Third Bridge专家称Getty放弃Shutterstock并购后仍面临债务、竞争和AI替代压力

[[00:02:31]]
Getty Images has recently called off its planned merger with Shutterstock after some challenges. What do you think management was trying to accomplish with the deal, and what does the future look like without it?

[[00:03:05]]
I think management was trying to basically create one unified force through what they hoped for many months would have been the combined Getty-Shutterstock entity. I can tell you that a lot of time, effort to use the expression, blood, sweat and tears were put into that deal, and it was a very laborious process. As everyone knows, I think a lot of the work really went into the United Kingdom itself and trying to alleviate some of the concerns that were raised by that particular body that had concerns around editorial and the competition that exists among editorial in the United Kingdom as a whole. I think that there were financial reasons for the deal as well. I think it is public knowledge that at least this was addressed in some of the news coverage following the failed merger itself and decision overall to leave it behind and move along was that Getty has a lot of debt that it needs to reconcile. I think that that was another reason why both companies decided to combine forces in hopes of potentially trying to figure out what to do with the debt that's on the balance sheet.

I think holistically, it was a play designed to set both companies up for the future and just combine both offerings, both from editorial and creative, the libraries that exist within Getty, the libraries that exist within Shutterstock and just be this massive combined force that can then service not only brands, but also effectively cover news, sports and entertainment globally. On paper, and I think in principle, it looked great to everyone. I know that definitely the CEOs of Getty and Shutterstock were both very bullish on the deal. Unfortunately, after a lot of work and a lot of convincing, the decision was made to not go through with it. Now I think I was personally a bit surprised because the last piece before the decision to walk away was, I think the ask from the UK was to sell off Shutterstock's editorial business, to alleviate some of those concerns around competition. Then everyone thought that was going to happen, and then that didn't happen and then all of a sudden, it's like we're not moving forward at all. I don't obviously have any visibility into why that decision was made. My only assumption is that maybe that was just too difficult of an endeavour to pursue selling off the editorial side of the business and then both companies combined decide to just go their separate ways.

[[00:06:22]]
Without the merger going through, what does Getty lose strategically by remaining independent, beyond the cost synergies? Do you think this changes its long-term competitive position? What does it mean for the company, and what's the route forwards?

[[00:07:06]]
I think it puts them back in a very competitive position. Because if this merger were to happen, then the Shutterstock piece wouldn't be something for Getty to worry about anymore. I think, initiative, at least internally and the mindset was, well, if we're bringing Shutterstock in-house, so to speak, we're bringing those clients into the Getty ecosystem because there's still competition that exists, I think, more so within the creative side of the house with respect to Getty and Shutterstock. There are clients who might have a Getty subscription who also have a Shutterstock subscription. There might be clients who don't go to Getty because of cost or pricing concerns and they're with Shutterstock. Guess what? Now Getty leadership was thinking, well, we could bring those clients in-house. We can somehow figure out a way to… If they're customers of both entities to merge those agreements together. If they're not, if, let's say, for example, they have been a Shutterstock competitor for… A Shutterstock client for 10 years, they were thinking, then they would become a Getty customer and now those customers are probably just staying right where they were.

Does competition still exist? Yes, because as long as Shutterstock is around and as long as Getty is around and as long as there is a fundamental need for that content, then customers, brands, they're going to shop around and they have choice now. There's competition and there's choice. How does Getty position itself for the future? I think that the OpenAI deal is a great example about a great use case example of how Getty is thinking right now, and we can dive into that in a separate topic area. How does that company stay relevant? How does that company continue to think ahead, continue to figure out how best to position its model to effectively work in the creative world. That also is another talking point or discussion point and one I've had recently, looking ahead to the future.

I think it's also important as one looks ahead to the future to understand how creatives work, how creativity is being made and those workflows and just overall efficiency and productivity. You could unpack AI in so many different ways right now, but I think one way in which AI is being utilised effectively across any company is to increase productivity and efficiency. Creators are thinking, how can we work faster, smarter. Creative teams are leaner these days, but the amount of work isn't going away. They're thinking about, "What is it going to make my job easier?" I think Getty needs to start to think about, okay, through the lens of content and providing content to people, how can we make that so accessible to them to the point where it's within one click vs five clicks.

[[00:10:18]]
In terms of making content access dramatically easier, beyond the OpenAI partnership – which I'm sure is a big part of that – what do you think Getty's management needs to do? What should be on their minds when it comes to improving CX?

[[00:10:48]]
I think they need to really look at the technology and the integration. I think integration is key. APIs exist for Getty right now, and there are ways in which individuals can reach Getty through other platforms and tools and whatnot. Is there a world in which that access becomes even easier? I don't know what that answer is. Is there a world in which, because, let's say, for example, you're working in all these different programmes and you need an image that you can only find on gettyimages.com, you have to get out of that ecosystem in which you're working and you have to go to gettyimages.com and you have to search there to try and find the asset and then you have to license it through Getty. Then if you're working for a global brand, then there's someone who's governing those licences within the company itself, and that person needs to be privy to what the creative team is doing. There's just a lot of work that happens. I think if Getty can start to think about how can we, again, to my point earlier, make ourselves more integrated into the creative ecosystem because you have to understand that creatives are working in Canva, they're working in Figma, they're working in Adobe.

There are a multitude of applications in which people are working. How can Getty think about utilising technology or maybe building more partnerships? I don't know, to try and create that relevance and to create that integration and to create that ease of use so that if there is a need for certain types of stock photography or content, it's within one's fingertips. That's high level, and that's very technical, and that's just a theory that I have, whether that's practical or not, I don't know. If they pay me the big bucks, maybe I can figure out what the solution is. I think I'm asked a lot, what is the future for the business and what's going on with creative/stock photography and what's going on with editorial. I'm sure we'll dive into it a little deeper. In summary, I think that the editorial business, and I know you guys look at the numbers, I don't look at the numbers, but from what I've been told that the creative side of the business generates more money than the editorial side of the business. The way I look at it, the editorial side of the business, in my opinion, is strong because you have to look at the fundamentals and you have to look at it holistically, which is that the news world in which we live isn't going anywhere.

Sports is bigger than ever. The World Cup is a great example of that. I think the investment that companies and brands are making through the lens of partnerships, sponsorships, advertising, activations is massive and Getty covers sports. That's, in my mind, strong. Then entertainment, yes, entertainment, Hollywood, they've had their share of challenges with the strikes and whatnot, but events are back, carpet events are back, movie premieres are back and all that stuff that Getty covers is back. That I don't see going anywhere anytime soon. Therein lies an opportunity, I think, for Getty to remain pretty stable. Then on the creative side of the business, it's the question about, how much do people really need stock photography anymore and what's happening with that model. That is the one that I think one should unpack and dissect and analyse and ideate around because that is the big question mark, I think, in everyone's mind. What does the future hold for the creative side of the business? How can it become more relevant? How can it become more integrated? As far as the editorial side of the business, it's a pretty straightforward model. It's as simplistic as covering things. As long as those events continue to happen and as long as people love sports and entertainment and watch news, that's not changing anytime soon.

[[00:15:21]]
How do you think about the current TAM, breaking it down between corporates and editorial? Is it expanding, relatively flat or beginning to shrink? What do you think about the market that Getty operates in and its future?

[[00:15:52]]
As far as just the actual content space, the stock photography/content space, I don't see it expanding at all, number one. No. I don't see a new player coming out anytime soon saying we're the new stock photography powerhouse. I think we're all in agreement that with the massive AI push across the board and technology advances that I don't see there being really a need for another big player to emerge. That being said, there could be smaller players, entrepreneurs who pop up and decide to do something, but they would be a blip on everyone's radar. I think that Getty remains I call them the Cadillac brand. I think that they've built a great reputation. They've been in business more than 30 years. I think that journalists and people who work in news, sports and entertainment know them better than a lot of other people around the world. It's this funny anecdote that I share with people when you talk about, when I used to work at Getty, they're like, "Oh, yes, the company that has the watermark on the images on the internet."

That's how a lot of people associate or that's the connection that a lot of people make to the brand itself. I think it's here to stay. I don't think it goes away either. It's just here to stay. How the company figures out its financial challenges and goals is on them. There will continue to be revenue, and I think there will continue to be need, but the question is how much of that revenue is enough to sustain the business? Does the business need to right-size itself, in some way to compensate for the potential lack of revenue that may be occurring over the next five years due to just advances in technology and the way in which people consume the content from the creative side of the business.

[[00:18:03]]
If the market for stock photography and content isn't growing, are we perhaps shifting the emphasis from having the biggest content library to having the best workflow for accessing the content?

[[00:18:27]]
That's a great point. You bring up a great point. I think at the end of the day, I think one thing that Getty has always stood… Has always proclaimed or advocated or felt good about is the fact that it has the best stock content library on the market. That is true. I tell everyone, if you were to take and we can use the prompting analogy, if you were to prompt something into Shutterstock and prompt to the same ask into Getty, you're going to get completely different imagery. You're going to get the same imagery, but I think the level of quality, the level of detail, the lighting, everything is just going to look better on Getty vs on Shutterstock. The level of quality is there, and I think that Getty prides itself in the fact that they do have the best library out there.

[[00:19:26]]
If the market for the library itself, the stock photography or the different content Getty offers isn't necessarily growing, are we less focused on having the biggest and best content library and focusing on having the best workflow to access that? Is that where differentiation comes from for the company going forwards?

[[00:19:55]]
Maybe it is. Maybe it's a positioning play to say… I also spent time in the branding world. Is it time for the company as a whole to, and this is me putting my branding and advertising hat on for a second, is this an opportunity for the company to look at itself and go through the strategy exercise and branding exercise to say, "Well, how are we positioning ourselves moving forward? What is our North Star? What is our brand DNA? Is it that we are the premier, we have the best library on the market, and we are the place where customers need to go if they need to get the best photography across creative and editorial? Is it sending that message out to consumers, to the market to various stakeholders, people who interact with the brand that this is who we are?" I personally, if I were part of the C-suite, I would make that recommendation and think that any time one faces challenge, it's an opportunity to turn that into opportunity. Is there an avenue now that the company has to look at itself and say, "Well, how are we positioning ourselves for the future?" Some of that is language, verbiage and what goes out to the world.

Also, as I said earlier, I think a lot of it goes into looking at the company as a whole and figuring out, where does the growth lie and how do we make some changes to position ourselves for the future? I do think even if the need remains stagnant, what I'm trying to say is that the need isn't going to go away. I think that we've seen that need declining. You guys see it as you look at the financials, that need is declining and everyone wants to know why that need is declining, and we can unpack that separately. The need is declining, but the need is not extinct either. The need is declining, but it's still there, and people are still using us.

[[00:22:21]]
Demand is declining, not disappearing. What is driving that decline? Do you think this is a permanent change in how customers source content?

[[00:22:36]]
Listen, I think there are a number of reasons why the decline is going down. I think that there's competition. One could surmise that maybe a chunk of Getty's revenue went to Shutterstock or a chunk of Getty's revenue went to Alamy or Adobe, although I'd like to make it abundantly clear that Adobe is a tech company, not a content company. They offer stock photography, but that's not what they sell. It's just part of their offering. There are smaller players out there. One could surmise, maybe people just don't want to pay Getty pricing anymore. It's expensive. They charge a premium, again, because it's a premium product. Again, as we just spoke about, the level of quality is there. Getty feels as if they can charge a premium. They're the most expensive, let's say, player on the block. Do companies feel like there's a value in that investment anymore? Do they want to spend the money? Do they want to spend 25%, 30%, 40% more than what they would spend to get a similar image from Shutterstock or a competitor that maybe isn't the same level of quality, but fulfils a creative need. That's one assumption. The other one is obviously AI. Everyone thinks that AI is completely taking content away from Getty. I don't fully agree with that perspective.

I think it's important for all of us to understand creativity and what creative directors and art directors, designers and others who actually put creative work together really and utilise. I think that there is still a need for what I like to call authentic content. I'll use a great analogy. I worked with a beer brand when I was at Getty, they wanted to put together an advertising campaign and actually showcase videos of beaches all around the world. Now in order to go through that creative exercise, they can do two things. They can basically put a creative team together. They can hire a videographer and they can fly that videographer around the world and spend USD 250,000 and create unique bespoke content for that advertising campaign or they can go to Getty and they can license videos of images, videos of beaches all around the world, and they could spend, I don't know, USD 25,000. Do the math, which route do you think they're going to take. Now could AI fulfil that need? Absolutely not, because AI… No brand is going to take the legal risk or even just the risk to potentially deceive consumers out there and use AI technology to recreate Bells Beach in Australia.

No brand would do that. Think about that. There's still a need for authentic content and people go to Getty for that authentic content. Now there is a world in which we now live where specifically in the world of CPG, AI can create backgrounds. It can put a beer bottle in a bar. It can put a beer bottle in a kitchen, it can put it next to a barbecue outside. Those are very generic environments. I think the creators are now savvy enough to know, no one will know if that was actually shot by a photographer or created by AI. It's a super generic background. There's no IP associated with it. No one cares where it was shot. It could have been shot in China or it could have been shot in Iowa. Therein, I think maybe 10 years ago, creators were going to Getty and licensing a generic shot of a kitchen or a generic shot of a bar and using Photoshop to actually put the product in that environment. Now AI has made it so easy for creators to do that and to do it in bulk and mass amounts. Technology exists to just auto-populate all that stuff. Lost revenue, because 10 years ago, they were licensing those images. Now AI does it. That's the second piece. Then I don't know that there's a third piece.

I think it's AI, it's competition, maybe the third piece is that companies overall are just being smarter with their money. Maybe they just feel as if the content that they have in-house, whether they've licensed it already or it sits in a DAM somewhere, just satisfies their creative needs, and they just don't need to license the amount of content that they used to five or 10 years ago. Those are the three areas in which I would like pivot.

[[00:27:36]]
You mentioned AI replacing the more generic content, but less so the authentic content. Regarding the generic content, what hit do you think this has or will continue to have on Getty? How much has the company already lost because AI is replacing those generic content use cases? Do you think we're still early on in that, or has most of that disruption already happened?

[[00:28:07]]
A couple of points there. Getty also launched its own AI tool. Everyone was super bullish. I think they launched it maybe three or four years ago, maybe four. I think everyone at Getty was super bullish because they thought, we have this massive dataset. We should have our own AI tool, and that flopped. I think that their revenue projections were a lot higher than where they landed the first year. I'm just digressing there just because it was top of mind for a second. Thinking about where revenue comes from and how to supplement some of the lost revenue, they thought that maybe their AI tool could have done it, but that fell short.

[[00:29:31]]
When you think about the lost revenue, are we still in the early innings of that, or has AI disruption already happened?

[[00:29:37]]
I think there's been an impact already. There's definitely been an impact. When you look at the big CPG players, I think that they have massive in-house creative teams. I think they're already ahead of the curve and they're already automating as much as they can and they're using the technology. I think there could be additional hits down the road. I think it really just depends on the customer set, and how antiquated some customers are working vs how far advanced other customers are. I could think there could be more decline. I don't think that the end is in sight yet for that because I think it all ties back to AI adoption in some form or fashion. I think that, that train is still very much rolling.

[[00:30:34]]
Getty breaks down its customer sets in three segments – corporations, media businesses and agencies. How is each customer set being affected? The company has obviously built its businesses around the premium licence contract or enterprise relationships. Corporations represent 59% of revenues in 2025, growing at a pretty impressive rate – 25% – in Q4 2025, whereas media businesses and agencies represent around 29% and 12%, respectively. How have those customer groups evolved? What does AI mean for them? How do you think the customer breakdown will change over the next couple of years?

[[00:31:35]]
I'm going to go in reverse. If that's okay. The agency business, and I spent more than 10 years in the agency business. The agency business has had so many struggles over the last, let's say, five years. Getty's agency business has struggled significantly during that timeframe. That would explain why it's at the bottom of that list. Why is the agency business within Getty suffering? It's because the agencies are suffering. It's become so commoditised within the agency world, so competitive. There are mergers happening all the time. There are lay-offs happening all the time. I think that Getty has absorbed some of that blow and you could see it in the numbers. I don't see the agency side of the business making a massive Herculean comeback anytime soon. I think that the industry, the agency industry as a whole is going through a transformation within its own world and the way in which people consume content has radically evolved over the last 15 years. Traditional advertising agencies, I think, will be obsolete in the next 10-20 years. They're really only used nowadays for Super Bowl ads. People just don't watch television anymore. We've moved into this digital era and now certain… I think the digital agencies and media agencies are still doing well. The media side of the business is the business that works with media companies.

I use CNN as a great example there. Getty has historically had very big deals with CNN and the way those deals are structured, guess what, CNN is paying Getty to use its content on CNN. If you were to turn on CNN now and watch CNN for the next two hours, I would guarantee in those next two hours, you're going to see Getty Images photography in some form or fashion. CNN leans on Getty heavily whenever individuals are on speaking about a particular content topic or you'll see Getty Images photography put up on the screen. That's also the case for print organisations and just overall media journalism organisations that need to utilise Getty's content, and that's primarily through the lens of editorial. Those organisations really aren't tapping into Getty's creative library. Maybe. Again, I didn't work on that side of the business. I can't say with 100% certainty, but my assumption would be that, let's say, 90-95% of those agreements focus primarily on editorial content, again, because it's important to understand that these news organisations, media outlets, they just can't be everywhere at once. They want to be able to be in a position in which they can effectively and correctly license content and put that out to the world based upon what they're covering, whether it's a news event, a sporting event or an entertainment event.

The last piece is the corporate world. I think that this is where I scratch my head sometimes because everyone says creative is declining, people aren't using stock photography anymore, but you look at the numbers and you just put creative at the top or corporate at the top of that list. How does one unpack that? I think that one can unpack it through the lens of editorial content. There are corporate entities. There are brands, take Coke, take Pepsi, take any of these brands. As I said earlier, they're all over the sporting world. We're just at the tail end of the World Cup, and these brands have been planning for like two years for the World Cup. They're tapping into Getty and the relationships that Getty has to extract some of that content that they need to be the right World Cup partner. That's just one example. There are partnerships with the NBA, the WNBA, there are partnerships with soccer in general. And I think that brands are still leaning on Getty to tap into that content in some form or fashion. I think that equates to the revenue lift that one sees. Is there a world in which maybe the editorial revenue is offsetting the decline in creative revenue that we're seeing among the corporate segment? Potentially, that would be one of my guesses.

Also, I think it's important to understand when looking at the corporate segment specifically, and I'd like to use the Netflix analogy, Netflix earns its money and forecast based on subscription revenue. Whenever they report their earnings, they're always talking about their subscription revenue. I think Getty reports its subscription revenue as well. If you have those numbers, we can talk about them. That subscription revenue has a fundamental baseline. I think that the company is doing a good job of keeping as many customers as possible and renewing those subscriptions. There may be some attrition here and there, but fundamentally, I think that there is that recurring revenue. I think that's potentially why you see the corporate number so high on the list is that there is that recurring revenue. There may be some attrition here and there. Maybe it's being offset by the editorial need. I think if you look at that holistically, I think that probably explains why corporate is at the top, again, because there just have been so many relationships for so many years with so many different companies, brands and entities that, that number will still remain number one.

[[00:38:11]]
Is any customer group positioned to provide better growth opportunities going forwards?

[[00:39:23]]
I don't know. It's definitely not the agency world. We can check that. We can move that one to the side. Is it the corporate world or is it the media world? If you were to look at the percentages, there's still a pretty big gap. What was it, 60%-something for corporate and there was a big gap between corporate and media, looking at the numbers.

[[00:39:46]]
Corporate right now represents 59% of revenue and media businesses represent 29%. Corporation revenue was growing at 25%, whereas media businesses were low-single digit. Does that make sense to you? Where do you see the biggest growth opportunities going forwards in terms of customers? What do you think drives that?

[[00:40:29]]
The numbers don't lie. If you're seeing the growth among the corporate segment, I think one could quickly surmise based upon the data, it's hard to think that there would be a massive downside immediately. Something is going well, obviously, if there's 25% growth and it's at 59% and media was single-digit growth. One has to look at growth as additional revenue. Looking at the media business, maybe these contracts are just renewing at the same rate. These media businesses still have the need, but it's the same amount of need, it's the same amount of content that they sign up for every year. As a result, there's really not much growth. One could have a conversation about the media business as well. It's around, like cable news isn't going anywhere. There have been disruptions, I think, within journalism and media as a whole over the years, and that might be part of the reason why there's that minimal YoY increase within that world. I guess if I were in your shoes, knowing what I know and looking at the numbers, I would say maybe the upside is in the corporate world. You have to balance that with… Okay. There's upside, but then the numbers also showed decline in some form or fashion, too.

Again, scratching one's head, what's going on behind the scenes because that segment still comprises or fuels the majority of revenue for the company? The need for content is declining, but it's still growing. Where is the growth happening? I can't answer that necessarily. I can make some educated guesses to say, okay, like I said earlier, maybe it's coming from editorial licensing, maybe it's coming from sports licensing and the sports team charges a premium for that. It's a tough one to unpack candidly.

[[00:42:54]]
Corporations, media businesses and agencies represent around 59%, 29% and 12% of Getty's revenue, respectively. Where do you see those settling for the company over the next couple of years?

[[00:43:18]]
I think agency goes down a bit for sure. I think agency continues to decline. I think media stays static there, give or take. I don't know, based upon the trajectory, I think corporate continues to grow. I think they have a sales team in place internally to… They have dedicated sales resources for these companies. They have people who manage these relationships. I think if they're making the investment on the sales side of things to maintain and grow these relationships, and one could quickly ascertain that management is putting pressure on these teams to not only keep these relationships but grow these relationships and obviously, teams are incentivised to do so, but they're going to continue to push in that direction because if they've already uncovered or proven 25% growth, they're thinking there's more to be had. I think that number continues to go up.

[[00:44:34]]
Do you think pricing power has evolved in an AI-first era? Obviously, Getty has maintained premium pricing throughout the duration of the business. Is the company's pricing power increasing, eroding or staying the same?

[[00:45:05]]
You mean as far as how price-sensitive consumers are about AI technology?

[[00:45:11]]
No. If Getty was able to charge more than competitors or offer a pricing premium vs others, and AI is perhaps reducing the generic cases vs authentic, is the company's pricing power changing? Is it able to maintain the pricing premium?

[[00:45:37]]
No. I think that they've re-evaluated that multiple times, and they've looked at the pricing and the pricing has actually come down I think they priced it too high to begin with. I think that they thought everyone would want a tool. I think personally that companies are a bit… I don't think the price sensitivity exists around AI technology as much as one would think. I think at the end of the day, companies want to use the right technology to fulfil their needs and solve their challenges. I think if they find the technology that works for them, they'll pay for it. I think a lot of creative teams also… When you look at creative outputs, they want to use the technology that generates the best output for them. They're thinking about outputs. They're thinking about the quality of the creative. They're thinking about workflows. They're thinking about ease of use, integration, everything else. I think that Getty's AI tool has lost out to the competition quite a bit. I think Getty has seen that. I don't know what's been going on with the technology since I left the company and the pricing and whatnot, but I would say that there was a lot of scrutiny on that while I was there.

[[00:46:58]]
Getty has a number of partnerships – including with Nvidia, Perplexity, Runway and now OpenAI – rather than being focused on the AI model and building out its own foundational model. The new OpenAI partnership brings Getty's licensed content directly into ChatGPT. Does that change anything for the company? What does that mean for the business?

[[00:47:34]]
Is it a PR play or is it a revenue play or is it both? Is the revenue play aspirational? It's definitely a PR play. I mean look at the effect it had on the stock price the day they announced it. I think in principle, I think the concept is smart. Going back to what I was talking about earlier about relevance, staying relevant, staying top of mind, brand recognition, I think we all work and live, so to speak, in ChatGPT and OpenAI, Claude, Gemini, whatever you use. It can be one's therapist depending on who you talk to. It's fully integrated into how we live and work now. Looking at it that way, it continues to keep getting relevant because one could go into ChatGPT and prompt something and then depending on what the prompt is, maybe a Getty image pops up. Now is that going to compel someone to go and license that image because that's where the revenue happens. Someone has to actually go to Getty and say, "I want that image, I want to license it," and the company has made anywhere from USD 300 to USD 500 or more depending on the use case.

Hard to say, hard to say. I think we should be looking at that. I don't know if that's ever going to be made public. I don't know if anyone will have access to that data, but the true value in the partnership lies in people actually going from OpenAI over to Getty and pulling the content down. That's what we should be paying attention to.

[[00:50:06]]
Getty does not break out the AI licensing revenue or the amount of traction that it's going to get through that. Do you think AI licensing could become a meaningful portion of revenue, or is it all about image discoverability – it is a display partnership, with Getty's premium-licence visual content directly appearing in the ChatGPT search? How could the company look to monetise this, and would it become a major driver?

[[00:50:38]]
Let's unpack it a bit more. I don't think it's going to come from everyday ChatGPT users. We're talking about just ordinary global citizens who are prompting, have a question about something personally, whatever it is, that image is great, but are common folks going to license it? Absolutely not. There's no need. The real opportunity lies in those who are working and using ChatGPT for their jobs. It could be a creative. It could be someone in legal. It could be someone in human resources. It could be someone in any discipline or function. I'll use multiple examples. Creatives are constantly prompting and looking at things, and that might be just another way in which they can potentially see what's available to them. HR teams, others, they're working on internal presentations, communications people, they're working on internal decks, external decks, content, website stuff, whatever the case may be. Yes, there could be an opportunity potentially to license that way, but I want to caveat that by saying if companies are using OpenAI and ChatGPT and they discover content, you need to check that against the corporate protocols that are in place. I don't think that any company would want anyone going rogue and licensing content off of their corporate credit card or doing it in an old-fashioned way.

The question is, do these companies already have existing subscriptions with Getty. If that's the case, then is that asset then being pulled off of an existing subscription? If that's the case, there's no incremental revenue. Then if they don't have a subscription, maybe you prompt them to maybe license images here and there. As I'm thinking through this and analysing this with you on the phone, my take is that I don't think it's going to generate them a ton of revenue at all. I really don't. I think it's a brand play really. I think it's just a brand play. I think it's an opportunity for Getty to get its name out there through the lens of super popular technology and make themselves relevant. Now was money made off the deal itself with OpenAI? Sure. I'm sure there was money made off of the deal in some form or fashion. If you get super granular and pragmatic, it's not going to happen, in my opinion, from common folk. It may happen from brands. Many of those brands probably already have Getty subscriptions. If they do stumble upon content through the lens of OpenAI, they're licensing it off of an existing subscription, and there may be some outliers. How much revenue does that equate to on an annual basis? I don't know. USD 200,000 maybe if that.

[[00:53:59]]
What are your expectations for Getty's revenue growth over the next couple of years? Do you think revenue will grow, stay flat or decline?

[[00:54:30]]
You've been looking at the numbers. There's been quarterly growth, hasn't there, with the company? Has their general earnings have stayed stagnant?

[[00:54:43]]
Somewhat flat. There has been growth over the past 12 months – around 4.5%.

[[00:54:56]]
I think you'll continue to see single-digit growth, anywhere from 2% to 5% is what I think you'll see. I don't see a massive transformation in the business. I think things are just going to continue to just… The wave is going to continue to ride itself out. I think that there are all the challenges we talked about. I think there are going to be blips here and there. I think that the editorial side of the business will definitely remain strong and on good standing. Creative fluctuates here and there, but it seems as if the company is finding new revenue streams among corporate consumers. That's equating to 4%, 5%, 3% YoY growth, which if they can get that, if they've been getting that over the last couple of years… We're in the middle of AI. AI wasn't launched yesterday. AI has been around for a while now and still the company is getting small growth YoY. What would stop that? Might it slow down a little bit? Potentially by 1pp or 2pp. If that's been the trajectory, then I don't see that changing.

[[00:56:23]]
Getty mentioned growing subscriptions, increasing video adoption – I think it reached an attach rate of 16-17% – and expanding internationally, where about 40% of revenue comes from outside the Americas. If the company were to outperform your expectations, where would the upside come from? Would it come from a specific customer segment, such as corporate or enterprise customers, or things such as AI licensing and international expansion?

[[00:56:57]]
Yes. It could be from licensing deals. Those are big money makers. There could be more licensing deals uncovered with big brands, although I think that that train is slowing down a little bit, but maybe there are more opportunities to ink those licensing deals. You said it, maybe there is uncharted territory around the world that they haven't tapped into yet in different markets that could generate additional revenue. Maybe they take the NFL away from the Associated Press because the NFL licensing deal stays or is exclusive to the Associated Press. Maybe Getty takes that away from them, and there's more money there and more opportunity there. Maybe there are more sports partnerships that they can uncover. There are ways in which they can find additional revenue and growth opportunities for sure. The question is how many of those fall in their lap.

[[00:57:58]]
Is there anything else worth highlighting regarding Getty?

[[00:58:12]]
The only other thing that I'm watching is their stock price. It's been under USD 1 for several months, and you guys are the experts. I think if it's under USD 1 for a certain amount of time, then it goes off the market, so I would say continue to watch that. It took a massive dip this week. I think it fell like by 15% this week, down to USD 0.50 last I checked. What's next for the company through the lens of the stock exchange? I think if they hit the six-month mark, alarm bells start going off. That's the only thing that we haven't discussed, and I think that's something that you guys should continue to watch because if they're taken off of the stock exchange, I think that process starts to happen, then how does that affect the company as a whole?

[[00:59:04]]
I think that is a good place to end things for today. I really want to thank you for your fantastic input over the last hour. I appreciate all the help. Thank you for that, and thank you to our clients for listening and reading Third Bridge's Interview on Getty Images today.

Transcription ends at 00:59:17 of the recorded material