ( and that number is in the millions) care about the financial agreement between IS and their artists.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #2 on:** September 12, 2010, 04:18 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on September 12, 2010, 04:08

Quote
Some Brit has said they have shifted $30,000 of advertising away from iStock.

What Brit is that then?

Someone in the current iStock thread said he had persuaded a couple of designers to shift twenty thousand pounds worth of business away and could guarantee persuading more people to shift before January. No, I'm not digging back through the last 30 pages to find the exact post for you. Do it yourself if you want.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #3 on:** September 12, 2010, 04:23 »

Quote

Do it yourself if you want.

I don't want. It may be true, it may not be, it may ( almost certainly)make no difference whatsoever in the grand scheme of things, it may ( less likely) bring IS to its knees. Only time will tell.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #4 on:** September 12, 2010, 04:26 »

Another point worth thinking about is that they can never replace lost buyers. Recruiting another buyer to spend $30,000 won't replace the buyer whose $30,000 they lost because they would have recruited the new buyer anyway.

[It is true, impaler - and you have not disputed the logic behind my initial post, which is the important thing .... oh, you edited your post to dispute it while I was typing.

And, yes, I obviously meant 3% of spending power. Losing the top 1% of buyers would probably do more damage than losing the bottom 20%. In fact, the top 1% would probably wipe out the extra cash several times over.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #5 on:** September 12, 2010, 04:38 »

Quote

and you have not disputed the logic behind my initial post, which is the important thing .... oh, you edited your post to dispute it while I was typing.

I'm treating the loss of a buyer with a certain amount of scepticism without knowing all the details.
I've been here before when some major upset erupts at IS, I've seen predictions of the imminent demise of IS because the world and his mate are going to take business away, we're all going to gang up and bring IS to its knees etc etc. I will bet my money that this will all settle down and be forgotten in 2 months. I could be wrong though, who knows?

Nordlys · « **Reply #6 on:** September 12, 2010, 04:46 »

The major cahnges takes effect from jan.1. From there on, more people start leaving IS, as they see diminishing income. On till then, will have to wait and see, but one should not underestimate the ongoing activity at the moment with rederection of linkes to toher sites, refering buyers there also and son on.

One this / if this reaches a certain momentum, the situation will be extremely har for IS to reverse.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #7 on:** September 12, 2010, 04:52 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on September 12, 2010, 04:38

Quote
and you have not disputed the logic behind my initial post, which is the important thing .... oh, you edited your post to dispute it while I was typing.

I'm treating the loss of a buyer with a certain amount of scepticism without knowing all the details.
I've been here before when some major upset erupts at IS, I've seen predictions of the imminent demise of IS because the world and his mate are going to take business away, we're all going to gang up and bring IS to its knees etc etc. I will bet my money that this will all settle down and be forgotten in 2 months. I could be wrong though, who knows?

You might be right or you might be wrong about the final outcome, except that it won't be forgotten. You can substitute the buyers I referred to with those being listed in the thread here about buyers quitting if you like. It is a fact some buyers have stated they will leave.

Where you are wrong is being rady to accept whatever iS does to you and in showing no interest in the implications your agent's behavior has for your future. But maybe it just doesn't matter to you.