pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How is Jon Oringer worth $1 Billion?  (Read 10928 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 11, 2018, 12:34 »
0
While reading about ss, I found that Jon Oringer worth is 1 billion dollar.
How did Oringer have so much amount?


Clair Voyant

« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2018, 12:51 »
+23
by paying SS contributors 0.25c per download and turning a once very sustainable industry upside down. he could not have done it without the support of people willing to undersell their own worth.

« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2018, 13:06 »
0
While reading about ss, I found that Jon Oringer worth is 1 billion dollar.
How did Oringer have so much amount?

Because he is the founder and shareholder of a very big company.

He used to own 55% of Shutterstock, but now I believe it's around 10%.

Shutterstock is worth $1.5 billion today but was valued at almost $3.5 billion 4 years ago.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2018, 13:27 »
+6
By paying us 0.25-0.38c for our shots. Sold SS took the lolly and f#%#&d off leaving us with the suits and beancounters! who really dont know a damned thing about the photography business.

« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2018, 14:59 »
+4
by paying SS contributors 0.25c per download and turning a once very sustainable industry upside down. he could not have done it without the support of people willing to undersell their own worth.

Let me turn this around.  :P

He is a visionary entrepreneur, a Clair Voyant! He, he!  ;D
He enabled a multitude of talented people to tap into a market and a revenue stream they would have never been able to access otherwise. I'm one of them and I'm very grateful to people like Oringer, for the extra, unexpected 6 digits bonus I was able to earn during the last 4-5 years.

He deserves to be rewarded for his courage to innovate and revolutionize a market, to take risks very few dared to take.


« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2018, 15:05 »
+4
by paying SS contributors 0.25c per download and turning a once very sustainable industry upside down. he could not have done it without the support of people willing to undersell their own worth.

Yep . Sad and astonishing buy hey everyday more free sites were photographers and non photographers give happily their images away for some sort of ego boost.

But not only is SS responsible of the state of the industry. Unfortunately bean counters, business sharks and other unscrupulous people have destroyed the industry with the help of millions of contributors. Fortunatelly there are still some agencies and production houses that try to fight this policy.

« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2018, 15:26 »
+4
by paying SS contributors 0.25c per download and turning a once very sustainable industry upside down. he could not have done it without the support of people willing to undersell their own worth.

Let me turn this around.  :P

He is a visionary entrepreneur, a Clair Voyant! He, he!  ;D
He enabled a multitude of talented people to tap into a market and a revenue stream they would have never been able to access otherwise. I'm one of them and I'm very grateful to people like Oringer, for the extra, unexpected 6 digits bonus I was able to earn during the last 4-5 years.

He deserves to be rewarded for his courage to innovate and revolutionize a market, to take risks very few dared to take.

Zero Talent. You say this because you simply didn't experienced how it was before. Now I am heading to a 7 digit figure of profits only made on Istock in the last few years. But even if arrived very late to the golden years of macro when with a few hundred images you made over 1million/year I can remember well my single 5 digit sales. You have to live on your time. And the digital revolution changed everything and made possible the strong devaluation of images as a whole.
So although nothing would have changed much if Oringer or Livingstone wouldn't have existed, as other would have taken their place, the fact remains that those individuals were responsible to the sudden drop of value of all images in general. Although I think it was inevitable I cannot thank them.

« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2018, 15:49 »
+3
by paying SS contributors 0.25c per download and turning a once very sustainable industry upside down. he could not have done it without the support of people willing to undersell their own worth.

Let me turn this around.  :P

He is a visionary entrepreneur, a Clair Voyant! He, he!  ;D
He enabled a multitude of talented people to tap into a market and a revenue stream they would have never been able to access otherwise. I'm one of them and I'm very grateful to people like Oringer, for the extra, unexpected 6 digits bonus I was able to earn during the last 4-5 years.

He deserves to be rewarded for his courage to innovate and revolutionize a market, to take risks very few dared to take.

Zero Talent. You say this because you simply didn't experienced how it was before.

Very probable!

The golden days nostalgia is specific to small group of old-school professionals, overwhelmed by the innovative crowd-sourcing business model implemented by entrepreneurs like Oringer & Co.

I am certain that I could never have reached the required level to sell macro in those golden days, to penetrate the exclusive photographer's club, en-vogue back then!
Therefore, I am very happy for this unexpected opportunity that fell into my lap! I already stated on few occasions that Microstock paid every semester of my daughter's out-of-state, expensive university, preventing me or her to go for one of those predatory loans, leading to long term crippling debts. And all that only through a part-time effort, done mostly during weekends.

Rest assured, I'll enjoy the ride as much as I can, no regrets, no looking back!
« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 16:01 by Zero Talent »

Clair Voyant

« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2018, 16:46 »
0
by paying SS contributors 0.25c per download and turning a once very sustainable industry upside down. he could not have done it without the support of people willing to undersell their own worth.

Let me turn this around.  :P

He is a visionary entrepreneur, a Clair Voyant! He, he!  ;D
He enabled a multitude of talented people to tap into a market and a revenue stream they would have never been able to access otherwise. I'm one of them and I'm very grateful to people like Oringer, for the extra, unexpected 6 digits bonus I was able to earn during the last 4-5 years.

He deserves to be rewarded for his courage to innovate and revolutionize a market, to take risks very few dared to take.

Zero Talent. You say this because you simply didn't experienced how it was before.

Very probable!

The golden days nostalgia is specific to small group of old-school professionals, overwhelmed by the innovative crowd-sourcing business model implemented by entrepreneurs like Oringer & Co.

I am certain that I could never have reached the required level to sell macro in those golden days, to penetrate the exclusive photographer's club, en-vogue back then!
Therefore, I am very happy for this unexpected opportunity that fell into my lap! I already stated on few occasions that Microstock paid every semester of my daughter's out-of-state, expensive university, preventing me or her to go for one of those predatory loans, leading to long term crippling debts. And all that only through a part-time effort, done mostly during weekends.

Rest assured, I'll enjoy the ride as much as I can, no regrets, no looking back!

When was it ever an "exclusive photographer's club"? Just curious as I keep hearing how it was a closed club from many people on this forum. Fact is, it was never closed. Just sayin.


Clair Voyant

« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2018, 16:49 »
0
by paying SS contributors 0.25c per download and turning a once very sustainable industry upside down. he could not have done it without the support of people willing to undersell their own worth.

Let me turn this around.  :P

He is a visionary entrepreneur, a Clair Voyant! He, he!  ;D
He enabled a multitude of talented people to tap into a market and a revenue stream they would have never been able to access otherwise. I'm one of them and I'm very grateful to people like Oringer, for the extra, unexpected 6 digits bonus I was able to earn during the last 4-5 years.

He deserves to be rewarded for his courage to innovate and revolutionize a market, to take risks very few dared to take.

Zero Talent. You say this because you simply didn't experienced how it was before. Now I am heading to a 7 digit figure of profits only made on Istock in the last few years. But even if arrived very late to the golden years of macro when with a few hundred images you made over 1million/year I can remember well my single 5 digit sales. You have to live on your time. And the digital revolution changed everything and made possible the strong devaluation of images as a whole.
So although nothing would have changed much if Oringer or Livingstone wouldn't have existed, as other would have taken their place, the fact remains that those individuals were responsible to the sudden drop of value of all images in general. Although I think it was inevitable I cannot thank them.

Exactly!

namussi

« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2018, 23:38 »
+3
By paying us 0.25-0.38c for our shots. Sold SS took the lolly and f#%#&d off leaving us with the suits and beancounters! who really dont know a damned thing about the photography business.

I think the beancounters know a lot about the photography business. More than most photographers. For a start, they understand supply and demand. Yes, demand for pix has probably increased in the past two decades. But the supply has ballooned in comparison. Therefore, lower prices.

namussi

« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2018, 00:31 »
+4
And they also know that individual microstock photographers have no bargaining power.

« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2018, 00:56 »
0
Recently SS earned a milestone of $500 million in total payouts for thousands of contributors which means we are happy with penny earn.

« Reply #13 on: January 12, 2018, 01:02 »
0
Wrongly posted
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 01:11 by MircoV »

« Reply #14 on: January 12, 2018, 01:10 »
+1
Recently SS earned a milestone of $500 million in total payouts for thousands of contributors which means we are happy with penny earn.

Exactly. And 500 million is not really pennies. If you have a total earning of 15k then it is 15k earning. You can also have few macro sales for 1k. What is better? I prefer 15k.

« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2018, 01:13 »
+1
by paying SS contributors 0.25c per download and turning a once very sustainable industry upside down. he could not have done it without the support of people willing to undersell their own worth.

Let me turn this around.  :P

He is a visionary entrepreneur, a Clair Voyant! He, he!  ;D
He enabled a multitude of talented people to tap into a market and a revenue stream they would have never been able to access otherwise. I'm one of them and I'm very grateful to people like Oringer, for the extra, unexpected 6 digits bonus I was able to earn during the last 4-5 years.

He deserves to be rewarded for his courage to innovate and revolutionize a market, to take risks very few dared to take.

Best answer here by far.

Mirco

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2018, 01:55 »
+3
Hey Im also around a quarter of a million since 2006 so of course one is happy and thanks to the guy. However lets not forget Bruce was the one that started it all then a year or two later Jon came along and sprung the "brilliant" idea of subscriptions, 0.25-0.38 and that was the landmark, then the reductions in royalties all started and from there on we have been on a steady downhill slope in pricing all the way.
Add to all this that agencies techs-depts found all sorts of ways to manipulate almost every single thing there is and legally of course and that all the people that made all this possible for every single agency, we! their life-blood, life-support!....we are expendible! haha! :)


namussi

« Reply #17 on: January 12, 2018, 03:03 »
+2
a year or two later Jon came along and sprung the "brilliant" idea of subscriptions, 0.25-0.38 and that was the landmark, then the reductions in royalties all started and from there on we have been on a steady downhill slope in pricing all the way.


Subscriptions are not unique to microstock. Music and video have gone the same way.

« Reply #18 on: January 12, 2018, 03:26 »
0
Because SS is overvalued by the market with over optimistic growth projections  probably really only worth 1/3 of that ;-). Which is still nice going. Most of the wealth comes from stock value rather than profit generated by his company ;-).

namussi

« Reply #19 on: January 12, 2018, 07:29 »
0
Because SS is overvalued by the market with over optimistic growth projections  probably really only worth 1/3 of that ;-). Which is still nice going. Most of the wealth comes from stock value rather than profit generated by his company ;-).

So are you shorting Shutterstock?

« Reply #20 on: January 12, 2018, 07:41 »
0
Because SS is overvalued by the market with over optimistic growth projections  probably really only worth 1/3 of that ;-). Which is still nice going. Most of the wealth comes from stock value rather than profit generated by his company ;-).

So are you shorting Shutterstock?
Nope....because perception is everything in stocks and I'm very risk averse ??? But I do think over time the stock value will fall.

« Reply #21 on: January 12, 2018, 10:48 »
+1
... I'm very risk averse ???

You actually provided a counter-example to OP's dilemma: Oringer is not risk averse and this is a necessary condition to be a billionaire  ;)

« Reply #22 on: January 12, 2018, 12:44 »
+1
... I'm very risk averse ???

You actually provided a counter-example to OP's dilemma: Oringer is not risk averse and this is a necessary condition to be a billionaire  ;)
Quite an also a condition to be begging on the street ;-).

« Reply #23 on: January 12, 2018, 13:16 »
+1
... I'm very risk averse ???

You actually provided a counter-example to OP's dilemma: Oringer is not risk averse and this is a necessary condition to be a billionaire  ;)
Quite an also a condition to be begging on the street ;-).

Being a risk taker is a possible, maybe even probable condition (for some) to end up begging on the street  ;), but NOT a necessary condition.
On the other hand, becoming a billionaire without being a risk taker is virtually impossible.
Therefore, being a risk taker is a necessary condition to become a billionaire. Of course not a sufficient, but definitely a necessary condition.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 13:26 by Zero Talent »

technicalproblem

« Reply #24 on: January 12, 2018, 15:12 »
+1
is the number 846 possible or necessary?
-neither
wrong! is the number 846 possible or necessary?
-both
wrong! it is necessary but not possible
-both
wrong! why do you think the number 846 is necessarily possible?
-must be!
wrong! it's only necessarily necessary! we admit possibility only after we grant necessity. It is possible because necessary but by no means necessary through possibility. The possibility can only be assumed after proof of necessity.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3265 Views
Last post December 01, 2011, 01:23
by Suljo
7 Replies
3720 Views
Last post January 31, 2013, 02:04
by BaldricksTrousers
3 Replies
3000 Views
Last post January 31, 2018, 20:09
by rinderart
14 Replies
5404 Views
Last post September 28, 2019, 11:26
by JaenStock
1 Replies
5848 Views
Last post March 12, 2021, 19:22
by sgoodwin4813

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors