Author Topic: What a MISTAKE !!!! (Read 12416 times)

lagereek · « **on:** April 13, 2011, 09:00 »

Jeez! know what I have done? classic mistake! when judging this new best match, I was over the moon, really, in many of my key searches within my own nieches I found my files right up as no1 !! No wonder, by a mistake I had "downloads" instead of best-match, i.e. most popular. Well I knew they were some of the most popular all over the globe, RM, RF and Micro and especially within industry, oil, gas, fuel, engineering, etc.

Ofcourse I reverted it back to "best match" and SIGH!! yes I had one or two on first pages, thats OK, but BOY the crap that was in front of me??? not a single flame, hardly any DLs at all, vettas and ageny files that could have been taken with any point/shoot camera and taken with long teles because the poor guys couldnt get into the actaul industry. Ofcourse not! they had no business there in the first place.

Here I am and during the past years Ive been giving them files from INSIDE some of the worlds greates industries, such as Shell, Exxon, BP, Statoil, Volvo, British-aerospace, all with engineers, released and everything.
Just to find: they actuall y put generic, everyday, run of the mill rubbish before these.

Put a team of square-eyed computer-nerds running the show instead of creatives and this is what you get.

The crettins that have masterminded this particular best match? well? you simply have to laugh at it.

Now Im sure this place will be up for sale within the years end, thats what they want and this is the aim of all this hassle we have had lately.

Chris3fer · « **Reply #1 on:** April 13, 2011, 09:28 »

My vectors were virtually gone from the search last week because they were so far back in the search. This week they are back near the front. Its sad to think that their best match "tinkering" changes everything so drastically.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #2 on:** April 13, 2011, 09:29 »

Errr ... now you see what I was talking about?

They'd better sell it PDQ or it won't be showing any value at all, the way things are going. Year end would be too long.

lagereek · « **Reply #3 on:** April 13, 2011, 09:50 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 13, 2011, 09:29

Errr ... now you see what I was talking about?

They'd better sell it PDQ or it won't be showing any value at all, the way things are going. Year end would be too long.

NOW I REALLY see what you were talking about! I dont know how I could have left the roll-down on "downloads" and I couldnt really understand why so many were so unsatisfied? now I know, bloody hell!
All the classic signs for a sell-out is there. The admin goes or the heavy personell is asked to leave. They are "milking" the place, skimming. All the small guys, you know, bronze, etc, are kept happy, for the future ofcourse and only to be incorporated in the Getty PP or some other umbrella. Getty photographers are told! not asked but told to make their images available, etc, etc, classics!

Man, who . needs all that or want to be a part of that crap. Gone within a year, I bet. H&M, will be the winners, Getty and IS, extremely bad losers.

best.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #4 on:** April 13, 2011, 09:54 »

I don't see why the bronzes would be happy, unless they are Vetta. But people have even been complaining about their Vetta files not selling because they are too expensive and that it was better when they were normal price.

lagereek · « **Reply #5 on:** April 13, 2011, 10:04 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 13, 2011, 09:54

I don't see why the bronzes would be happy, unless they are Vetta. But people have even been complaining about their Vetta files not selling because they are too expensive and that it was better when they were normal price.

yes but lets forget Vetta and agency files for a minute. vetta is just a 5 minute wonder anyway, when they are incorporated in the big Getty with the big photographers, believe me, Vettas will suddenly look very amateurish.
Look at many searches, not only generic searches but also specialized and you will see many files taken by new members, like Difydave said, it seams to be their time.
Getty know they cant pull wool over established members, they cant fool them with all sweet jive and all so they rather invest in newcomers, etc to ensure memberships.
This precidure is nothing new, same pattern in the old days. Image-bank did the same but had the honesty to tell all their members they were in trouble, Stone didnt have to, he was too old to continue anyway.
What I really cant grasp is: How can the old-timers, the ones loyal to >Bruce, etc, how can they have the stomach to just stand by and watch this farse, I mean you have to be a complete fool not to see whats happening here.

grp_photo · « **Reply #6 on:** April 13, 2011, 10:14 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 13, 2011, 09:50

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 13, 2011, 09:29
Errr ... now you see what I was talking about?

They'd better sell it PDQ or it won't be showing any value at all, the way things are going. Year end would be too long.

NOW I REALLY see what you were talking about! I dont know how I could have left the roll-down on "downloads" and I couldnt really understand why so many were so unsatisfied? now I know, bloody hell!
All the classic signs for a sell-out is there. The admin goes or the heavy personell is asked to leave. They are "milking" the place, skimming. All the small guys, you know, bronze, etc, are kept happy, for the future ofcourse and only to be incorporated in the Getty PP or some other umbrella. Getty photographers are told! not asked but told to make their images available, etc, etc, classics!

Man, who . needs all that or want to be a part of that crap. Gone within a year, I bet. H&M, will be the winners, Getty and IS, extremely bad losers.

best.

I don't believe in the sell-out! That a company tries to increase it's revenue and it's earnings is just normal business. You may come to the conclusion if you just look at iStock but if you look at Getty they invest heavily in long-term strategies.

cathyslife · « **Reply #7 on:** April 13, 2011, 10:14 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 13, 2011, 10:04

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 13, 2011, 09:54
I don't see why the bronzes would be happy, unless they are Vetta. But people have even been complaining about their Vetta files not selling because they are too expensive and that it was better when they were normal price.

yes but lets forget Vetta and agency files for a minute. vetta is just a 5 minute wonder anyway, when they are incorporated in the big Getty with the big photographers, believe me, Vettas will suddenly look very amateurish.
Look at many searches, not only generic searches but also specialized and you will see many files taken by new members, like Difydave said, it seams to be their time.
Getty know they cant pull wool over established members, they cant fool them with all sweet jive and all so they rather invest in newcomers, etc to ensure memberships.
This precidure is nothing new, same pattern in the old days. Image-bank did the same but had the honesty to tell all their members they were in trouble, Stone didnt have to, he was too old to continue anyway.
What I really cant grasp is: How can the old-timers, the ones loyal to >Bruce, etc, how can they have the stomach to just stand by and watch this farse, I mean you have to be a complete fool not to see whats happening here.

It's all about the money.

aeonf · « **Reply #8 on:** April 13, 2011, 10:20 »

your results mean nothing bacuse each country has ITS OWN best match.
example: if you are in mexico and seach for " business man" you will get totaly different results then if you are in the USA (or any other country for that matter)

lagereek · « **Reply #9 on:** April 13, 2011, 10:22 »

Quote from: cclapper on April 13, 2011, 10:14

Quote from: lagereek on April 13, 2011, 10:04
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 13, 2011, 09:54
I don't see why the bronzes would be happy, unless they are Vetta. But people have even been complaining about their Vetta files not selling because they are too expensive and that it was better when they were normal price.

yes but lets forget Vetta and agency files for a minute. vetta is just a 5 minute wonder anyway, when they are incorporated in the big Getty with the big photographers, believe me, Vettas will suddenly look very amateurish.
Look at many searches, not only generic searches but also specialized and you will see many files taken by new members, like Difydave said, it seams to be their time.
Getty know they cant pull wool over established members, they cant fool them with all sweet jive and all so they rather invest in newcomers, etc to ensure memberships.
This precidure is nothing new, same pattern in the old days. Image-bank did the same but had the honesty to tell all their members they were in trouble, Stone didnt have to, he was too old to continue anyway.
What I really cant grasp is: How can the old-timers, the ones loyal to >Bruce, etc, how can they have the stomach to just stand by and watch this farse, I mean you have to be a complete fool not to see whats happening here.

It's all about the money.

Exactly! and at this moment in time Getty and their entire umbrella is running at a loss, in fact, IS was at least until end of 2010 the only one showing a profit. So, according to H&F, there isnt any money or at least not enough.

lagereek · « **Reply #10 on:** April 13, 2011, 10:26 »

Quote from: grp_photo on April 13, 2011, 10:14

Quote from: lagereek on April 13, 2011, 09:50
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 13, 2011, 09:29
Errr ... now you see what I was talking about?

They'd better sell it PDQ or it won't be showing any value at all, the way things are going. Year end would be too long.

NOW I REALLY see what you were talking about! I dont know how I could have left the roll-down on "downloads" and I couldnt really understand why so many were so unsatisfied? now I know, bloody hell!
All the classic signs for a sell-out is there. The admin goes or the heavy personell is asked to leave. They are "milking" the place, skimming. All the small guys, you know, bronze, etc, are kept happy, for the future ofcourse and only to be incorporated in the Getty PP or some other umbrella. Getty photographers are told! not asked but told to make their images available, etc, etc, classics!

Man, who . needs all that or want to be a part of that crap. Gone within a year, I bet. H&M, will be the winners, Getty and IS, extremely bad losers.

best.
I don't believe in the sell-out! That a company tries to increase it's revenue and it's earnings is just normal business. You may come to the conclusion if you just look at iStock but if you look at Getty they invest heavily in long-term strategies.

what are you talking about??? I been a mamber of the Getty-RM, since 1992! after their purchase of Stones and TIB, etc, its been just downhill ever since. Nothing has worked out.

Increasing investments?? you mean changing a search, best match, to the point where they are losing buyers and contributors??

You seam to live in promised land my friend.

Sadstock · « **Reply #11 on:** April 13, 2011, 11:15 »

I doubt there will be a sale as there is nothing left to sell. H&F basically sold Getty last fall. They could not find a buyer or pull off an IPO so "Hellman & Friedman is paying itself $500 million after borrowing $1.3 billion for portfolio company Getty Images."
http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/2010/11/03/short-memories-finance-private-equity-payouts-2/]

Credit to jsnover for posting this originally.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/photos-from-gettyimages-direct-to-thinkstock-ouch/msg194494/#msg194494

So if I'm reading this correctly, H&F borrowed $1.3 billion backed by Getty's assets, which would show up on the Getty balance sheet making it too ugly to pull off an IPO or sell.

Now Getty needs as much cash flow as it can get to pay off the bonds, so it decides we are unsustainable. Getty's income before interest has to be way less then $1.3 billion per year, so they will really struggle for a number of years to pay this off. If they can't, the bond holders take the company, but H&F keeps the $500 million.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/entire-threads-disappearing/msg195508/#msg195508

grp_photo · « **Reply #12 on:** April 13, 2011, 11:19 »

No offence but I can only find 45 Photos in your Getty-Portfolio for a 19 year membership this isn't too impressive.
At iStock Getty gets the smallest selling price and the tiniest percentage from all their collections how can anyone be surprised that they want to change it?
All they do at iStock is to get the price and their commission percentage up it's just logical.
Every other contributor at Getty (and they have plenty of them) seems to be satisfied with 20% for RF why should they pay anyone 40% in the long-term?
My prediction 20% for exclusives and 10% for non-exclusives in five years.

cthoman · « **Reply #13 on:** April 13, 2011, 11:24 »

Quote from: grp_photo on April 13, 2011, 11:19

My prediction 20% for exclusives and 10% for non-exclusives in five years.

If that happens, there won't be anyone left there to care.

grp_photo · « **Reply #14 on:** April 13, 2011, 11:31 »

Quote from: cthoman on April 13, 2011, 11:24

Quote from: grp_photo on April 13, 2011, 11:19
My prediction 20% for exclusives and 10% for non-exclusives in five years.
If that happens, there won't be anyone left there to care.

of course if anything goes wrong they will just buy the competition (Shutterstock and Fotolia the rest doesn't count) but so far they did very well with the first step, at least 95% members (probably much more) accepted the new deal. There is more than enough supply they really don't have to care!

cthoman · « **Reply #15 on:** April 13, 2011, 11:42 »

Quote from: grp_photo on April 13, 2011, 11:31

of course if anything goes wrong they will just buy the competition (Shutterstock and Fotolia the rest doesn't count) but so far they did very well with the first step, at least 95% members (probably much more) accepted the new deal. There is more than enough supply they really don't have to care!

That all seems unlikely, but I've already built my fallout shelter. Just in case.

grp_photo · « **Reply #16 on:** April 13, 2011, 11:47 »

Quote from: cthoman on April 13, 2011, 11:42

Quote from: grp_photo on April 13, 2011, 11:31
of course if anything goes wrong they will just buy the competition (Shutterstock and Fotolia the rest doesn't count) but so far they did very well with the first step, at least 95% members (probably much more) accepted the new deal. There is more than enough supply they really don't have to care!
That all seems unlikely, but I've already built my fallout shelter. Just in case.

so did I :-)

lagereek · « **Reply #17 on:** April 13, 2011, 12:56 »

Quote from: grp_photo on April 13, 2011, 11:19

No offence but I can only find 45 Photos in your Getty-Portfolio for a 19 year membership this isn't too impressive.
At iStock Getty gets the smallest selling price and the tiniest percentage from all their collections how can anyone be surprised that they want to change it?
All they do at iStock is to get the price and their commission percentage up it's just logical.
Every other contributor at Getty (and they have plenty of them) seems to be satisfied with 20% for RF why should they pay anyone 40% in the long-term?
My prediction 20% for exclusives and 10% for non-exclusives in five years.

If youre gonna do some peeping-Tom business youve done it pretty bad but for being a newbie its quite alright. you see at the main core of Getty (stones and Image-Bank) it was many years ago that you have shots in a business-name as well, namely my Studio name, quite differant from my own.
Ofcourse you didnt know, how could you.

lagereek · « **Reply #18 on:** April 13, 2011, 12:59 »

Quote from: aeonf on April 13, 2011, 10:20

your results mean nothing bacuse each country has ITS OWN best match.
example: if you are in mexico and seach for " business man" you will get totaly different results then if you are in the USA (or any other country for that matter)

How would that benefit? you mean searching for a mexican business-man would result in a Mexican looking instead of Chinese? business-man as a business-man, unless one has four legs.
Cant see the point in that.

cathyslife · « **Reply #19 on:** April 13, 2011, 14:07 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 13, 2011, 12:59

Quote from: aeonf on April 13, 2011, 10:20
your results mean nothing bacuse each country has ITS OWN best match.
example: if you are in mexico and seach for " business man" you will get totaly different results then if you are in the USA (or any other country for that matter)

How would that benefit? you mean searching for a mexican business-man would result in a Mexican looking instead of Chinese? business-man as a business-man, unless one has four legs.
Cant see the point in that.

There isn't any point in it. How does istock have any clue as to what type of project buyers are working on? But apparently that's what they're doing, according to various posts.

lagereek · « **Reply #20 on:** April 13, 2011, 14:20 »

Quote from: cclapper on April 13, 2011, 14:07

Quote from: lagereek on April 13, 2011, 12:59
Quote from: aeonf on April 13, 2011, 10:20
your results mean nothing bacuse each country has ITS OWN best match.
example: if you are in mexico and seach for " business man" you will get totaly different results then if you are in the USA (or any other country for that matter)

How would that benefit? you mean searching for a mexican business-man would result in a Mexican looking instead of Chinese? business-man as a business-man, unless one has four legs.
Cant see the point in that.

There isn't any point in it. How does istock have any clue as to what type of project buyers are working on? But apparently that's what they're doing, according to various posts.

So they are trying to tailor the buyers into buying what they want them to buy? that might have worked in the 70s with one million shots but not today with a billion shots. No I cant believe that, its insanity, not Getty nor IS have got the muscle for that anymore. Hell thay havent even got the muscle to come up with a best match, that actually work.

cathyslife · « **Reply #21 on:** April 13, 2011, 14:31 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 13, 2011, 14:20

Quote from: cclapper on April 13, 2011, 14:07
Quote from: lagereek on April 13, 2011, 12:59
Quote from: aeonf on April 13, 2011, 10:20
your results mean nothing bacuse each country has ITS OWN best match.
example: if you are in mexico and seach for " business man" you will get totaly different results then if you are in the USA (or any other country for that matter)

How would that benefit? you mean searching for a mexican business-man would result in a Mexican looking instead of Chinese? business-man as a business-man, unless one has four legs.
Cant see the point in that.

There isn't any point in it. How does istock have any clue as to what type of project buyers are working on? But apparently that's what they're doing, according to various posts.

So they are trying to tailor the buyers into buying what they want them to buy? that might have worked in the 70s with one million shots but not today with a billion shots. No I cant believe that, its insanity, not Getty nor IS have got the muscle for that anymore. Hell thay havent even got the muscle to come up with a best match, that actually work.

You came to the same conclusion that I have.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #22 on:** April 13, 2011, 14:33 »

GRP - how do they "just buy" SS and Fotolia? Nobody can "just buy" anything someone owns unless the owner feels like selling.

You're completely wrong about the Getty crowd all being happy with 20%. They were squealing like stuck pigs when that was being imposed on them.

I think you are also wrong about the business man search being completely different in different countries (though I know they said that would happen). I'm in Asia and the front page of that search has a token photo of two people in Arab dress sitting with a Western youth about halfway down (one of the 'Arabs' actually is an Arab) and every other file appears to show White Anglo-Saxon Protestants from northern Europe or the US. Not an Indian or Chinese or Indonesian or Malaysian any other Asian in sight, so if this is the special Asia-related version of a business search it isn't much good.

lagereek · « **Reply #23 on:** April 13, 2011, 15:07 »

Ah, this grp_photo guy, he doesnt seam to know what he is dribbling about. Ofcourse you cant buy something if the owner dont want to sell and I doubt very, very much SS, DT or FT, would sell out to Getty, especially now with Getty/IS, so crippled and vulnerable.
On the contrary I can see someone smart like John Oringer putting in a bid for IS, he certainly is in the position and it certainly wouldnt cost any 50 million which is what getty paid.

lisafx · « **Reply #24 on:** April 13, 2011, 17:21 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 13, 2011, 15:07

Ah, this grp_photo guy, he doesnt seam to know what he is dribbling about. Ofcourse you cant buy something if the owner dont want to sell and I doubt very, very much Shutterstock, Dreamstime or Fotolia, would sell out to Getty, especially now with Getty/IS, so crippled and vulnerable.
On the contrary I can see someone smart like John Oringer putting in a bid for IS, he certainly is in the position and it certainly wouldnt cost any 50 million which is what getty paid.

Yes, exactly. And for anyone thinking that Getty or H&F are financially able to buy any of the other major micros, read Sadstock's post, quoted below. Getty is hurting for money, as all their machinations at Istock make perfectly clear. They couldn't dream of shelling out millions for another micro, even if the owners were short-sighted enough to sell to them (and the owners of the other three major micros strike me as very smart business people).

Quote from: Sadstock on April 13, 2011, 11:15

I doubt there will be a sale as there is nothing left to sell. H&F basically sold Getty last fall. They could not find a buyer or pull off an IPO so "Hellman & Friedman is paying itself $500 million after borrowing $1.3 billion for portfolio company Getty Images."
http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/2010/11/03/short-memories-finance-private-equity-payouts-2/]

Credit to jsnover for posting this originally.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/photos-from-gettyimages-direct-to-thinkstock-ouch/msg194494/#msg194494

So if I'm reading this correctly, H&F borrowed $1.3 billion backed by Getty's assets, which would show up on the Getty balance sheet making it too ugly to pull off an IPO or sell.

Now Getty needs as much cash flow as it can get to pay off the bonds, so it decides we are unsustainable. Getty's income before interest has to be way less then $1.3 billion per year, so they will really struggle for a number of years to pay this off. If they can't, the bond holders take the company, but H&F keeps the $500 million.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What a MISTAKE !!!! (Read 12416 times)

lagereek

Chris3fer

BaldricksTrousers

lagereek

BaldricksTrousers

lagereek

grp_photo

cathyslife

aeonf

lagereek

lagereek

Sadstock

grp_photo

cthoman

grp_photo

cthoman

grp_photo

lagereek

lagereek

cathyslife

lagereek

cathyslife

BaldricksTrousers

lagereek

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors