MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2013 Financial Results  (Read 12981 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ethan

« Reply #75 on: February 22, 2014, 13:34 »
+20
I guess your bitterness at SS's success is because you didn't buy in when the stock was cheap? Or are you exclusive at IS?
I think you are right and i think gbalex is a woman. I am getting closer to the identity. But gbalex is contributor at ss.

This has got to be one of the saddest posts I have ever seen here on MSG.

"I'm getting closer to the identity"

Please.


« Reply #76 on: February 22, 2014, 15:37 »
+7
...i will not support subscription sites of any sort. i am in this for the long term, not a quick buck. where do you stand?

So do you only sell direct? Even Getty Images forced contract changes on its contributors that included work being sent - at Getty's discretion - to Thinkstock (i.e. subscription sales).

I would have agreed with you in 2008 and that was in part behind my decision to go exclusive at iStock but Getty's wretched behavior in removing so many contributor controls - culminating in the terrible deal with Google - rendered that a non-option for me.

If those of you who sell via niche outlets want subscriptions to stop, then perhaps coming up with some alternative that works for those of us currently "supporting" the subscription model would be in your best interests?

Generally you decry what the rest of us are doing without offering any real alternatives. Which is why I think people interpret what you're saying to mean we should all just stop selling so you can go back to the way things were.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #77 on: February 22, 2014, 23:26 »
+6
It's time for them to share the wealth with us! I say let's get a raise. ::)

http://seekingalpha.com/pr/9033813-shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2013-financial-results

- Fourth quarter revenue increases 38% from prior year, to $68.0 million
- Full year revenue increases 39% from prior year, to $235.5 million
- Adjusted EBITDA of $15.4 million in fourth quarter, increase of 37%
- Adjusted EBITDA of $53.4 million for full year, increase of 53%
- Quarterly paid image downloads reach record of 28.0 million
- Collection exceeds 33 million images and 1.5 million video clips
- Number of active customer accounts surpasses 940,000

shudderstok

« Reply #78 on: February 23, 2014, 02:29 »
+4
...i will not support subscription sites of any sort. i am in this for the long term, not a quick buck. where do you stand?

So do you only sell direct? Even Getty Images forced contract changes on its contributors that included work being sent - at Getty's discretion - to Thinkstock (i.e. subscription sales).

I would have agreed with you in 2008 and that was in part behind my decision to go exclusive at iStock but Getty's wretched behavior in removing so many contributor controls - culminating in the terrible deal with Google - rendered that a non-option for me.

If those of you who sell via niche outlets want subscriptions to stop, then perhaps coming up with some alternative that works for those of us currently "supporting" the subscription model would be in your best interests?

Generally you decry what the rest of us are doing without offering any real alternatives. Which is why I think people interpret what you're saying to mean we should all just stop selling so you can go back to the way things were.

i am not decrying anybody at all. i am saying clearly that i don't support sub sites and would never knowingly submit directly to one. if you choose to sell your work at sub sites then so be it. and sadly, because there is so much support for this format GI and IS had to follow suite. i wish i could offer alternatives jo ann, but sadly there are none. i can only do my bit and not support sub sites as much as i possibly can. as per my posts above, it's going to get us all in the long run.

shudderstok

« Reply #79 on: February 23, 2014, 03:15 »
+4
I like to look at business objectively. But carry on with the put downs.

if SS is in deep trouble I wonder where all the other agencies are, I don't mind hearing about the facts regarding Net Income, this and that, in the end are you working with an agency with this kind of success year after year? do you think that 20$ from iStock so far this month are enough to pay my electricity bill?

Did I ever say SS is in deep trouble?  It is clear they are not. As business people it is the contributors who are in deep trouble. As you know shutterstock unabashedly continues to drive the value of our assets down and they have admitted publicly that they plan to do so long term as a business strategy to gain market share.

As business people we should be asking the same questions firms like Jefferies are asking and we should not be supporting business's who employ strategies who hurt us in the long term or none of us will be able to pay our power bills.

The good news is that as buyers/contributors "if" we support stock sites who pay contributors larger revenue shares we will have a better chance of remaining profitable long term.

More good news is that other stock businesses can now easily see that they will be profitable and have room to pay contributors more while also increasing marketing spend; if they do not follow shutterstocks lead by spending x million going public, spending 10 million plus securing vanity office locations, etc., etc. etc. It is all there in black and white for competitors to read.

It is also time that we support business that support us and we could start by sending our best images to other firms.

Snip
And your next question comes from the line of Brian Fitzgerald with Jefferies. Please proceed.
Brian Fitzgerald - Jefferies

When you guys think of the rev share agreements with contributors, there are competitors out there that have more generous revenue shares.

Can you -- would that tend to impact or take share from you guys over the course of time or can you talk about how that dynamic is panning out?

And then, it seems like guys have been driving down pricing among your major competitors. They're now trying to price match.

Have you seen any real impact from that thus far? Thanks.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2037843-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q4-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

Snip

Duck Swartz

Talking about your present strategy longer term?

Timothy E. Bixby - CFO

We think we can raise the prices over the long term but were primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level. We havent raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.

Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board

It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last


sorry to rain on your parade, but publicly traded companies never pay their suppliers more. there energy is spent on paying their shareholders more and bonuses to the CEO's for being able to cut costs in order to make the company more profitable, and that never has any regards towards the suppliers profit. just sayin. SS does not care about you. maybe you have your stock confused. there is stock as in 'contributor' and there is stock as in 'shareholder' and one will certainly make more money ++ can you guess which stock holder that would be? :)


Where did you get the idea that I thought a publicly traded company would pay their suppliers more? My point was it is not a wise long term business strategy; to support a publicly traded company who has stated publicly that they have deliberately devalued "our assets" by holding prices down long term to gain market share while publicly stating that they plan on doing so long term to gain greater market share.

I did suggest that we support, contribute and buy images from different stock photography sites who do not employ business strategy's that are as detrimental to contributors long tern.


i think i was also trying to say the same thing. but yes i think it best as contributors that we don't support this type of outlet for selling our work, i only wish the buyers saw it this way too. this is a very selfish and greedy model, even worse than the crooks at GI in my opinion, and i am not a fan of theirs at all.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #80 on: February 23, 2014, 20:17 »
+10
i think it best as contributors that we don't support this type of outlet for selling our work, i only wish the buyers saw it this way too.

It's too late now, I sympathise totally but SS are winning the war in the short term at least.

What the SS fanboys don't realise is that the upward curve many are experiencing is exactly the same IS exclusives experienced a few years ago when they had the lions share of the market. The fanboys will be a lot, lot quieter when that market share plateaus and the flow starts the other way with IS exclusives contributors throwing in the towel and start dumping sizeable ports en masse.

The irony is you can't live without IS as an indy if you want a decent RPI. SS will never get to be a Getty which they so desperately want, their low price non-exclusive business model actively supports uploading to Thinkstock which will always hamper their growth.




shudderstok

« Reply #81 on: February 23, 2014, 21:32 »
+5
i think it best as contributors that we don't support this type of outlet for selling our work, i only wish the buyers saw it this way too.

It's too late now, I sympathise totally but SS are winning the war in the short term at least.

What the SS fanboys don't realise is that the upward curve many are experiencing is exactly the same IS exclusives experienced a few years ago when they had the lions share of the market. The fanboys will be a lot, lot quieter when that market share plateaus and the flow starts the other way with IS exclusives contributors throwing in the towel and start dumping sizeable ports en masse.

The irony is you can't live without IS as an indy if you want a decent RPI. SS will never get to be a Getty which they so desperately want, their low price non-exclusive business model actively supports uploading to Thinkstock which will always hamper their growth.

BINGO!!! and by fueling the success of Thinkstock which is gaining momentum to compete with the new low priced microstock agency on the block SS, then low subscription pricing becomes the norm thereby affecting all of us. SS might be winning the war, but the result is they are helping ruin the battle for all of us. this is all so short sighted.

« Reply #82 on: February 24, 2014, 04:40 »
+4
i think it best as contributors that we don't support this type of outlet for selling our work, i only wish the buyers saw it this way too.

It's too late now, I sympathise totally but SS are winning the war in the short term at least.

What the SS fanboys don't realise is that the upward curve many are experiencing is exactly the same IS exclusives experienced a few years ago when they had the lions share of the market. The fanboys will be a lot, lot quieter when that market share plateaus and the flow starts the other way with IS exclusives contributors throwing in the towel and start dumping sizeable ports en masse.

The irony is you can't live without IS as an indy if you want a decent RPI. SS will never get to be a Getty which they so desperately want, their low price non-exclusive business model actively supports uploading to Thinkstock which will always hamper their growth.

You managed to get both points wrong: SS has a lot more files than IS, and IS gives the lowest commissions.

shudderstok

« Reply #83 on: February 24, 2014, 05:18 »
-1
okay whatever you say :)
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 05:21 by shudderstok »

« Reply #84 on: February 24, 2014, 07:03 »
+6
You either deal with the market as it is or you go and do something else. Whining about the good old days or blathering on about a business model you do not like or cannot change is a waste of energy.

Besides which, the majority don't care since they probably have day jobs or enjoy additional revenue streams from other ventures they are constantly moving to and from - as they grow or decline.

« Reply #85 on: February 24, 2014, 08:21 »
+1

« Reply #86 on: February 24, 2014, 08:58 »
0
You either deal with the market as it is or you go and do something else. Whining about the good old days or blathering on about a business model you do not like or cannot change is a waste of energy.

exactly, that is the hard truth and we haven't/won't change it, I would love to know why the 2 "biggest" contributors went exclusive, is the iStock success hidden somewhere?

shudderstok

« Reply #87 on: February 24, 2014, 09:19 »
0
You either deal with the market as it is or you go and do something else. Whining about the good old days or blathering on about a business model you do not like or cannot change is a waste of energy.

exactly, that is the hard truth and we haven't/won't change it, I would love to know why the 2 "biggest" contributors went exclusive, is the iStock success hidden somewhere?

perhaps it is. i have not heard of one previous exclusive mention equaling the success they had on IS as an exclusive. and it has been more than one year since D-day. one year is a long time in this business, and if we are not hearing and overwhelming YIPEE that should tell us something i would presume. that said, we will all have very different results based on our photography skills, the subject matter we individually shoot, and the clincher - knowledge of how to keyword to the industry standard that has been around for a very long time. just sayin.

ShadySue

« Reply #88 on: February 24, 2014, 10:20 »
+1
You either deal with the market as it is or you go and do something else. Whining about the good old days or blathering on about a business model you do not like or cannot change is a waste of energy.

exactly, that is the hard truth and we haven't/won't change it, I would love to know why the 2 "biggest" contributors went exclusive, is the iStock success hidden somewhere?

One of them at least only went faux-"exclusive". I'm sure they got special deals.

« Reply #89 on: February 25, 2014, 08:47 »
-3
You either deal with the market as it is or you go and do something else. Whining about the good old days or blathering on about a business model you do not like or cannot change is a waste of energy.

Besides which, the majority don't care since they probably have day jobs or enjoy additional revenue streams from other ventures they are constantly moving to and from - as they grow or decline.

And claiming that IS and Getty were forced to follow is not why IS has fallen. It's because they cheated and lied and screwed the contributors so much that they lost face and respect and many good contributors. IS and Getty have been mismanaged so bad that they have lost customers. That's why, but subs.
 
Coming to a forum doing nothing but whining about the good old days or blathering on about a business model you do not like or cannot change is a waste of energy. It will change nobody or nothing.

Batman

« Reply #90 on: February 25, 2014, 12:56 »
+2
Where's debunkgbalex when you need him  ;)

What do you think of somebody that logs in facebook with 2 accounts, and gives there other account thumbs up for almost every link. That's pathetic and hopeless. You would know best.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
856 Views
Last post November 02, 2012, 20:48
by luissantos84
2 Replies
1887 Views
Last post November 09, 2013, 16:58
by Pauws99
14 Replies
12215 Views
Last post May 10, 2014, 03:10
by BaldricksTrousers
13 Replies
2895 Views
Last post February 13, 2015, 13:52
by etudiante_rapide
7 Replies
1961 Views
Last post May 07, 2015, 14:17
by Semmick Photo

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors