I have been able to confirm that Getty does include Thinkstock in the approximately $300 million that they report as Midstock revenue.

They redefine all sorts of words to suit their own agenda.

Do they think they sell any microstock nowadays?

Quote from: Pickerell on October 16, 2013, 18:04

I have been able to confirm that Getty does include Thinkstock in the approximately $300 million that they report as Midstock revenue. It is unclear how much of that $300 million is generated by Thinkstock.

The numbers you are using come from this report right?  http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-04/caryle-group-s-getty-images-ratings-on-review-for-cut-by-moody-s

It says 33% is midstock, 33% is premium, and 25% is editorial.  What is the remaining 9% ($80 million)?

Robbing the contributors.

Quote from: Mantis on October 16, 2013, 18:44

Quote from: tickstock on October 16, 2013, 18:18

Quote from: Pickerell on October 16, 2013, 18:04

I have been able to confirm that Getty does include Thinkstock in the approximately $300 million that they report as Midstock revenue. It is unclear how much of that $300 million is generated by Thinkstock.

The numbers you are using come from this report right?  http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-04/caryle-group-s-getty-images-ratings-on-review-for-cut-by-moody-s

It says 33% is midstock, 33% is premium, and 25% is editorial.  What is the remaining 9% ($80 million)?

Robbing the contributors.

And how about a serious answer too?

Lighten up tick.

Quote from: Mantis on October 17, 2013, 15:52

Quote from: tickstock on October 16, 2013, 18:50

Quote from: Mantis on October 16, 2013, 18:44

Quote from: tickstock on October 16, 2013, 18:18

Quote from: Pickerell on October 16, 2013, 18:04

I have been able to confirm that Getty does include Thinkstock in the approximately $300 million that they report as Midstock revenue. It is unclear how much of that $300 million is generated by Thinkstock.

The numbers you are using come from this report right?  http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-04/caryle-group-s-getty-images-ratings-on-review-for-cut-by-moody-s

It says 33% is midstock, 33% is premium, and 25% is editorial.  What is the remaining 9% ($80 million)?

Robbing the contributors.

And how about a serious answer too?

That was, but as usual you always refuse to look at the entire picture and choose to selectively support your posts with clippets.

What does that mean?  It was a question about where the other 9% of revenue was coming from because 33% + 33% + 25% does not equal 100%.  Robbing contributors is your serious answer?  What they get 80 million dollars a year from illegally stealing people's money?  That's quite a charge do you care to back it up with snippets, clippets, or facts?

Ask Yuri, he is familiar with adding up percentages to less than 100%

Quote from: Ron on October 17, 2013, 17:14

Ask Yuri, he is familiar with adding up percentages to less than 100%

I don't get the reference or what it has to do with the question.

Its an inside joke. Never mind.

The numbers you are using come from this report right?  http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-04/caryle-group-s-getty-images-ratings-on-review-for-cut-by-moody-s

It says 33% is midstock, 33% is premium, and 25% is editorial.  What is the remaining 9% ($80 million)?

Speculation A: As I read it, it does not say "33%", it says "one third". Nobody is saying that meaning "exactly 33%". It could mean anything in the range of maybe 30% or 35% or even 38%... we can just assume it is more than "about a quarter" and certainly less than "about half".

Speculation B: Getty does have other smaller areas for revenue streams. They might consider "Footage" another stream that adds a few more percent. They might consider "copyright enforcement" a different stream. As far as I know they offer customized shoots  in some occasions. And we don't exactly know if they are making money from additional services.

I think we will never know every detail of their business.

My sales certainly don't average L size - much smaller. When I start to calculate how much people paid for the sales that get me pennies it just pisses me off though.

I also think that TS and the much cheaper indie content might be a too little too late attempt to choke off the competition and they are willing to take a drastic loss in income to do it.

I think the wholly owned content has to be considered here, since those DL probably don't show in any analysis of contributors and 100% goes to them.

Also you need to consider that "exclusive" might not mean what you think it means.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see TS and others lumped into midstock if they thought that suited the narrative they were spinning. Remember that a lot of this is to make a rosy picture to try to get people to part with their money. I seem to recall bragging about how great sales and profits and projections were out of one side of their mouth while crying poverty and unsustainable out the other.

Interesting to try to back out the real numbers - thanks for posting. I fear the error bars are still very large though.