|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ichiro17
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 33
76
« on: September 15, 2010, 07:47 »
Here's why nothing will change...
I only wish my own financial position...
Wish I could afford...
doing the same, if I could afford...
I can't afford to ...
There is nothing wrong with the above sentiments. It's just that you can't hope to enact change when you have no bargaining position.
Or they wish everyone else can take a stand so that they don't have to. Its easy to watch everyone else do it and applaud them. While I don't agree at all with dgilder's decision, he's doing what he thinks is right to him despite the money issue - so good on ya in that regard
77
« on: September 13, 2010, 23:09 »
Getty was in trouble. Analysts downgraded them over and over. Got bought out because they couldn't thrive at all.
New competent owners controlled their direction, bought iStock for growth. Bottom line, they win. They made the company better, maybe marginally, maybe more. Don't try to spin this as anything else as a takeover to fix operations, make the company profitable and spin around. iStockphoto just became part of that plan when they realized that it would help make it all work even more.
You need to do some reading up, firstly read the link I posted, Getty were not in trouble, their shares fluctuated but the company was operating on a decent profit and had been for the previous five years, share prices go up and down for reasons beyond whether a company is in profit or not (have a look at Sony Erricsons latest q results, 200% up in profit and yet their shares have just fallen).
You might want to learn what the term 'spin' means also. Ironic though because to correct your statement the new competent owners you mentioned didn't buy iStock, it was bought by Getty two years before H&F then bought Getty.
Unfortunately the Getty/iStock figures are not published by H&F anymore, probably why the iStock CEO came out with that 'spin' in response as to why they're lowering commissions.
I guess i will expect you to be writing for the wall street journal soon and some textbooks too because i guess an 80% reduction in stock price doesn't mean any company is in trouble. F&^K you guys just believe whatever you want. If the market is saying that your stock isn't worth 100$ a share anymore and your market value is 20% of what it once was, there's something wrong. Just because it posts profits doesn't mean that make it a good situation. Getty could be bleeding cash (whcih has nothing to do with profits) and that could have made them a huge gamble to stay afloat at the time . Those profits could have been unrecognized revnues from previous years. DOn't try to school me on financial statements - Getty was taken over because it was a viable target to buy and resell - no capital firm goes and buys a company at the top of its game. They are specialized management firms with the intention of adding value through their operations management and strategy. Ive read way more strategy books than I need to not to eat the s#it you're trying to feed me
78
« on: September 13, 2010, 15:53 »
IS, is the only company within the Getty sphere that shows any profit. Further, its totally naive to think that all this global mayhem is because of such a small thing as exclusivity.
If exclusivity was the case, all Getty would have to do is to say: look guys you get six month to either go exclusiv or get out. They did that in the film days, long before they bought IS.
Its been said before, exclusivity in an RF world with some 100 million files floating around everywhere? well judge it for yourself: it means absoloutely nothing. It sound good, doesnt it and especially if youre a buyer.
IS, is a good company that at the moment is getting chronically short-changed by Getty who in their turn is getting short-changed by these Hellman bankers or whatever.
Its the turning of the screw.
independents are the reason i can have my exclusivity - so thank you - because if you guys didn't bring down the average royalty, i wouldn't be so lucky to get what I get.
79
« on: September 13, 2010, 15:26 »
Getty was in trouble. Analysts downgraded them over and over. Got bought out because they couldn't thrive at all.
New competent owners controlled their direction, bought iStock for growth. Bottom line, they win. They made the company better, maybe marginally, maybe more. Don't try to spin this as anything else as a takeover to fix operations, make the company profitable and spin around. iStockphoto just became part of that plan when they realized that it would help make it all work even more.
80
« on: September 13, 2010, 07:46 »
Well I think they have faced financial trouble and operating at loss, the same as Corbis and others. Actually it would be better Getty copying the formula of istock, than viceversa (what they tend to do now).
Don't believe all the hype you read, they are certainly not suffering any financial trouble or operating loss regards their trading figures, last year on sales of over $850m they made a gross profit margin of 72.7% and an EBITDA of 32.6%, H&F certainly wouldn't have paid $2.4b to buy a company that was in financial trouble, the trouble you read about, the same that iStock are now reporting, is a result of the greedy 'merchant bankers' wanting to line their pockets and spending more than they can afford to, it has nothing to do with the companies actual operating profit.
Quite the opposite. They were bought because they were in financial trouble and the takeover company figured they could add value to the company by installing a new management, altering it and fixing it. And I'm pretty sure you are wrong: getty's stock price was falling through the floor making it a good target
81
« on: September 13, 2010, 07:39 »
In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success.
I've never heard that any company can become less profitable with increased success...
maybe you haven't read business section in the last 40 years...success doesn't always lead to profits, although I'm not sure that this is the case here
82
« on: September 12, 2010, 10:34 »
Thanks for the replies. Just wondering how everyone felt.
And yes, I'm in banking so I know all about how things are manipulated. Can see it all the time.
83
« on: September 11, 2010, 17:16 »
I rarely have my own threads, maybe because I just like reading or because I really don't have any value to add. But this is a question that came to mind:
How would iStock showing their financial statements make you feel?
I'm not saying that they are actually doing as poorly as they say they are - in fact, I don't think they are even close to negative net income, but would them opening up the books (with a reputable Chartered Accounting firm such as Ernst and Young) help you make a better decision?
There are lots of factors here, so obviously this situation needs to be taken lightly. I'm curious to see where the problems lie within their business model.
Thats my take - I won't actually have any reduced income, I might go up a step - however, I think it sucks for everyone else and things should change to a better, more sustainable system.
JG
84
« on: September 10, 2010, 10:46 »
For Exclusives at IS thinking about alternatives I have some help for them which is found here below.
It is a submission portal called Isyndica (url supplied below)
http://vds.isyndica.com/Affiliate/sumos
Well, this may be very good information, Sumos, but you seem to be spamming the site by posting the same thing to every single thread in the IS forum.
Not to mention it is totally OT, as this is a thread about buyers and their intentions to buy at other sites instead of Istock.
Seriously, stop spamming sumos, no one cares
85
« on: September 10, 2010, 10:35 »
welcome to the classic agency problem
86
« on: September 10, 2010, 09:12 »
I just took a step back and reassessed the IStock changes. If you think about what they say they are trying to, reward contributors for what they are contributing now rather then the legacy stuff they uploaded, the changes look even stupider and unnecessarily convoluted.
If their goal is really this why not just offer flat percentages, one rate for exclusive one for nonexclusives. Those who sell more make more, why bother with the tiered system at all. I wonder if this is where they are heading (?)
I'm totally okay with a tiered system. I think that those who show accelerated growth should be rewarded heavily. However, I don't think they should burn out the long term contributors either. Sustainable growth is just as important as having a spectacular year.
87
« on: September 10, 2010, 09:05 »
Here is something that makes me angry. The iStockcharts folks emailed this to me this morning.
We've got 5531 exclusive contributors in our contributor charts:
base contributors 105 ( 1.9%)
bronze contributors 2417 (43.7%)
silver contributors 1647 (29.8%)
gold contributors 760 (13.7%)
diamond contributors 574 (10.4%)
blackdiamond contributors 28 ( 0.5%)
Kelly says 76% of exclusives will not take a hit. 43.7% of them won't because they are bronze. Another 29.8% are silver, and stand a fairly good chance of hitting that low 2000 credit target. Add in the 1.9% base contributors that are guaranteed to go up. That is 75.4% of exclusives.
iStock is gunning for your royalties golds and diamonds, I guess we now know why the silver target was set so comparatively low. It makes it easier for them to say that 76% of people will not see a change.
I think that you should also understand (not that I agree with them) that they think its okay to lower your percentages because they think they will make more overall revenue which means you will stay at the same nominal value, while your percentage decreases. Now unless they are brilliant fortune tellers, I can't say that they will be right 100% and given that they can't run their business while only having to pay out 20%, I wouldn't trust these estimates at all. Plus when is it okay to take 25% away because you think that you will give the same amount back in increased revenues. All that means is that they are taking future revenues away from you and keeping you at the same level.
88
« on: September 10, 2010, 08:06 »
You can have 500% growth in revenue and -200% growth in profit.
the only thing you need for that is an incredibly bad management... 
 yes...or the quest for rapid growth while spending a lot to attain it with the hopes that you can slow the expenses down in the future. while I won't be affected by the changes (in fact, i might actually be bumped up a level), I don't necessarily agree with any of the statements that iStock isn't profitable enough or can't make money at this pace. In fact, I think its preposterous that they are having a hard time doing what they are doing at an average of probably 25% royalties. What really blows my mind is that the NHL has 55% of its revenue going to player salaries and for the most part it makes good money despite what they are saying. Yet an internet company with no real overhead compared to the NHL can't do the same thing. Thats BS.
89
« on: September 10, 2010, 07:37 »
A couple weeks ago they said they were paying out $1.7 million a week in royalties. At the first of the year I believe it was $1.2 million. Let's assume $1.7 million for the whole 52 weeks. That's about $88 million paid out to contributors in a year. Is he saying it costs $212 million a year to operate that web site? What is the staff being paid? Sure money is spent on advertising, but really how much "profit" do they need?? They expected to grow revenue 50% in 2010. The payout to contributors sure hasn't grown by 50%. I don't see any way that he could argue that the business has "become less profitable with increased success."
It's all just BS, Getty gave the new CEO that target. New CEO has to meet +50%. No sustainable way to reach that crazy level of growth, so they take the easy route and screw their contributors. It's easy to say IStock is run independently of Getty, but when they set the targets to cover the price they paid for the company and the targets are crazy unobtainable by steady growth blam, it's grab the soap time for me and you.
Profit and revenue are two different things. Business school wasn't that hard for me, and the distinction between both is pretty clear. You can have 500% growth in revenue and -200% growth in profit.
90
« on: September 09, 2010, 09:30 »
I agree with Walnuts but actually not even Yuri will get the 1.4Million, so who are the good performers??
how can you make these statements? you don't know how much he sells and at what sizes, so you don't know if he does or doesn't. if he averages 10 credits per sale, and sells 140,000 photos in a year, then its completely plausible. And thats only 12,000 photos per month for a stock photo machine that is legendary for being prolific - its completely plausible if I average 10 credits per image.
91
« on: September 07, 2010, 20:25 »
I think Fotolia, as much as I hate them with a passion, is doing the right thing trying to steal all IS's exclusives. Its a great thing to see
92
« on: September 07, 2010, 20:20 »
The IPO thing is an interesting theory but it could also be that Getty, as a whole, is just making less money. Way less money. I doubt they could sell the business for anything close to what was paid for it. It could be just their way of trying to maintain an money stream by taking it from their contributors, the ones least likely to effect their business. We'll know fairly soon if it is IPO.
People, there's NO IPO coming soon. If there is, its silly. There's no money in the capital markets for anything at the moment, so an IPO will be a long ways away and will happen when they can get premium dollar - not for iStock, but for Getty as a whole. iStock without Getty and vice versa isn't going to work
I think they are trying to drive off non-exclusives and keep exclusives (not sure how) and I'm borderline for a pay raise. This isn't over yet, and its going to be interesting. Yay for industry shakeup?
When i brought up IPO, I meant Getty. They are currently owned by a private equity firm, and I think they can see the writing on the wall. The best move it can make is to squeeze profits for 6 months and make the earnings grow ( at the price of destroying the franchise). Microstock is the only growth in the whole space, and the value will never be better than now.
As for no money in the capital markets, it's quite the opposite- corporations have never had more money on the balance sheet than right now. Investors are getting 1% on treasuries. I think there will be a ton of deals getting done soon.
Corporations don't buy stock, they are holding it for acquisitions. That has nothing to do with IPOs. The number of investment firms looking at stuff like this in a time of uncertainty is small - hence the few IPOs and startiving investment bankers. Just saying, you can make it look pretty but no one has to buy you a drink just because you may look nice
93
« on: September 07, 2010, 19:44 »
The IPO thing is an interesting theory but it could also be that Getty, as a whole, is just making less money. Way less money. I doubt they could sell the business for anything close to what was paid for it. It could be just their way of trying to maintain an money stream by taking it from their contributors, the ones least likely to effect their business. We'll know fairly soon if it is IPO.
People, there's NO IPO coming soon. If there is, its silly. There's no money in the capital markets for anything at the moment, so an IPO will be a long ways away and will happen when they can get premium dollar - not for iStock, but for Getty as a whole. iStock without Getty and vice versa isn't going to work I think they are trying to drive off non-exclusives and keep exclusives (not sure how) and I'm borderline for a pay raise. This isn't over yet, and its going to be interesting. Yay for industry shakeup?
94
« on: September 07, 2010, 15:47 »
Even exclusives are going to need to be sell about 4000 images per month to maintain the 40% rate.
umm no, they will need approx 1700 images per month based on my average redeemed credit. Which isn't as preposterous as 4000
95
« on: August 31, 2010, 15:45 »
Best of luck on your next attempt.
Here's my take on the images:
Images 1 and 2 have almost no value in terms of stock. You will not be able to make any money uploading these types of images and, given istock's annoying upload process, it will take you forever and waste your time in the long run
Image 3 is wonderful. Images like this will have much more potential. The suggestions above are great, just keep in mind what they suggest and couple that with images that will have an impact. Also, most wildlife images just don't have that staying power. Don't be too discouraged if you don't get many downloads on your wildlife/landscape photos vs. other subjects
96
« on: August 19, 2010, 11:52 »
This is more of a mini-server than network drive but I have an Acer H340 Windows Home Server and really like it.
I got tired of buying external drives and having to manage data between them. This thing has been absolutely painless.
Pretty sure it supports gigabit networking.
4 swappable drives for 8GB max pooled storage.
Auto backups and full restore or partial file/folder restore.
Has a bunch of add-on apps available.
Remote management.
I want this one. Its beautiful
97
« on: August 19, 2010, 08:03 »
Definitely artifacting. But I've been able to get some stuff accepted from my SD780 IS, however, I will downsize anything from that camera to 1200x1600
98
« on: August 17, 2010, 12:41 »
For non-exclusives, an artifact is an imaginary image issue that arises when the reviewer doesn't like your photo but it is still technically okay for the most part.
Haven't gotten an artifacting rejection in a long time. I'm exclusive, that is. Got lots when I wasn't
99
« on: August 12, 2010, 09:53 »
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340. And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis
This logic is flawed. I've been averaging well over $3 per download for a while no- assuming that someone is averaging the same and that the downloads are spread evenly for 4 years, you get 5,000 downloads in the past 365...thats 5000 x 3 (and they have a better cannister level) - that alone is $15,000. I'm pretty sure that the photographer gets more than $3 per download because I'm not even gold yet.
So you're telling me that 14,000 downloads = $10,000?
No chance. At all.
Who's saying 10K? There's an additional 0 in the original thread that you're missing!
I agree that 100K is too high - I'd guess somewhere around the 45K mark would be closer to the mark.
You aren't following the simple math
Try again...
Therefore, if you want to follow simple math, how about answering my original question?
My logic is based on over 17200 downloads. On how many downloads are you making your assumption? Denis
Almost 10000, of which 6000 have been exclusive. So, umm, ya...whatever.
100
« on: August 12, 2010, 07:39 »
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340. And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis
This logic is flawed. I've been averaging well over $3 per download for a while no- assuming that someone is averaging the same and that the downloads are spread evenly for 4 years, you get 5,000 downloads in the past 365...thats 5000 x 3 (and they have a better cannister level) - that alone is $15,000. I'm pretty sure that the photographer gets more than $3 per download because I'm not even gold yet.
So you're telling me that 14,000 downloads = $10,000?
No chance. At all.
Who's saying 10K? There's an additional 0 in the original thread that you're missing!
I agree that 100K is too high - I'd guess somewhere around the 45K mark would be closer to the mark.
You aren't following the simple math Try again...
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
