MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Will Getty buy Shutterstock?  (Read 12596 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

farbled

« Reply #25 on: March 26, 2021, 10:13 »
+2
The question I rarely see these days is, given the over supply of quality images, plus the growing popularity of free sites is this:

What is a photo actually worth these days? And why?



« Reply #26 on: March 26, 2021, 11:49 »
+1
I don't think Getty Images has enough money to buy Shutterstock. Istock was a bargain years ago.
Shutterstock won't be that cheap and i don't think there'll be much return of investment buying a stock photo agency nowadays.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2021, 11:58 by ttart »

farbled

« Reply #27 on: March 26, 2021, 12:50 »
+1
I could conceivably see AS buy iS simply for the exclusives to add to their Adobe exclusive collection. No idea if it would be worth it, but it seems to most believable scenario unless one of the social media giants decides to buy into the game at this late point.

JamoImages

  • Stock Producer & Blogger: jamoimages.com
« Reply #28 on: March 27, 2021, 00:51 »
0
I don't believe SS will be sold any time soon. They're doing extremely well financially. In fact, they recently bought
Turbosquid https://www.turbosquid.com/, a company that sells stock 3D models.

« Reply #29 on: March 27, 2021, 02:44 »
0
The question I rarely see these days is, given the over supply of quality images, plus the growing popularity of free sites is this:

What is a photo actually worth these days? And why?
In the end its worth what people will pay for it. There are many factors in this mostly unrelated to any definitions of "quality" a photogragpher might give it. Supply and demand is the bottom line....if you have the first image of a Martian walking into the Whitehouse "quality" is immaterial. Also how much it cost is only relevant in so far as it affects supply. If I spend 10,000 flying to get a picture of a Polar Bear it doesn't make the image worth more than one by someone who got one walking into his garden. I've long felt in terms of what might be considered standard stock anyone thinking this will generate a retirement income for more than 5 years is optimistic. The photographers reputation at the top end is also hugely important.

« Reply #30 on: March 27, 2021, 05:32 »
0
Microsoft is buying Discord, Salesforce made Slak acquisitions, NVIDIA to Acquire Arm for $40 Billion/ It would be interesting to see a stock listed company (SSTK) being acquired by a non listed company, Getty.

« Reply #31 on: March 27, 2021, 06:17 »
+1
Microsoft is buying Discord, Salesforce made Slak acquisitions, NVIDIA to Acquire Arm for $40 Billion/ It would be interesting to see a stock listed company (SSTK) being acquired by a non listed company, Getty.

Wow, so many acquisitions happening at huge cost.
And we are working in pennies, feel so low.

« Reply #32 on: March 27, 2021, 21:35 »
0
...

ps make a $2 coin with Harriet Tubman on it.
...
i'm all for getting rid of pennies, and nickels & paper $1 & $2 - on the euro model - there are euro 1c & 2c but i've rarely seen them when traveling and supposedly some shops now don't accept them

remember when we used to have 50c pieces?  they still make them but they disappear right away, (or they're in banks but people have just forgotten about them - like the $2 bill)

US$1 bills are still good for tips in countries w/o a strong currency (and coins usually can't be exchanged)

« Reply #33 on: March 27, 2021, 21:46 »
0
The question I rarely see these days is, given the over supply of quality images, plus the growing popularity of free sites is this:

What is a photo actually worth these days? And why?

like any non-fungible, it's worth what someone will pay for it - what's the intrinsic value of an oil-stained canvas? why is it worth more if Picasso applied the oil[paint] to the canvas?

most photos are worth less because they're now commodities in the context of buyers of stock.  it's not that stockagencies are giving artists so little (a different discussion but one that many keep conflating), it's that the worth of photos has declined precipitously - in the 70s-80 agencies sold  images for $300-1000+ for the same purposes they're  used now when they only cost  $1

« Reply #34 on: March 27, 2021, 21:48 »
0
Microsoft is buying Discord, Salesforce made Slak acquisitions, NVIDIA to Acquire Arm for $40 Billion/ It would be interesting to see a stock listed company (SSTK) being acquired by a non listed company, Getty.

Wow, so many acquisitions happening at huge cost.
And we are working in pennies, feel so low.

nothing new - it's been going on for decades now, taking off in the 70s with corporate raiders.  and the US minimum wage has hardly changed since then!

« Reply #35 on: March 28, 2021, 06:59 »
+1
What I wanted to say is that it is more likely that Shutterstock acquires Getty, not vice versa.
Getty is a private company  and their financial numbers are not easily available, but according to this article annual revenue in 2019. was 1B, and about 50% is stock business. So around 500M. And the last year's Shutterstock revenue was 667M and it is 100% stock business.  So SS is a larger stock segment company.
https://www.chron.com/business/texas-inc/article/Getty-Images-struggles-to-frame-a-profitable-14901397.php#:~:text=SEATTLE%20%E2%80%94%20With%20its%20vast%20archive,player%20in%20the%20picture%20business.

farbled

« Reply #36 on: March 28, 2021, 11:03 »
0
like any non-fungible, it's worth what someone will pay for it - what's the intrinsic value of an oil-stained canvas? why is it worth more if Picasso applied the oil[paint] to the canvas?

most photos are worth less because they're now commodities in the context of buyers of stock.  it's not that stockagencies are giving artists so little (a different discussion but one that many keep conflating), it's that the worth of photos has declined precipitously - in the 70s-80 agencies sold  images for $300-1000+ for the same purposes they're  used now when they only cost  $1

I think its a bit more than that. While I agree with what you say, I also think that the idea of selling your Picasso for the same price, and in the same place, as my 30 second breakfast eggs photoshoot was and continues to be a contributor to the decline.

I wonder if a hybrid would work? I remember back in the day my ideal agency had tiers, where the better the work (subjective and hard to measure, I know) the higher the sell price. I wonder if some agency will simply have a permanent free section where the vast majority of product is exactly that. All the stuff every shooter starts out with and doesn't cost extra to produce.

It would give artists something to aim for, increasing their quality and creativity to a point where it generates earnings. Much as I love this industry and have for the past 15 plus years, so much of the collections are, in my opinion (and including some of my own stuff), not even worth the 1-10 cents that are charged for them. It could also train buyers into recognizing that quality should cost more, compete with the free agencies already out there, and maybe get some of those talented people onboard to sell work instead of giving it away...

I know, pipe dream..

Edit: Oooh, and do a plan like 10-5-1. Ten freebies, 5 paid, 1 Premium, all for the low low price of xxx. That way you don't have harvesters soaking up all the free stuff.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2021, 11:09 by farbled »

« Reply #37 on: March 28, 2021, 13:08 »
+1
 ;D ;D ;D ;D

Getty is more or less broke. It is completely financed with debt and will be out of business once interest rates rise

 :-X

wds

« Reply #38 on: March 28, 2021, 21:30 »
0
like any non-fungible, it's worth what someone will pay for it - what's the intrinsic value of an oil-stained canvas? why is it worth more if Picasso applied the oil[paint] to the canvas?

most photos are worth less because they're now commodities in the context of buyers of stock.  it's not that stockagencies are giving artists so little (a different discussion but one that many keep conflating), it's that the worth of photos has declined precipitously - in the 70s-80 agencies sold  images for $300-1000+ for the same purposes they're  used now when they only cost  $1

I think its a bit more than that. While I agree with what you say, I also think that the idea of selling your Picasso for the same price, and in the same place, as my 30 second breakfast eggs photoshoot was and continues to be a contributor to the decline.

I wonder if a hybrid would work? I remember back in the day my ideal agency had tiers, where the better the work (subjective and hard to measure, I know) the higher the sell price. I wonder if some agency will simply have a permanent free section where the vast majority of product is exactly that. All the stuff every shooter starts out with and doesn't cost extra to produce.

It would give artists something to aim for, increasing their quality and creativity to a point where it generates earnings. Much as I love this industry and have for the past 15 plus years, so much of the collections are, in my opinion (and including some of my own stuff), not even worth the 1-10 cents that are charged for them. It could also train buyers into recognizing that quality should cost more, compete with the free agencies already out there, and maybe get some of those talented people onboard to sell work instead of giving it away...

I know, pipe dream..

Edit: Oooh, and do a plan like 10-5-1. Ten freebies, 5 paid, 1 Premium, all for the low low price of xxx. That way you don't have harvesters soaking up all the free stuff.

How about the more an image sells, the higher the price gets?...something in more demand should have more monetary value. There should be an optimal price to make both the agency and the artist the most money.

« Reply #39 on: March 28, 2021, 22:45 »
0

 

I wonder if a hybrid would work? I remember back in the day my ideal agency had tiers, where the better the work (subjective and hard to measure, I know) the higher the sell price. I wonder if some agency will simply have a permanent free section where the vast majority of product is exactly that. All the stuff every shooter starts out with and doesn't cost extra to produce.

it would work but it IS work and there's the rub - even if we could decide what quality is (argued since plato and wrt art since the renaissance) who'll pay for the effort, esp'ly as the buyers don't seem to care

DT has(? had?) a level system where the price of an image went up when it was sold.

Or take the music (spotify) model - image is free (for ltd license), but artist is paid for every DL - could be lucraztive if downloads are as many as the anti-free folk claim

« Reply #40 on: March 28, 2021, 22:50 »
0
;D ;D ;D ;D

Getty is more or less broke. It is completely financed with debt and will be out of business once interest rates rise

 :-X

NOT having debt when interest rates are near 0 is the foolish move & most companies know it's cheaper to pay w other peoples' money,  while your debt 'decreases' thru inflation.  and debt can be hedged against the unlikely event of near term interest rates.  it's one of the reasons capitalism does work


« Reply #41 on: March 29, 2021, 00:27 »
0
Whatever. Getty is two steps away from bankruptcy and we will see this sooner than later. Now tell them why capitalism is strangling their throats and they do the same to their contributors.......


Quote
NOT having debt when interest rates are near 0 is the foolish move & most companies know it's cheaper to pay w other peoples' money,  while your debt 'decreases' thru inflation.  and debt can be hedged against the unlikely event of near term interest rates.  it's one of the reasons capitalism does work



« Reply #42 on: March 29, 2021, 01:52 »
+2
like any non-fungible, it's worth what someone will pay for it - what's the intrinsic value of an oil-stained canvas? why is it worth more if Picasso applied the oil[paint] to the canvas?

most photos are worth less because they're now commodities in the context of buyers of stock.  it's not that stockagencies are giving artists so little (a different discussion but one that many keep conflating), it's that the worth of photos has declined precipitously - in the 70s-80 agencies sold  images for $300-1000+ for the same purposes they're  used now when they only cost  $1


I think its a bit more than that. While I agree with what you say, I also think that the idea of selling your Picasso for the same price, and in the same place, as my 30 second breakfast eggs photoshoot was and continues to be a contributor to the decline.

I wonder if a hybrid would work? I remember back in the day my ideal agency had tiers, where the better the work (subjective and hard to measure, I know) the higher the sell price. I wonder if some agency will simply have a permanent free section where the vast majority of product is exactly that. All the stuff every shooter starts out with and doesn't cost extra to produce.

It would give artists something to aim for, increasing their quality and creativity to a point where it generates earnings. Much as I love this industry and have for the past 15 plus years, so much of the collections are, in my opinion (and including some of my own stuff), not even worth the 1-10 cents that are charged for them. It could also train buyers into recognizing that quality should cost more, compete with the free agencies already out there, and maybe get some of those talented people onboard to sell work instead of giving it away...

I know, pipe dream..

Edit: Oooh, and do a plan like 10-5-1. Ten freebies, 5 paid, 1 Premium, all for the low low price of xxx. That way you don't have harvesters soaking up all the free stuff.
You have a point but its in the hands of artists to choose their sales channels. If you can get your painting in an art gallery you wouldn't be selling others on a street corner as the value would plummet.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #43 on: March 29, 2021, 09:06 »
0
How about the more an image sells, the higher the price gets?...something in more demand should have more monetary value. There should be an optimal price to make both the agency and the artist the most money.
What about rarity of supply?
Trouble with that is where it's easy to track sales, it's a bit more difficult to track availablity, within and across sites.
But it should count for something. "This is the exact subject you want, and this is the only one you can get."
Ha! Dream on! Once I happened to have a photo, properly captioned and keyworded, of the exact place a newsworthy incident happened, the only one anywhere of that rather unremarkable location - and the Beeb and other media which covered the event took a 'near enough' image from Google Earth. Ho-hum. Can't compete with 'free'.  :(

In truth, I'm sure I was never 'in' the competition, I'm sure they just went straight to GE and satisficed.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2021, 11:56 by ShadySue »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #44 on: March 29, 2021, 11:45 »
+2
Neither SS nor Getty are for sale, and neither has an expected large future growth potential.

Getty Images is the world's leading supplier of imagery for the media, corporate, and advertising sectors. They aren't in trouble just because IS is wasting away. Mark Harris Getty: Net Worth: $500 million: Source of Wealth: Getty Oil / Getty Images. Not as rich as Jon, but he'll scrape by.  ;D

wds

« Reply #45 on: March 29, 2021, 14:43 »
+1
How about the more an image sells, the higher the price gets?...something in more demand should have more monetary value. There should be an optimal price to make both the agency and the artist the most money.
What about rarity of supply?
Trouble with that is where it's easy to track sales, it's a bit more difficult to track availablity, within and across sites.
But it should count for something. "This is the exact subject you want, and this is the only one you can get."
Ha! Dream on! Once I happened to have a photo, properly captioned and keyworded, of the exact place a newsworthy incident happened, the only one anywhere of that rather unremarkable location - and the Beeb and other media which covered the event took a 'near enough' image from Google Earth. Ho-hum. Can't compete with 'free'.  :(

In truth, I'm sure I was never 'in' the competition, I'm sure they just went straight to GE and satisficed.

There seems to be an assumption that customers will continually hunt around for the lowest price for every image they want, but many customers buy into a supplier or two with monthly purchase packages etc.. It would still make sense for them to "pay more" (say spend 5 credits instead of 1 credit for an image) for an image that they really want (and typically that would be an image that demonstrated desirability by its number of downloads).

After all, there are so-called high end stock sites that charge way more that micro-stock prices. They boast "curated collections"....well simple, if an image on a micro-stock site has sold a bunch of times....that would be it's "curation" mechanism and it should fetch a higher price. It would have to be within reason so that the customer won't go to another site and try to find it, but it seems there is a middle ground of pricing where it should work. In addition, the stock site will make more money as well, so that would be their incentive to enact such a mechanism.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2021, 14:46 by wds »

« Reply #46 on: March 29, 2021, 18:46 »
0
Whatever. Getty is two steps away from bankruptcy and we will see this sooner than later. Now tell them why capitalism is strangling their throats and they do the same to their contributors.......


Quote
NOT having debt when interest rates are near 0 is the foolish move & most companies know it's cheaper to pay w other peoples' money,  while your debt 'decreases' thru inflation.  and debt can be hedged against the unlikely event of near term interest rates.  it's one of the reasons capitalism does work

our form of capitalism doesn't care about failing companies - it's baked into the system. unfortunately it's usually the workers rather than shareholders who suffer the most

« Reply #47 on: March 31, 2021, 14:22 »
+1
The question I rarely see these days is, given the over supply of quality images, plus the growing popularity of free sites is this:

What is a photo actually worth these days? And why?

There is an old saying, "If you don't value yourself, no one else will value you either."   I was a used bookseller back in the early days of Amazon.com when all they sold was books.  I had over 30,000 books for sale.  Like microstock today, the competition was fierce.  Most of my books were listed for sale for $0.01 (One Cent). Not because I wanted to sell them for that, but because that was the going price for 90% of the books on Amazon at that time.  The only way to make money was to save on packaging and take your profits out of that standard S&H fee that amazon automatically tacted on the sale of books. Fortunately, I had some equipment and supplies leftover from a  previous failed company, and through some creative thinking, I was able to save some money and make about $0.25 a book.

So what does this have to do with microstock?  I see the same thing happening as what happened on Amazon.  Everybody is trying to cut everyone else's throat by dropping prices so low that it is not profitable to stay in business. This is exactly what happened on Amazon.com, and eBay as well.  People were selling everything so cheap that nobody could make a profit.  But look at those markets today.  You won't find books on amazon for a penny no more these days.  eBay likewise has balanced out and it is hard to find a steal on their anyone as well.  At some point, those markets figured out that trying to kill each other off by undercutting prices, was only hurting themselves.  Those markets eventually balanced out to where people could at least make a living doing them.

I think the same will happen with microstock.  Eventually, these companies will stop trying to undercut each other because it will get to the point that the prices are so low that no one can make a living at it.  Then the market will start to find a balance where it at least make it worth the effort to do it.  Right now, no one is making money.  Not real money.  If you calculate the investment in equipment, and the time spent, 99% of people would earn far more flipping burgers at McDonalds. If your cost plus labor does not equal profitability equal or greater than minimum wage, you are losing money doing it. Plain and simple.

I believe, or at least I hope, the market will balance out, and the people that create the content will start to value their work and refuse to sell it for pennies.  Because if you don't value your work, nobody else will either. Once photographers realize the truth of this statement and band together and say, NO MORE!, things will get better for everyone.




farbled

« Reply #48 on: March 31, 2021, 14:50 »
0
I believe, or at least I hope, the market will balance out, and the people that create the content will start to value their work and refuse to sell it for pennies.  Because if you don't value your work, nobody else will either. Once photographers realize the truth of this statement and band together and say, NO MORE!, things will get better for everyone.

Lol, funny about the Amazon comment (or maybe ironic) since I listed one of my thrillers there today as a free promotion (Flashback, by TR Davis if anyone gets bored). However, I am unsure it will balance out as you say. I think that the future (if there is one) lies with exclusivity and scarcity of specific niches. I think as I've said previously that if there is a tangible and real dollar cost to production, you won't see the images on freebie or discount sites as often.

The bad side is there is a huge collection of these kinds of images that in many cases don't become dated, already available. We've seen that users will choose "free and good enough" as often as they do "expensive and perfect". At least it appears that way.

« Reply #49 on: March 31, 2021, 15:02 »
+1

Lol, funny about the Amazon comment (or maybe ironic) since I listed one of my thrillers there today as a free promotion (Flashback, by TR Davis if anyone gets bored). However, I am unsure it will balance out as you say. I think that the future (if there is one) lies with exclusivity and scarcity of specific niches. I think as I've said previously that if there is a tangible and real dollar cost to production, you won't see the images on freebie or discount sites as often.

The bad side is there is a huge collection of these kinds of images that in many cases don't become dated, already available. We've seen that users will choose "free and good enough" as often as they do "expensive and perfect". At least it appears that way.

As a publisher myself, I know all about the limited free giveaway promotion period that amazon offers. But my point stands that you don't see books selling for a penny anymore, and they are way more books available now than when I was selling over 20 years ago.  So mass supply does not have to equal any value you, as many microstock sellers think.  Just because there is an almost unlimited supply of images, does not make those images worth less.  People bought books for a penny on amazon back when I was selling, NOT because they would not pay more, but because that is what sellers were valuing their books at.  People will pay a lot more for pictures then they are now, but why pay more when they can get them for little or nothing, because that is what people are selling them for.

These free sites are not free.  They are making money on ad revenue, because they can make more money from ads, than trying to sell them outright.  Once the market balances out and people can make decent money from selling images, all that content on the free sites will go away.  Those sites only exist because the stock agencies have made it less profitable to sell images than to give them away for free and make money from ads. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3372 Views
Last post April 21, 2009, 16:50
by RT
82 Replies
21568 Views
Last post May 05, 2012, 17:35
by luissantos84
72 Replies
17295 Views
Last post December 08, 2013, 00:16
by Uncle Pete
13 Replies
11108 Views
Last post June 14, 2014, 11:28
by onepointfour
6 Replies
5259 Views
Last post September 27, 2019, 06:55
by Lola Ginabrigeta

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle