Getty Images in bankruptcy: Why even record sales don't protect against the crisis

Endless images, money is running out: What's behind Getty Images' insolvency

Why Getty Images went bankrupt despite valuable image holdings

Getty Images, with its millions of visual assets, well-known brands, and international clients, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This move doesn't mean the stock photo provider will cease operations immediately. Rather, the proceedings are intended to give the company time to restructure its financing and continue operations. Furthermore, the crisis stems from more than just the rapid rise of generative AI: high debt and interest costs, expensive legal disputes, and the failure of a planned merger with Shutterstock have further burdened Getty.

This development raises a fundamental question: How much is an extensive image archive still worth when many customers can now generate simple images themselves using AI? For Getty, the answer depends on whether the company offers more than just a large selection of interchangeable images. Authentic photographs, reliable usage rights, editorial access, and seamless integration into customers' workflows could continue to provide crucial added value. The restructuring is intended to create the financial foundation for this – but it doesn't guarantee that Getty will successfully navigate the changing image market.

Getty Images in bankruptcy: Why an abundance of images no longer offers economic protection

Endless pictures, but no money

Getty Images isn't in bankruptcy simply because artificial intelligence now produces compelling images. The crisis is the result of several mutually reinforcing developments: high debt, costly litigation, a failed mega-merger, and a technological upheaval that is putting particular pressure on interchangeable stock photography. On October 21, 2026, the holding company and several US subsidiaries filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Delaware to implement a financial restructuring previously negotiated with key investors.

The crucial economic distinction lies between a worthless business model and unsustainable financing. Getty still possesses substantial revenues, operating income, international customer relationships, and irreplaceable image libraries. However, this economic substance is insufficient if interest payments, legal obligations, and special expenses consume too much liquidity. Therefore, a company's insolvency does not automatically prove that its products have become obsolete. It can equally demonstrate that the demands of its investors and other creditors no longer align with its actual cash flow.

This is precisely why the case is relevant beyond the image industry. It illustrates how an established digital platform can be worn down by technological obsolescence and legacy financial burdens. The central question for the future is not whether people will continue to need images. It is which images, usage rights, and services customers will still be willing to pay enough for in the future.

Creditor protection instead of business closure

Chapter 11 is primarily a reorganization process and does not automatically mean the immediate liquidation of a company. Getty intends to continue its ongoing business operations and complete the financial restructuring by the end of 2026, if possible. However, this timeline is contingent upon court decisions, necessary approvals, and the actual implementation of the restructuring plan. A guaranteed return to financial stability cannot be inferred from this.

The pre-negotiated structure is intended to prevent a fundamentally viable business from being damaged by a disorderly dispute between creditors. Getty has requested measures that would, among other things, allow for the continued payment of wages and payments to suppliers and content providers in the ordinary course of business. According to the proposed plan, general unsecured receivables from day-to-day operations should not be affected. However, this is distinct from the treatment of certain financial liabilities and subordinated claims.

This separation is crucial for customers. A functioning image platform needs not only servers and search functions, but also reliable rights chains, up-to-date content, and the cooperation of photographers and partners. If the financial crisis were to destroy these relationships, the company would lose precisely the economic assets that justify a restructuring in the first place. Therefore, continuing day-to-day operations is not a minor detail, but a central prerequisite for preserving the company's value.

The business behind the image

Getty Images' roots trace back to London, where Mark Getty and Jonathan Klein co-founded the predecessor of today's company in 1995. From the bundling and digitization of photographic archives, it evolved into an international provider of usage rights for photos, videos, and other visual content. Today, its business encompasses various brands and distribution channels, including Getty Images, iStock, and Unsplash.

From a business perspective, a photo agency doesn't simply sell a digital file. Its services encompass several areas: it makes content discoverable, organizes licensing, and establishes a contractual framework for its use. For editorial images, timeliness, access to events, and contextualization of the depicted events are additional considerations. For commercial images, on the other hand, creative freedom, appropriate permissions, and integration into advertising or corporate communications are often paramount.

The value of this intermediary service depends on the problems it solves for clients. A media company needs an authentic photograph of an actual event. An industrial company might be looking for a legally usable image for an international campaign. A small agency, on the other hand, primarily needs a quick and affordable illustration. These diverse needs explain why the image market should not be considered a homogenous market. A single technology can significantly displace some offerings while only partially replacing others.

For Getty, this is both a challenge and an opportunity. A strategy that treats all images merely as interchangeable units overlooks the most valuable differences within its own business.

Record sales do not protect against payment difficulties

The figures for 2025 contradict a simplistic doomsday narrative. Getty achieved revenue of $981.3 million, a 4.5 percent increase year-over-year and the highest reported annual revenue in its corporate history. Adjusted EBITDA rose to $320.9 million, with a corresponding margin of 32.7 percent. At the same time, the company posted a net loss of $206.2 million, compared to a net profit of $39.5 million in 2024.

This combination is not an accounting contradiction. Adjusted EBITDA describes earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, as well as other excluded items. It shows a portion of operating profitability, but not the amount that actually remains after all liabilities have been settled. A company can appear profitable at this level and still post significant losses or experience liquidity problems.

At Getty, higher legal expenses, merger-related costs, increased financing costs, and currency effects weighed on earnings in 2025. The increase in reported currency losses alone amounted to approximately $115 million compared to the previous year. Such valuation effects, however, are not entirely equivalent to a direct cash outflow. Therefore, it would be just as wrong to interpret the entire net loss as an operational cash burn as it would be to downplay it by pointing to a high adjusted EBITDA.

A sound analysis must consider both the income statement and solvency. The crucial question is how much money actually remains available after necessary investments, ongoing obligations, interest payments, and exceptional charges. It was precisely at this intersection that Getty became increasingly vulnerable.

When debt blocks adjustment

At the start of the bankruptcy proceedings, Getty had approximately $1.46 billion in financed debt. This included secured loans and bonds, as well as about $270 million in unsecured debt. Several financing instruments carried high interest rates, including secured bonds at 11.25 percent and one large unsecured bond at 14 percent.

Such financing costs are not merely a deferred burden for shareholders. They impact the strategic flexibility of the entire company. Every dollar that flows to lenders is unavailable for better search technology, new content, sales, customer retention, or the development of proprietary AI offerings. In a stable market, high debt can be sustainable for extended periods. However, in a market with falling prices and changing customer needs, it reduces the scope for necessary adjustments.

High interest rates simultaneously reflect the risk assessment of lenders. If the perceived risk of default increases, financing becomes more expensive. Higher financing costs, in turn, worsen solvency. This can create a feedback loop in which a company has to raise ever more funds to maintain an already problematic capital structure.

Getty's crisis thus illustrates a fundamental problem with debt-financed business models in the context of technological change. Debt demands relatively fixed payments, while revenue quality, competitive advantages, and investment needs remain fluid. The faster the market changes, the more dangerous this temporal and economic incompatibility becomes.

Legal risks with direct cash impact

In addition to debt, legal disputes over so-called warrants played a central role. These are securities that, under certain conditions, entitle the holder to purchase shares. These disputes resulted in unfavorable judgments for Getty and associated interest obligations of more than $200 million, as well as substantial legal costs. These burdens are distinct from the more publicly noted disputes concerning AI and image rights.

The economic impact of such proceedings is particularly problematic because it is not necessarily related to ongoing business operations. A company may retain customers, sell licenses, and generate operating profits, while liabilities from previous capital market transactions consume large portions of its liquidity. Business performance alone then no longer explains why solvency is under pressure.

Furthermore, there is a confidence effect. As long as the final amount and enforceability of claims remain uncertain, they make new financing agreements more difficult. Lenders must consider potential additional burdens, investors demand higher safety margins, and management loses time for operational development.

The restructuring plan proposes to treat certain existing and potential claims related to the warrants as subordinated and to extinguish them without distribution. Whether the proposed treatment will be legally sound and implementable in all relevant respects is one of the legal risks of the proceedings. Therefore, economically desirable relief is not the same as a final and definitive settlement.

The expensive dream of size

The planned merger with Shutterstock was intended to create a larger provider of visual content. The combined company was originally valued at approximately $3.7 billion. The strategic logic was clear: a larger catalog, shared technology, a broader customer base, and potential cost savings could have strengthened its position against other platforms and AI providers.

However, size is only an advantage if its economic returns outweigh the costs and risks of the merger. A merger requires management capacity, financing, consulting, and regulatory coordination. These expenses are incurred even before any potential synergies are realized. If the project fails, the costs remain while the anticipated benefits fail to materialize.

At Getty, the process lasted approximately 18 months. The restructuring documents list more than $100 million in fees for pursuing the merger. Additionally, they detail roughly $10 million for accelerated compliance work and approximately $43.6 million in net interest expense and financing fees related to a bond issued for this purpose. These figures should not be directly combined with other previously reported expense items, as this could result in double counting.

The chronology is also important. At the end of June 2026, the board of directors decided against continuing under the requested conditions. The merger agreement was formally terminated on July 7, 2026. The failure was therefore not a single, sudden shock, but rather the endpoint of a long process that had already tied up considerable financial resources.

Two image markets, two competitive logics

The regulatory conflict highlights a key characteristic of the industry. The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) viewed commercial stock content as having different competitive conditions than editorial images. While it found no significant competitive disadvantage in the global stock market, concerns remained regarding the supply of editorial content to British media outlets. Approval was therefore contingent upon the sale of Shutterstock's global editorial business.

Getty did not accept this condition and terminated the merger. However, this does not imply that the authority forced the company into insolvency. The financing, the existing legal risks, and the decision regarding which economic conditions of a merger were acceptable were separate issues. Furthermore, competition protection and corporate restructuring pursue different objectives.

Economically, the distinction between these submarkets is particularly revealing. A generic image for a presentation can be replaced by numerous existing images or AI-generated ones. An authentic recording of a specific political event, however, has a different value. The potential competition there doesn't simply consist of any other images, but rather of other providers with actual access to the same event.

The strategic consequence, therefore, is not simply to collect more content. It is to determine more precisely where content is interchangeable and where access, credibility, rights, and timeliness create a robust competitive advantage.

What the 533 million mean

Members of the Getty family and investors associated with Koch Equity Development are expected to support the financial restructuring with an equity commitment of up to approximately $533 million. However, this figure should not be interpreted as representing the entire additional cash inflow. It also includes the planned conversion of approximately $100 million of existing debt into equity, as well as the integration of financing during the process.

Financing of up to $143 million is planned for the continuation and implementation of the restructuring. Contractual offsetting mechanisms exist between this interim financing and the subsequent equity investment. Therefore, the amounts cannot simply be added together to form a supposed total injection of $676 million. A portion of the funds provided during the proceedings will already be credited towards the later investment in the planned structure.

The difference is significant economically. Fresh capital increases available funds. Converting an existing debt into equity, on the other hand, eliminates a repayment obligation and any interest payments, without creating additional cash at the time of conversion. Both can support restructuring, but they work in different ways.

A precise assessment must therefore distinguish between inflows of liquidity, debt reduction, and changes in ownership. Large financing announcements do not automatically equate to equally large, readily available investment budgets. Often, a significant portion of the funds is initially used to settle existing liabilities and establish the functionality of the new capital structure.

Our US expertise in business development, sales and marketing - Image: Xpert.Digital

Industry focus areas: B2B, digitalization (from AI to XR), mechanical engineering, logistics, renewable energies and industry

More information here:

• Expert Business Hub

A thematic hub offering insights and expertise:

• Knowledge platform covering global and regional economies, innovation and industry-specific trends
• A collection of analyses, insights, and background information from our key areas of focus
• A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
• A hub for companies seeking information on markets, digitalization, and industry innovations

Who actually bears the losses

The continuation of Getty does not mean that all existing investors will retain their positions. The plan envisages the cancellation of existing shares and other equity rights without any distribution to their holders. The new ownership rights are to arise from the new financial commitment of the restructuring investors. Even current majority shareholders would not simply receive their new shares as a continuation of their old shares.

Holders of unsecured bonds with a nominal value of $270 million are to receive a collective cash payment of approximately $170.2 million. This represents about 63 percent of the outstanding nominal amount. Accrued interest and the specific treatment of individual claims will be considered separately. Other secured financing is to be converted into new instruments with modified terms and extended maturities.

This illustrates the true economic function of restructuring: the operating business does not disappear entirely, but rather the claims to its future profits are redistributed. Shareholders, as subordinated creditors, bear a different risk than secured lenders. Suppliers and photographers, in turn, can be treated differently than holders of financial instruments.

The delisting from the stock exchange must also be distinguished from the continuation of operations. The New York Stock Exchange suspended trading at the end of September due to unusually low share prices and initiated the delisting process. Subsequently, the shares were traded over-the-counter. However, this does not create any entitlement to a future stake in the restructured company.

AI primarily devalues ​​interchangeability

Generative AI is changing the market not only through increased competition. It's also shifting the decision of whether it's even necessary to search for an existing image. Anyone needing a general illustration for teamwork, digitalization, or sustainable production can now have an image generated directly from a description. This replaces part of the traditional search and licensing process with a different production method. The competitive evaluation of the stock market also takes this increasing pressure into account.

The economic effect is multifaceted. First, willingness to pay for interchangeable designs decreases when viable alternatives are readily available. Simultaneously, customers can create more variations and tailor visual language more effectively to specific applications. Finally, competition shifts from the mere availability of a design to the quality of the entire workflow.

However, this does not mean that every AI-generated image is free or that every conventional license is uneconomical. Generation also involves effort: results must be selected, checked, revised, and integrated into the respective communication context. For complex requirements, these steps can consume a significant portion of the supposed savings.

The crucial change, therefore, lies in the price comparison. A conventional image no longer competes solely with other licensed images. It also competes with the possibility of creating a new image. For providers of generic content, it will become more difficult to defend historical price levels based solely on the size of their archive.

Authenticity remains a product in its own right

A synthetic image of an event cannot replace its actual documentation. It can illustrate what a factory might look like, but it cannot prove what happened in a specific factory at a specific time. This distinction is fundamental to news reporting, historical documentation, and numerous forms of professional communication.

Authenticity should not be understood as a romanticized antithesis to technology. It is a concrete product characteristic. Customers need information about authorship, recording time, location, editing, and usage context. The more the amount of synthetic content grows, the more important a traceable origin can become for certain applications.

Getty has an international network of content providers, partners, and editorial coverage, as well as extensive historical archives. These resources are economically distinct from a standard, easily reproducible image. Their value stems from access, uniqueness, quality of documentation, and the ability to reliably deliver relevant content.

However, even this segment is not an automatic safe haven. Customers' willingness to pay remains limited, while current reporting and the development of historical archives require effort. Therefore, an authentic image does not automatically possess high economic value simply because it is genuine. It must be relevant to a specific user and offered in a format that meets their requirements.

Why more pictures are not enough

For Getty, the sheer size of the collection as the sole indicator of success is losing its significance. A large library is only economically valuable if customers can quickly find suitable content within it and actually license it. The number of available files says little about how often they are used, what revenue they generate, or how much similar images compete with each other.

A larger catalog can actually create additional complexity. If a search returns a large number of nearly identical results, the selection effort increases. The customer isn't paying for excess, but rather needs help managing it. Search quality, precise metadata, and a good understanding of the intended use therefore become central components of the product.

Therefore, portfolio development must be considered in conjunction with customer demand. In its restructuring documents, Getty describes a decline in recorded paying customers from approximately 835,000 in the twelve-month period ending in 2022 to about 636,000 in the twelve-month period ending in June 2026. The number of active annual subscribers fell from 321,000 to 240,000 compared to the same period of the previous year. These figures are particularly influenced by iStock and agency clients and should not be applied directly to all business areas.

This limitation is particularly important. Declining customer numbers can indicate significant problems without fully reflecting the state of each individual segment. Therefore, for a successful turnaround, not only the number of lost customers is crucial, but also their revenue contribution, contribution margin, and long-term loyalty.

Subscriptions don't solve every demand problem

Subscription models are intended to generate recurring revenue and reduce dependence on individual purchases. For an image platform, they can also intensify usage because customers don't have to recalculate the costs of each individual licensing decision. However, this model only becomes economically attractive when the price is commensurate with actual usage and the associated costs.

A rising share of revenue from contractually bound sales is therefore not automatically evidence of healthy growth. It can coincide with weaker performance in other sales channels. Similarly, customers may remain contractually bound but demand lower volumes or more favorable terms upon renewal. The crucial factor is the development of comparable customer relationships over several contract periods.

This presents Getty with a more challenging management task. The company must distinguish between customers who only occasionally need an interchangeable image and those who rely on a permanently available infrastructure. For the latter group, reliable rights, technical connectivity, and a broad editorial offering can provide greater benefits than the lowest individual price.

The strategic priority should therefore not be to get as many users as possible into long-term contracts at any cost. It is more important to maintain profitable customer relationships and create a transparent balance between performance, risk, and price. A subscription is a type of contract, not a competitive advantage.

The competition controls the workflow

Competition for image licenses is increasingly taking place where content is created and published. When image search, editing, layout, and generation converge in a single work environment, the separate visit to a stock photo agency becomes less commonplace. In the regulatory assessment of the stock photography business, competitors such as Adobe and Canva were considered relevant forces alongside generative AI.

Economically, this shifts the importance of customer access. A platform that already organizes the daily workflow can offer images immediately at the right moment. An independent image provider, on the other hand, must explain why switching to their platform offers added value. This value could lie in better content, but also in more precise search, reliable licensing, or special protection measures.

For Getty, this doesn't necessarily mean having to develop all design software in-house. Interfaces and partnerships that make content available within other applications offer an alternative. However, the risk lies in the fact that the controlling platform will claim an increasing share of the economic value.

In the long run, it's not just who owns the best images that matters. Equally important is who manages customer relationships, the search process, and licensing decisions. Those who merely supply interchangeable content typically have a weaker negotiating position than the provider who shapes the entire workflow.

Own AI: Opportunity and Cannibalization

Getty is not taking a purely defensive approach to technological change. The company offers generative image services developed in partnership with NVIDIA, positioning them with licensed training materials, contractual protections, and compensation for participating content providers. The offering also includes technical interfaces for integration into other applications.

There's a sound economic strategy behind this. If some of the demand is already shifting towards image generation, a traditional provider can try to participate in this new market themselves. Existing customer relationships, curated content, and experience with usage rights can create advantages.

At the same time, a cannibalization problem arises. A customer who creates an image via Getty might not license an existing photo. Therefore, additional AI revenue does not automatically translate into entirely additional group revenue. The crucial factor is whether new offerings more than compensate for lost revenue, attract new customer groups, or improve customer loyalty.

The revenue structure is also changing. Traditional licensing and AI generation incur different costs for technology, development, partners, and rights compensation. Therefore, the key metric is not the number of images generated, but the economic contribution of each offering.

Contractual safeguards can be a distinguishing feature here. However, they should not be confused with complete risk-free operation. The scope, conditions, and limits of such commitments remain crucial; a promotional promise of security does not replace an examination of the specific deployment.

Copyright does not offer an automatic lifeline

The legal dispute surrounding AI training and image rights is economically significant because it can influence the distribution of future revenues. However, this does not automatically mean that a large image library leads to high license fees from all AI providers. Legal issues differ between the use of training material, the technical characteristics of a model, and a specific result generated.

The British case between Getty and Stability AI illustrates this distinction. In November 2025, the court rejected the argument that the model in question was itself an infringing copy in the relevant sense. At the same time, it found limited trademark infringements in certain earlier versions. The decision did not provide a blanket answer as to whether all AI training without a license is permissible.

This results in a clear limit for corporate strategy. Potential court rulings can improve the negotiating position, but they do not represent a reliably predictable source of operational revenue. A restructuring should not depend on the eventual enforcement of comprehensive damages payments or a specific regulatory model.

A more robust approach is to combine legal enforcement with marketable products. Getty can protect rights while simultaneously offering services for which customers pay regardless of the outcome of individual legal proceedings. The more the economic benefit depends solely on expected litigation success, the more precarious the foundation of the business model becomes.

Photographers are part of the company's value

For Getty, the relationship with photographers and other content providers is not just a matter of procurement. It influences the timeliness, quality, and differentiation of its offerings. The company collaborates with a large international community of creators and partners; its own AI approach also includes compensation for the use of such content.

However, content providers face a difficult adaptation process. If the willingness to pay for generic images decreases, simply increasing production volume won't solve the problem. More similar images can even intensify competition. Content requiring specialized expertise, real-world access, or a perspective that's difficult to copy will become more economically important.

This applies, for example, to authentic industrial environments, specific work processes, or events of documentary relevance. The value here lies in the fact that the photographer was actually present and the photograph has a verifiable connection to reality. A synthetic approach does not fulfill this purpose.

For Getty, short-term cost reductions at the expense of these relationships would therefore be risky. While losing its best content providers might temporarily reduce expenses, it would weaken its differentiation in the long run. Consequently, a viable restructuring must not only satisfy creditors but also ensure that the creation of new, commercially relevant content remains attractive.

Private ownership creates peace, but no demand

Following the completion of the planned restructuring, Getty is to be fully acquired by the turnaround investors, subject to possible participation through a management program. The return to private ownership is therefore part of the reorganization and not its final stage.

Private ownership can facilitate strategic change if owners have a longer time horizon and support necessary investments. It can accelerate decision-making and reduce the immediate pressure of short-term stock market reactions. However, this does not automatically lead to improved operational competitiveness.

The origin of equity capital does not change the interchangeability of generic motifs or customers' willingness to pay. Nor does it eliminate the need for technology investment. A new ownership structure can create the conditions for successful adaptation; it cannot replace the adaptation itself.

The decisive factor will therefore be the economic goals pursued by the new owners. A strategy focused primarily on short-term capital withdrawals would be poorly suited to a technologically challenged company. In contrast, the long-term development of content, search technology, sales, and AI offerings requires capital and the willingness to temporarily forgo dividend payments.

The plan does not promise any miracles of growth

The planning contained in the restructuring documents is remarkably conservative. Revenue of approximately $910.6 million and adjusted EBITDA of $291 million are projected for 2027. By 2031, revenue is expected to rise to $987.7 million, but adjusted EBITDA is projected to increase only to $297.9 million. The planned EBITDA margin is accordingly reduced from approximately 32 percent to 30.2 percent. These are explicitly forecasts and not results already achieved.

These figures paint a picture of stabilization rather than dynamic expansion. The planned increase in revenue will not lead to a comparable increase in earnings. This also makes it clear that even the underlying planning does not assume unlimited scaling effects. Additional revenue will apparently continue to be associated with significant costs.

The financial restructuring is expected to save approximately $65 million annually in interest expenses and reduce annual debt service by around $133 million. These two figures should not be added together as if they were completely independent savings. Debt service includes not only interest but also other contractual payments, particularly principal repayments.

The valuation analysis assumes a net debt of approximately $907 million for the reorganized company. Even after the restructuring, Getty would not be debt-free. The ability to reliably convert operating income into available cash would remain essential. The restructuring is therefore expected to provide more breathing room, but it does not eliminate the need for disciplined financial management.

The quality of the proceeds is crucial

The real economic test doesn't begin with the end of the bankruptcy proceedings. It will be revealed by whether Getty can stabilize its most valuable customer relationships, finance necessary investments, and develop new products with sustainable margins. Simply returning to a positive annual result would be insufficient, as would a high adjusted earnings figure.

More important is the quality of the revenue. Recurring revenue from long-term, relevant customer relationships should be evaluated differently than one-off contracts. Exclusive editorial access provides a different competitive advantage than a large collection of similar stock images. An AI offering only creates economic value if a reasonable profit remains after covering technology, partner, and rights costs.

This results in several possible development paths. Getty could evolve into a more focused provider of authentic content, professional licensing, and integrated image services. Alternatively, the company could continue operating, but its interchangeable business units could shrink, and its financial resources could remain limited. Which development occurs depends less on brand recognition than on the specific implementation.

The clearly reasoned perspective is therefore this: Getty's bankruptcy is neither convincing proof of the end of professional photography nor a mere operational mishap in an otherwise unchanged industry. It is the convergence of financial overload with a structural re-evaluation of visual content. What can be sustainably defended is not the largest possible quantity of images, but demonstrable customer value derived from access, authenticity, rights, and functioning workflows.

The quasi-in-house solution: How Xpert.Digital closes operational gaps in B2B marketing and sales – Smart Content-Driven Business - Image: Xpert.Digital

Xpert.Digital is a data-driven B2B industry hub led by Konrad Wolfenstein . The company acts as an external, quasi-in-house solution for industrial partners, closing operational gaps in marketing, content, and sales – without requiring additional resources on the client side.

More information here:

• The quasi-in-house solution: How Xpert.Digital closes operational gaps in B2B marketing and sales – Smart Content-Driven Business

☑️ Our business language is English or German

☑️ NEW: Correspondence in your native language!

Konrad Wolfenstein

I and my team are happy to be available to you as your personal advisor.

You can contact me by filling out the contact form here [email protected]:or simply call me at +49 7348 4088 965. My email address is

I'm looking forward to our joint project.

☑️ SME support in strategy, consulting, planning and implementation

☑️ Creation or realignment of the digital strategy and digitization

☑️ Expansion and optimization of international sales processes

☑️ Global & Digital B2B trading platforms

☑️ Pioneer Business Development / Marketing / PR / Trade Fairs