pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Interesting article about profits vs. revenues  (Read 4065 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shelma1

« on: August 09, 2016, 11:42 »
+5
"In lieu of salary, SSTK's CEO was granted stock options that are only exercisable if SSTK trades at or above a set target price. Incentivizing executives solely with stock price can have damaging effects, as business decisions can be made only to drive stock price appreciation with little regard to the long-term economic success of the business."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3997693-shutterstock-content-redistribution-platform-winning-strategy


« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2016, 11:49 »
0
Well that's a shocker thanks for posting that.

Seems Jon may have to cut back on the free pizza fridays and games rooms and his staffers may actually have to work for a living
« Last Edit: August 09, 2016, 12:04 by Teddy the Cat »

« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2016, 11:49 »
0
by that time, it won't matter to many of us,
as we would have already , like Elvis, left the building
..to other fields to cultivate...
like pauliewalnuts
like GL
...etc

« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2016, 11:55 »
+1
And if SS are aware of this problem you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be either cuts in rates or they will remain static for the foreseeable future further eating in to the contributors real profits

I quote from page 2 "At the same time, it can't afford to raise the amount paid to content providers (to attract them away from other services) without eating away at an already low margin."

Shelma1

« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2016, 11:57 »
+7
Accepting contributors with 1/10 submissions, uploading huge redundant ports, suppressing older ports in the search...it's all to show investors the huge growth of the library and the growth in revenues to drive up the stock price. But we knew that.

« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2016, 12:03 »
0
So very true ~ all those 25 cents make a difference to profits

« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2016, 12:07 »
+8
And if SS are aware of this problem you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be either cuts in rates or they will remain static for the foreseeable future further eating in to the contributors real profits

I quote from page 2 "At the same time, it can't afford to raise the amount paid to content providers (to attract them away from other services) without eating away at an already low margin."

There isn't a low margin...they just don't want to cut into their margin. But it's ok to cut into their suppliers' margins.  >:(

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2016, 12:08 »
+3
And to this day I still don't understand why anyone with an ounce of talent would sell their work for the royalties on offer at SS. It makes no sense at all.


Shelma1

« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2016, 12:10 »
+7
Because they're still the biggest earner for most people. And at least you don't get 1 royalties like you do with Getty.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2016, 12:13 »
+3
Because they're still the biggest earner for most people. And at least you don't get 1 royalties like you do with Getty.

And you also don't get $3K royalties like you do with Getty.

« Reply #10 on: August 09, 2016, 13:24 »
0
And if SS are aware of this problem you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be either cuts in rates or they will remain static for the foreseeable future further eating in to the contributors real profits

I quote from page 2 "At the same time, it can't afford to raise the amount paid to content providers (to attract them away from other services) without eating away at an already low margin."

true.
anytime you hear the pre-text (atst, but, also,however...) there is always something in regard
to * blood from an already dying horse

content provider = low priority
shareholders quick profit short term relationship...  which AGM have you ever heard of
this animal bleeder mentioned "in the interest of our content provider,supplier,..."

« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2016, 14:06 »
+1
Super interesting article. Thanks for posting.

« Reply #12 on: August 09, 2016, 16:42 »
+2
I think for Shutterstock their competitive "edge" is that their competitors are just so much worse.

« Reply #13 on: August 09, 2016, 16:48 »
+7
And to this day I still don't understand why anyone with an ounce of talent would sell their work for the royalties on offer at SS. It makes no sense at all.
  Its quite simple its the total amount made on the portfolio that matters not the occasional high sale followed by months of no activity. It makes sense for the majority of us only averagely talented people the model was never intended for top end high production cost images.

« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2016, 02:03 »
+1
"At the end of the day, neither of these options meets the current expectations embedded in the market price. Shutterstock does not own the keys (content) that are driving its high valuation, and with low margins and significant competition, it's only a matter of time before SSTK's market share is encroached upon." I would have expected Adobe to be doing this already but I have found after an initial spurt they seem back to where they were. If a rival really gets its act together by better QC of accepted images and improved searching I think they could be in trouble. The risk for contributors is cost cutting as they are sitting on a mountain of cash so they could take a hit (though of course so could adobe) and for many of us pulling out of SS would be a very costly decision.

« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2016, 03:19 »
+2
I am finding adobe is continuing to gain ground at the expense of ss and IS

« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2016, 04:03 »
0
I am finding adobe is continuing to gain ground at the expense of ss and IS

any references?


« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2016, 04:13 »
+2
I am finding adobe is continuing to gain ground at the expense of ss and IS

any references?
I mean my income and sales at Fotolia/ Adobe continue to increase while continuing to stagnate or drop at SS and drop through the floor at IS/ Getty

« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2016, 07:35 »
+1
I am finding adobe is continuing to gain ground at the expense of ss and IS

any references?
I mean my income and sales at Fotolia/ Adobe continue to increase while continuing to stagnate or drop at SS and drop through the floor at IS/ Getty

I agree with that the Fotolia sales have been going up and up in the last 4 months, where SS was just static and then started to slide over the same period

« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2016, 11:11 »
0
I think for Shutterstock their competitive "edge" is that their competitors are just so much worse.

i hate to agree with you, LOL..
but this time i really agree with what you say...

much like politics , it's not ss is best, it's that there is no other that performs used to perform
this good

Shelma1

« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2016, 06:24 »
+2
Another article about SS spending to inflate the library. "Engagement was driven by investments in bulking up the content library and in improving the customer experience, Oringer explained."

http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/10/shutterstock-snaps-higher-second-quarter-profits.aspx

« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2016, 06:53 »
+2
At some point investors might begin to wonder if raw number of images equates to quality and diversity and whether the amount of questionable quality images is actually driving customers away

« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2016, 11:03 »
+2
At some point investors might begin to wonder if raw number of images equates to quality and diversity and whether the amount of questionable quality images is actually driving customers away


yes, but you refer to shareholders looking for growth long term vs scavengers quick buck short
as shelma's reference below , it is more like the owner of a dump rental property
with overdued repairs hidden , bulking up the full rentee no vacancy carrot to attract
new ownership
...with intent to take the money and run istock style dejavu

Another article about SS spending to inflate the library. "Engagement was driven by investments in bulking up the content library and in improving the customer experience, Oringer explained."

http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/10/shutterstock-snaps-higher-second-quarter-profits.aspx


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
3572 Views
Last post February 24, 2011, 09:44
by WarrenPrice
2 Replies
2256 Views
Last post July 04, 2011, 21:14
by jon
22 Replies
3525 Views
Last post May 11, 2012, 14:05
by helix7
2 Replies
1088 Views
Last post November 07, 2013, 02:15
by Mactrunk
15 Replies
3886 Views
Last post October 04, 2016, 14:53
by Brasilnut

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors