MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2013 Financial Results  (Read 12980 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 20, 2014, 16:40 »
+10
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


« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2014, 16:46 »
+13
Impressive numbers!

And run their business smoothly without all the drama, have staff that feel comfortable on the internet and like to meet artists in person. Support msg and answer questions here.

While istock cant even update their seasonal images on the front page in time...

Processing files for upload...

« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2014, 16:49 »
0
Impressive numbers!

And run their business smoothly without all the drama, have staff that feel comfortable on the internet and like to meet artists in person. Support msg and answer questions here.

While istock cant even update their seasonal images on the front page in time...

Processing files for upload...

bang on!

« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2014, 17:31 »
0
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


It can't just be the 'Sean Effect' surely?

Professionals deal with professionals.

shudderstok

« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2014, 19:30 »
+2
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


It can't just be the 'Sean Effect' surely?

Professionals deal with professionals.


that's why they 'experiment' LOL
enjoy making your 0.25 - 0.38 per download pros
welcome to the walmart of stock, you made it to the bottom, congratulations


mlwinphoto

« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2014, 19:57 »
+3
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


It can't just be the 'Sean Effect' surely?

Professionals deal with professionals.


that's why they 'experiment' LOL
enjoy making your 0.25 - 0.38 per download pros
welcome to the walmart of stock, you made it to the bottom, congratulations


Thanks!  Appreciate the sentiments.

BTW, it's considerably higher, on average, than 0.25 - 0.38.

« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2014, 20:13 »
+7
that's why they 'experiment' LOL
enjoy making your 0.25 - 0.38 per download pros
welcome to the walmart of stock, you made it to the bottom, congratulations

Well yesterday I had 117 sales on SS which, thanks to 4 SOD's and many more OOD's, made just under $300. I'm happy enough with that.

I think that works out at a tad more than the 25-38c per download you quoted?

shudderstok

« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2014, 20:26 »
-5
that's why they 'experiment' LOL
enjoy making your 0.25 - 0.38 per download pros
welcome to the walmart of stock, you made it to the bottom, congratulations

Well yesterday I had 117 sales on SS which, thanks to 4 SOD's and many more OOD's, made just under $300. I'm happy enough with that.

I think that works out at a tad more than the 25-38c per download you quoted?

WOW, roughly $2.50 per image with whatever sod's and ood's are. no wonder ortner is a billionaire on paper. i make the just shy of $300 daily on IS from 20-25 or so downloads, i know my worth. not sure why i would want to sell my work for a fraction of that, but i guess folks like you enjoy selling their work for as little as they can.
also noted how you did not have a snappy come back on the RM issue, seems to silenced your man as well.
keep up the good work, glad you are happy with SS, but it's certainly not for me, i'd quite photography before i sold for those amounts.

« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2014, 20:28 »
0
thats the name of the game.

« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2014, 20:31 »
+2

that's why they 'experiment' LOL
enjoy making your 0.25 - 0.38 per download pros
welcome to the walmart of stock, you made it to the bottom, congratulations

Even if it was only 0.25-0.38, you are reaching almost a million customers. Quantity does count. While some might be able to make a great living excluding subscriptions, ignoring that huge market wouldn't be a wise choice, at least for me.

« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2014, 20:46 »
+6
that's why they 'experiment' LOL
enjoy making your 0.25 - 0.38 per download pros
welcome to the walmart of stock, you made it to the bottom, congratulations

Well yesterday I had 117 sales on SS which, thanks to 4 SOD's and many more OOD's, made just under $300. I'm happy enough with that.

I think that works out at a tad more than the 25-38c per download you quoted?

WOW, roughly $2.50 per image with whatever sod's and ood's are. no wonder ortner is a billionaire on paper. i make the just shy of $300 daily on IS from 20-25 or so downloads, i know my worth. not sure why i would want to sell my work for a fraction of that, but i guess folks like you enjoy selling their work for as little as they can.
also noted how you did not have a snappy come back on the RM issue, seems to silenced your man as well.
keep up the good work, glad you are happy with SS, but it's certainly not for me, i'd quite photography before i sold for those amounts.

What 'RM issue' was I supposed to have a snappy answer to? Yours was the first mention of RM in this thread.

Nice to hear you're doing so well at IS anyway! Good luck with that sinking ship , oops, I mean 'outstanding agency'.

Btw, don't forget that SS, for most independent contributors, only represents about half their earnings. You just lost $300 yesterday by not being independent.

ShadySue

« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2014, 21:00 »
-2
Btw, don't forget that SS, for most independent contributors, only represents about half their earnings. You just lost $300 yesterday by not being independent.
But he'd have lost a lot by having to sell at M prices on iStock. Unless M files are stealing dls from exclusives, which is perfectly possible.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2014, 21:47 by ShadySue »

shudderstok

« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2014, 21:08 »
+4
that's why they 'experiment' LOL
enjoy making your 0.25 - 0.38 per download pros
welcome to the walmart of stock, you made it to the bottom, congratulations

Well yesterday I had 117 sales on SS which, thanks to 4 SOD's and many more OOD's, made just under $300. I'm happy enough with that.

I think that works out at a tad more than the 25-38c per download you quoted?

WOW, roughly $2.50 per image with whatever sod's and ood's are. no wonder ortner is a billionaire on paper. i make the just shy of $300 daily on IS from 20-25 or so downloads, i know my worth. not sure why i would want to sell my work for a fraction of that, but i guess folks like you enjoy selling their work for as little as they can.
also noted how you did not have a snappy come back on the RM issue, seems to silenced your man as well.
keep up the good work, glad you are happy with SS, but it's certainly not for me, i'd quite photography before i sold for those amounts.

What 'RM issue' was I supposed to have a snappy answer to? Yours was the first mention of RM in this thread.

Nice to hear you're doing so well at IS anyway! Good luck with that sinking ship , oops, I mean 'outstanding agency'.

Btw, don't forget that SS, for most independent contributors, only represents about half their earnings. You just lost $300 yesterday by not being independent.

yes i can see that.

judging from any consistency here, the microstock poll results for site earnings rating (top right of this page) always clearly shows exclusive always pays better than all the sites reporting combined. in fact it has been this way for as long as i can remember.

so why would anybody in their right mind want to upload to ten sites or more to make less money on average? that amigo makes no sense at all to me.

i think basing results of the poll is accurate give or take of a good reflection of photographers earnings. i could care less about how much SS or GI make, that is not going in my pocket, and if i can spend less time uploading to make more money, that is what i am going to do.

if it works for you, excellent, good to hear, but i would not submit at SS on principle and i sure as hell would not sugar coat it and call an act of desperation and 'experiment'.

whatever works for you is all that matters. i just don't see the point in working so hard to make so little when i can work less and make more.




« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2014, 21:27 »
+5
that's why they 'experiment' LOL
enjoy making your 0.25 - 0.38 per download pros
welcome to the walmart of stock, you made it to the bottom, congratulations

Well yesterday I had 117 sales on SS which, thanks to 4 SOD's and many more OOD's, made just under $300. I'm happy enough with that.

I think that works out at a tad more than the 25-38c per download you quoted?

WOW, roughly $2.50 per image with whatever sod's and ood's are. no wonder ortner is a billionaire on paper. i make the just shy of $300 daily on IS from 20-25 or so downloads, i know my worth. not sure why i would want to sell my work for a fraction of that, but i guess folks like you enjoy selling their work for as little as they can.
also noted how you did not have a snappy come back on the RM issue, seems to silenced your man as well.
keep up the good work, glad you are happy with SS, but it's certainly not for me, i'd quite photography before i sold for those amounts.

What 'RM issue' was I supposed to have a snappy answer to? Yours was the first mention of RM in this thread.

Nice to hear you're doing so well at IS anyway! Good luck with that sinking ship , oops, I mean 'outstanding agency'.

Btw, don't forget that SS, for most independent contributors, only represents about half their earnings. You just lost $300 yesterday by not being independent.

yes i can see that.

judging from any consistency here, the microstock poll results for site earnings rating (top right of this page) always clearly shows exclusive always pays better than all the sites reporting combined. in fact it has been this way for as long as i can remember.

so why would anybody in their right mind want to upload to ten sites or more to make less money on average? that amigo makes no sense at all to me.

i think basing results of the poll is accurate give or take of a good reflection of photographers earnings. i could care less about how much SS or GI make, that is not going in my pocket, and if i can spend less time uploading to make more money, that is what i am going to do.

if it works for you, excellent, good to hear, but i would not submit at SS on principle and i sure as hell would not sugar coat it and call an act of desperation and 'experiment'.

whatever works for you is all that matters. i just don't see the point in working so hard to make so little when i can work less and make more.

Trust me, you'll be uploading to SS soon enough!

IS have been saying for years that their business is "unsustainable" ... and so it will prove to be.

Hold on tight ... because you're in for a very rough ride!

ShadySue

« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2014, 21:48 »
0
Btw, don't forget that SS, for most independent contributors, only represents about half their earnings. You just lost $300 yesterday by not being independent.
But he'd have lost a lot by having to sell at M prices on iStock. Unless M files are stealing dls from exclusives, which is perfectly possible.
Would whoever minussed that care to explain their arithmetic?

shudderstok

« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2014, 22:19 »
+1
Btw, don't forget that SS, for most independent contributors, only represents about half their earnings. You just lost $300 yesterday by not being independent.
But he'd have lost a lot by having to sell at M prices on iStock. Unless M files are stealing dls from exclusives, which is perfectly possible.
Would whoever minussed that care to explain their arithmetic?

they can't explain, there is too much of a hate on for anything IS or GI that if one even remotely says something logical you will get minussed for it. selling at M prices in addition to the paltry royalty IS has on offer for non-exclusives will not be made up at SS making a pittance over there, and at twice the workload.

the math is simple in my books, just look at the earnings ratings. 18 sites that have ratings, including SS and IS come out to 213.5 and IS exclusive alone comes out to 295.1 now that tells me clearly that i would be doing 18 times the amount of work for only 72% of what i would make if i was exclusive. in addition they devalue their own work and the value of photography in general. the poll does not lie, it is contributors from this forum that populate the statistics, not SS or IS. and there has been a consistency in the results for a very long time.

and the logic on this forum is that i actually lost $300.



« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2014, 22:37 »
+7
I think uploading to IS was maybe only a little less work than all the other sites combined. My main reason for not going exclusive there (before the whole unsustainable business and the RC debacle) was that about every 6 months or year they would do something to the search and my downloads would drop about 50%. Then they would slowly go up approximately proportional to the number of new uploads I had before another search change and precipitous drop.

I look forward to seeing gbalex or someone else really digging out the SS numbers - are downloads per file going up? revenue per image, etc.


« Reply #17 on: February 20, 2014, 23:13 »
+8
I'm not going to engage in debate over exclusive vs indie, but I don't think you're comparing apples to apples in thinking you do better than the poll

I think that there are a ton of newbie figures in everything but the IS exclusive poll. If you filtered those out I think you'd see something very different - earnings comparable with risk spread as an indie vs less admin work and all your eggs in one basket as exclusive

Goofy

« Reply #18 on: February 20, 2014, 23:25 »
+9
I can predict the future-

shudderstok = shutterstock


 8)


shudderstok

« Reply #19 on: February 21, 2014, 00:17 »
0
I can predict the future-

shudderstok = shutterstock


 8)

i had to + you on that - good one but my fortune teller told me otherwise :)

« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2014, 01:22 »
+1
Yesterday : 82.46 -0.14 (-0.17%)
After Hours: 88.10 +5.64 (6.84%)

Financial Outlook

The Company's current financial and operating expectations for the first quarter of 2014 and updated expectations for full year 2014 are as follows:

First Quarter 2014

Revenue of $69 - $70 million
Adjusted EBITDA of $12 - $13 million
Non-cash equity-based compensation expense of approximately $5 million
An effective tax rate of approximately 40%
Capital expenditures of approximately $7 million
Full Year 2014

Revenue of $305 - $310 million
Adjusted EBITDA of  $68 - $70 million
Non-cash equity-based compensation expense of approximately $18 million
An effective tax rate of approximately 40%
Capital expenditures of approximately $14 million


hmm still sad you didn't buy the stock at the beginning? :) me too

« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2014, 02:11 »
+3
I'm not going to engage in debate over exclusive vs indie, but I don't think you're comparing apples to apples in thinking you do better than the poll

I think that there are a ton of newbie figures in everything but the IS exclusive poll. If you filtered those out I think you'd see something very different - earnings comparable with risk spread as an indie vs less admin work and all your eggs in one basket as exclusive
+1

Being a newbie myself, it is a long route to become an IS exclusive considering the very few DLs I get in IS. I am happy that SS gives a reasonable revenue opportunity for newbies. For the sake of all the photographes (pros and amateurs), I would like a range of agencies to be successful and just not one. If the agencies can also become more contributor friendly, nothing like it  :)

« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2014, 02:29 »
+10
if iStock is doing that well why are you guys (all the time) wasting your time here on SS financial results topics trying to convert or telling us how bad it is to upload to SS? any reports from iStock? yeah had that feeling! guess it isn't worth to discuss if there isn't any data, now please move along and don't forget to enjoy the smooth iStock submission process and of course the incredible increase of buyers out there ;D

« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2014, 02:38 »
0
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


Impressive numbers!

« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2014, 03:13 »
+1
are downloads per file going up? revenue per image, etc.

2012 - 169.6 M revenue - 23.3 M images - 7.27$ RPI - 76 M downloads - 2.23$ RPD - collection was downloaded 3.26 times

2013 - 235.5 M revenue - 32.2 M images - 7.31$ RPI - 100.1 M downloads  - 2.35$ RPD - collection was downloaded 3.10 times

Ron

« Reply #25 on: February 21, 2014, 03:24 »
0
are downloads per file going up? revenue per image, etc.

2012 - 169.6 M revenue - 23.3 M images - 7.27$ RPI - 76 M downloads - 2.23$ RPD - collection was downloaded 3.26 times

2013 - 235.5 M revenue - 32.2 M images - 7.31$ RPI - 100.1 M downloads  - 2.35$ RPD - collection was downloaded 3.10 times

Thats interesting

« Reply #26 on: February 21, 2014, 03:26 »
+2
yeah but the RPI increased


« Reply #27 on: February 21, 2014, 03:42 »
+1
2009 - 61 M revenue

2010 - 83 M revenue - 13.3 M images - 6.24$ RPI - 44.1 M downloads - 1.88$ RPD - collection was downloaded 3.31 times

2011 - 120.3 M revenue - 17.4 M images - 6.91$ RPI - 58.6 M downloads - 2.05$ RPD - collection was downloaded 3.36 times

2012 - 169.6 M revenue - 23.3 M images - 7.27$ RPI - 76 M downloads - 2.23$ RPD - collection was downloaded 3.26 times

2013 - 235.5 M revenue - 32.2 M images - 7.31$ RPI - 100.1 M downloads  - 2.35$ RPD - collection was downloaded 3.10 times

« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2014, 04:09 »
0

« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2014, 08:54 »
+3
I can predict the future-

shudderstok = shutterstock


 8)

i had to + you on that - good one but my fortune teller told me otherwise :)

Is your fortune teller LOBO?? :o

« Reply #30 on: February 21, 2014, 09:03 »
+10
Less work? I can upload 12 files to 8 different sites faster and easier than I can upload one file to istock. Even the worst sites out there have a more modern and simpler submission process.

« Reply #31 on: February 21, 2014, 09:07 »
+1
yeah but the RPI increased

Probably because of SODs. They've been a big boost for me, outpacing the EL category.

« Reply #32 on: February 21, 2014, 11:02 »
+4



Cool video. About the only thing I didn't like at all from 2013 was the BigStock subscriptions (or rather that they didn't let contributors opt out given the crappy royalties paid). I don't know what I think of offset and skillfeed because I have no clue how they're doing - anyone who contributes to either of them have a view on that?

Other than a slight nervousness at how big and dominant SS is becoming (because that often leads to treating suppliers badly) I'm very happy with how they are operating and growing.

« Reply #33 on: February 21, 2014, 11:24 »
+4
I'm very pleased that nobody has said "woot!"....which they used to say at that other place all the time.

All I need now to make my joy complete is for Laurin to pipe up over on SS with "how about a raise?"
« Last Edit: February 21, 2014, 11:29 by Red Dove »

« Reply #34 on: February 21, 2014, 11:37 »
-1
Less work? I can upload 12 files to 8 different sites faster and easier than I can upload one file to istock. Even the worst sites out there have a more modern and simpler submission process.

Oh,yeah. Sure.

No need to go ti this extremes to be a wooyayer.

« Reply #35 on: February 21, 2014, 12:00 »
+4
shares are up 16% this morning to around $96 as i write. Good news for the shareholders at least

« Reply #36 on: February 21, 2014, 12:19 »
+3
Less work? I can upload 12 files to 8 different sites faster and easier than I can upload one file to istock. Even the worst sites out there have a more modern and simpler submission process.

Oh,yeah. Sure.

No need to go ti this extremes to be a wooyayer.

Sorry, but it's true. No other site makes you piece together model releases into one file. So if you have a session with photos that have different people in each image, you have to create a whole batch of release files just for Istock. And you have to upload new model releases each time even though it's the same model. On every other site, you just click that model release out of the archive. The extra time it takes is too much. Every time I start to upload there, I just give up halfway through.

They clearly want more images submitted or they wouldn't have gotten rid of the upload cap. But they still haven't cleared the real hurdle, and that's their archaic uploading system that works like something out of 2004.


« Reply #37 on: February 21, 2014, 12:20 »
+3
All I need now to make my joy complete is for Laurin to pipe up over on SS with "how about a raise?"

 ;D ;D ;D (and refer once again that microstock is just a tiny % of his income)

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #38 on: February 21, 2014, 12:21 »
+2
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


It can't just be the 'Sean Effect' surely?

Professionals deal with professionals.


Probably it is the 'Yuri has gone' effect

wds

« Reply #39 on: February 21, 2014, 13:24 »
0
Did Shutterstock say anything about market-share or market-share trend?

lisafx

« Reply #40 on: February 21, 2014, 13:36 »
+3
Less work? I can upload 12 files to 8 different sites faster and easier than I can upload one file to istock. Even the worst sites out there have a more modern and simpler submission process.

Oh,yeah. Sure.

No need to go ti this extremes to be a wooyayer.

Sorry, but it's true. No other site makes you piece together model releases into one file. So if you have a session with photos that have different people in each image, you have to create a whole batch of release files just for Istock. And you have to upload new model releases each time even though it's the same model. On every other site, you just click that model release out of the archive. The extra time it takes is too much. Every time I start to upload there, I just give up halfway through.

They clearly want more images submitted or they wouldn't have gotten rid of the upload cap. But they still haven't cleared the real hurdle, and that's their archaic uploading system that works like something out of 2004.

You're absolutely right Rob.  Uploading to I stock is torturous, especially with multiple configurations of models.  So much so that I'm not sure its even worth uploading that type of shoot there, even though those type of shoots are big sellers.

 Overall sales volume is way down, and for Indies RPD is very low.  I only resumed uploading in the first place because of the great PP numbers in October, and we all know how that turned out.

« Reply #41 on: February 21, 2014, 14:06 »
+1
Did Shutterstock say anything about market-share or market-share trend?


Shutterstock operates an industry-leading global marketplace for commercial digital imagery. Commercial digital imagery consists of licensed photographs, illustrations and videos that companies use in their visual communications, such as websites, digital and print marketing materials, corporate communications, books, publications and video content. Demand for commercial digital imagery comes primarily from businesses, marketing agencies and media organizations. We estimate that the market for pre-shot commercial digital imagery will grow to approximately $6 billion in 2016, based on a study conducted on our behalf by L.E.K. Consulting LLC, or L.E.K.

(http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/edgar_conv_html%2f2013%2f03%2f01%2f0001047469-13-002091.html#FIS_BUSINESS)

« Reply #42 on: February 21, 2014, 14:08 »
+1
I'm not going to engage in debate over exclusive vs indie, but I don't think you're comparing apples to apples in thinking you do better than the poll

I think that there are a ton of newbie figures in everything but the IS exclusive poll. If you filtered those out I think you'd see something very different - earnings comparable with risk spread as an indie vs less admin work and all your eggs in one basket as exclusive

Yeah, I agree. I think that is part of the bias of the poll. The lower the number of contributors, the higher the average royalties tend to be. If you turned off the 50 vote limit, then Clipartof and Stocksy would probably be at the top of the poll above Shutterstock next month. But if everybody contributed to those sites, the average would drop significantly. Just as if everybody went exclusive tomorrow, the average for exclusive earnings would go down on the poll.

« Reply #43 on: February 21, 2014, 14:10 »
0
So when they post these numbers, does this include BigStock too? And Offset?

« Reply #44 on: February 21, 2014, 14:21 »
0
So when they post these numbers, does this include BigStock too? And Offset?

in the report

About Shutterstock

Shutterstock, Inc. (NYSE: SSTK) is a leading global provider of high-quality licensed photographs, vectors, illustrations and videos to businesses, marketing agencies and media organizations around the world. Working with its growing community of over 55,000 contributors, Shutterstock adds tens of thousands of images each week, and currently has available more than 33 million images and 1.5 million video clips.

Headquartered in New York City, with offices in Berlin, Chicago, Denver, London and San Francisco, Shutterstock has customers in more than 150 countries. The Company owns Bigstock, a value-oriented stock media agency; Offset, a high-end image collection; and Skillfeed, an online marketplace for learning.

Ron

« Reply #45 on: February 21, 2014, 19:18 »
-3
Where's debunkgbalex when you need him  ;)

« Reply #46 on: February 21, 2014, 20:13 »
-2
http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1902033

Snip

Revenue

Revenue for the fourth quarter was $68.0 million, a 38% increase from $49.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2012.  Revenue for the full year was $235.5 million, a 39% increase from $169.6 million in 2012.

Net Income

Net income for the fourth quarter of 2013 was $7.9 million as compared to $29.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2012. Net income available to common shareholders/members for the fourth quarter of 2013 was $7.8 million or $0.22 per share on a fully diluted basis as compared to $28.7 million or $0.88 per share on a fully diluted basis in the fourth quarter of 2012.

Net income for the full year 2013 was $26.5 million as compared to $47.5 million in 2012.  Net income available to shareholders/common members for the full year was $26.4 million or $0.77 per share on a fully diluted basis as compared to $42.6 million or $1.79 per share on a fully diluted basis in 2012.

Both net income and net income available to common shareholders/members for the fourth quarter of 2012 and the full year of 2012 include a one-time tax benefit of $28.8 million related to the Company's reorganization from an LLC to a C-corporation on October 5, 2012.



To put those numbers into perspective Net income at Shutterstock dropped by 21 million in 2013 compared to Net income in 2012, despite the fact that overall Revenue rose by 65.9 million in 2013 over revenue in 2012.

The analyst should love those numbers and will no doubt have questions.


« Reply #47 on: February 21, 2014, 20:21 »
+2
That's a good point. I'm sure they will want to know what all the money was spent on. Maybe Offset launch? Which for the life of me, I don't understand why Shutterstock is doing that. The quality of images on Offset aren't really any better than what's on Shutterstock already for a sliver of the price. It'd be like Walmart trying to open a high end store and charging top dollar for stuff they're selling for cheap in their regular stores. Stick to what you're good at.

« Reply #48 on: February 21, 2014, 20:47 »
-3
That's a good point. I'm sure they will want to know what all the money was spent on. Maybe Offset launch? Which for the life of me, I don't understand why Shutterstock is doing that. The quality of images on Offset aren't really any better than what's on Shutterstock already for a sliver of the price. It'd be like Walmart trying to open a high end store and charging top dollar for stuff they're selling for cheap in their regular stores. Stick to what you're good at.


That and the move to the new vanity location.

Shutterstock Inc: Insider Trading and Stock Options

Total insider sales $340,871,142  Total Insider Buys since 11/2012 $0

http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1549346.htm

Goofy

« Reply #49 on: February 21, 2014, 20:48 »
+1
That's a good point. I'm sure they will want to know what all the money was spent on. Maybe Offset launch? Which for the life of me, I don't understand why Shutterstock is doing that. The quality of images on Offset aren't really any better than what's on Shutterstock already for a sliver of the price. It'd be like Walmart trying to open a high end store and charging top dollar for stuff they're selling for cheap in their regular stores. Stick to what you're good at.

reason is Stocksy. Yes, Walmart has tried to be Target at times but fails horribly  8)


« Reply #50 on: February 21, 2014, 20:50 »
+1
http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1902033

Snip

Revenue

Revenue for the fourth quarter was $68.0 million, a 38% increase from $49.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2012.  Revenue for the full year was $235.5 million, a 39% increase from $169.6 million in 2012.

Net Income

Net income for the fourth quarter of 2013 was $7.9 million as compared to $29.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2012. Net income available to common shareholders/members for the fourth quarter of 2013 was $7.8 million or $0.22 per share on a fully diluted basis as compared to $28.7 million or $0.88 per share on a fully diluted basis in the fourth quarter of 2012.

Net income for the full year 2013 was $26.5 million as compared to $47.5 million in 2012.  Net income available to shareholders/common members for the full year was $26.4 million or $0.77 per share on a fully diluted basis as compared to $42.6 million or $1.79 per share on a fully diluted basis in 2012.

Both net income and net income available to common shareholders/members for the fourth quarter of 2012 and the full year of 2012 include a one-time tax benefit of $28.8 million related to the Company's reorganization from an LLC to a C-corporation on October 5, 2012.



To put those numbers into perspective Net income at Shutterstock dropped by 21 million in 2013 compared to Net income in 2012, despite the fact that overall Revenue rose by 65.9 million in 2013 over revenue in 2012.

The analyst should love those numbers and will no doubt have questions.


isn't the answer the 28.8 million "one-time tax benefit"?

« Reply #51 on: February 21, 2014, 21:21 »
+3
That's a good point. I'm sure they will want to know what all the money was spent on.

Pesky contributors?  ;)

« Reply #52 on: February 21, 2014, 21:34 »
0
That's a good point. I'm sure they will want to know what all the money was spent on. Maybe Offset launch? Which for the life of me, I don't understand why Shutterstock is doing that. The quality of images on Offset aren't really any better than what's on Shutterstock already for a sliver of the price. It'd be like Walmart trying to open a high end store and charging top dollar for stuff they're selling for cheap in their regular stores. Stick to what you're good at.


That and the move to the new vanity location.

Shutterstock Inc: Insider Trading and Stock Options

Total insider sales $340,871,142  Total Insider Buys since 11/2012 $0

http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1549346.htm


That's because Oringer and (and Theo-whatever-his-name-is, if I remember correctly) released some of their personal shareholding due to massive demand from institutional investors.

It's a measure of the success of the IPO and the strength of the business ... not as some dodgy dealing as you are trying to paint it. Quite clearly they'd have made more money if they'd have kept hold of the stock.

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?
« Last Edit: February 21, 2014, 21:38 by gostwyck »

« Reply #53 on: February 21, 2014, 21:45 »
+4
That's a good point. I'm sure they will want to know what all the money was spent on. Maybe Offset launch? Which for the life of me, I don't understand why Shutterstock is doing that. The quality of images on Offset aren't really any better than what's on Shutterstock already for a sliver of the price. It'd be like Walmart trying to open a high end store and charging top dollar for stuff they're selling for cheap in their regular stores. Stick to what you're good at.

reason is Stocksy. Yes, Walmart has tried to be Target at times but fails horribly  8)

Stocksy isn't a threat to Shutterstock.

Ron

« Reply #54 on: February 21, 2014, 22:18 »
-11
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.

« Reply #55 on: February 21, 2014, 22:26 »
0
That's a good point. I'm sure they will want to know what all the money was spent on. Maybe Offset launch? Which for the life of me, I don't understand why Shutterstock is doing that. The quality of images on Offset aren't really any better than what's on Shutterstock already for a sliver of the price. It'd be like Walmart trying to open a high end store and charging top dollar for stuff they're selling for cheap in their regular stores. Stick to what you're good at.


That and the move to the new vanity location.

Shutterstock Inc: Insider Trading and Stock Options

Total insider sales $340,871,142  Total Insider Buys since 11/2012 $0

http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1549346.htm


That's because Oringer and (and Theo-whatever-his-name-is, if I remember correctly) released some of their personal shareholding due to massive demand from institutional investors.

It's a measure of the success of the IPO and the strength of the business ... not as some dodgy dealing as you are trying to paint it. Quite clearly they'd have made more money if they'd have kept hold of the stock.

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?


Did I say there was dodgy dealing?  Just noted that insiders did not add to their potions.

As I recall you are a proud stock holder.

« Reply #56 on: February 21, 2014, 22:39 »
0
Did I say there was dodgy dealing?  Just noted that insiders did not add to their potions.

As I recall you are a proud stock holder.

Being as the 'insiders' already owned more than 54% of the business they could hardly add to their holding could they? In fact they were under pressure to release some of their stock.

No, I don't own any SS stock, although I most certainly would have bought in if I'd had the funds available at the time. I did recommend them to a couple of close friends, who had plenty of spare cash when the stock was $22. Unfortunately neither took my advice.


« Reply #57 on: February 21, 2014, 23:15 »
+1
http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1902033

Snip

Revenue

Revenue for the fourth quarter was $68.0 million, a 38% increase from $49.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2012.  Revenue for the full year was $235.5 million, a 39% increase from $169.6 million in 2012.

Net Income

Net income for the fourth quarter of 2013 was $7.9 million as compared to $29.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2012. Net income available to common shareholders/members for the fourth quarter of 2013 was $7.8 million or $0.22 per share on a fully diluted basis as compared to $28.7 million or $0.88 per share on a fully diluted basis in the fourth quarter of 2012.

Net income for the full year 2013 was $26.5 million as compared to $47.5 million in 2012.  Net income available to shareholders/common members for the full year was $26.4 million or $0.77 per share on a fully diluted basis as compared to $42.6 million or $1.79 per share on a fully diluted basis in 2012.

Both net income and net income available to common shareholders/members for the fourth quarter of 2012 and the full year of 2012 include a one-time tax benefit of $28.8 million related to the Company's reorganization from an LLC to a C-corporation on October 5, 2012.


To put those numbers into perspective Net income at Shutterstock dropped by 21 million in 2013 compared to Net income in 2012, despite the fact that overall Revenue rose by 65.9 million in 2013 over revenue in 2012.

The analyst should love those numbers and will no doubt have questions.


isn't the answer the 28.8 million "one-time tax benefit"?


Revenue for the full year was $235.5 million, a 39% increase from $169.6 million in 2012. 

Net Income for the full year was $26.5 million, a -44.3 % decrease from $47.5 million in 2012. 

Lets say you gave the same one time tax benefit in 2013 $26.5 million + $28.8 million = $55.3 million

With an equal tax credit Net Income for the full year of 2013 would then be $55.3 million, a -16% increase from $47.5 million Net Income in 2012. 

Besides the relocation and new product expenses I have not been able to find increased spends, in fact they are a lower %.

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

Snip
Shifting now to operating expenses for the fourth quarter gross margin was 61.6% in line with the prior quarter. Contributor royalties, which make up approximately 28% of revenue, have remained fairly consistent over the past several quarters.

Snip
Sales and marketing expense were $16.5 million or roughly 24% of revenue. This was in line as a percent of revenue as compared to the prior year.

Snip
Product development expense was $6.5 million in the quarter, roughly 9.5% of revenue. This was down from 11.5% of revenue in the prior year

Snip
G&A expense in the fourth quarter was $6.5 million or about 9.5% of revenue. And we expect G&A to be approximately 11% of revenue in Q1 2014. As we continue to expand our operations and we will also incur approximately $1 million in a one-time expense related to the completion of the relocation of our headquarters office in New York City

Snip
Turning now to headcount, we ended the quarter and the year with a total of 345 employees worldwide, this is an increase of about 47% from a year ago

Snip
As noted previously, we had planned to spend approximately $10 million in total related to our office relocation in New York City, approximately $2 million of that will extend past the year-end of 2013 into the first quarter of 2014.

Snip
Tim Bixby - CFO
In terms of the leverage and the model, you're not seeing a leverage externally that we can see internally and that's really when we kind of pull apart the business a little bit and say what are we spending to drive and support the core as opposed to what are we spending to drive new products and innovations that aren't driving significant revenue. And you can see really anywhere from 3 to 5 percentage points of
spend going new areas that aren't yet driving a lot of revenue.


« Reply #58 on: February 21, 2014, 23:21 »
+12
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.

How many times are you going to insult me in this thread? When does stating facts equate to bitterness. They are just facts that anyone can read.

There are plenty of SS groupies to present all the positives, I like to look at business objectively. But carry on with the put downs.

« Reply #59 on: February 21, 2014, 23:35 »
+2
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.

Jon Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman
Yes, as far as our contributors go, we've had 30% of them and we've seen competitors come in and try to play with that number. What happens is if they payout more to contributors, they leave less room for marketing spend and that causes less sales in the long run and less payout to their contributors. So with this we really found the sweet spot over the past 10 years with the subscription plan, with the 30% payout, and competitors have come and gone and tried different things but we haven't seen much change.

Thilo Semmelbauer - President and COO
Yes, this is Thilo. May be I'll touch on the pricing topic a little bit. Obviously there's always lots of experimentation going on in this space. We ourselves are doing experimentation all the time. In the last 12 months we've launched and tested multiple different pricing plans. When you look at our offering, we really average, as you know about $2 per image, but for high volume users it could be a $1 or less and for lower volume users it could be significantly more including with our enterprises customers who are paying in the range of $20 and up. Sometimes hundreds per image depending on the licensing rights and so forth as we've talked about before.

At this point we are not seeing anything that is really changing the landscape from what it has been which is quite active in experimentation. As Jon mentioned, our acquisition costs are stable even as we increased our marketing spend, which is a great sign and our retention continues to be very, very strong. We haven't seen any degradation and we would continue to see positive movement there, so not much impact.

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

« Reply #60 on: February 22, 2014, 06:05 »
-1
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?

shudderstok

« Reply #61 on: February 22, 2014, 06:54 »
+13
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?

the writing is on the wall, and has been for a long time, primarily since the acceptance industry wide of all microstock sites. the complete abandon of quality control for the most part, total lack of editing, driving prices to all time lows etc, it spells bad news for all contributors. alas however, the bright side of things, all these agencies will continue to be incredibly profitable from a business point of view, they don't care one way or the other if the contributors do well, they only want profit for themselves, and they will continue to be profitable, but at a cost to us, the contributors. the agencies get a download regardless, we don't. this applies to all of us, IS, GI, SS, and the likes. there are simply too many images available at the lowest price points, the buyers have accepted this as the new normal, and pity us, we keep feeding the machine in hopes of paying our electricity bill. mark my words on this, my money says in 10 years or less of this feeding frenzy, most of us won't be making a living from stock photography, but the agencies will be still profitable in every way. just sayin.

a good example, 15 years ago, if i sold a photo for an in-flight magazine client direct i got on average 1k give or take, if i sold it via GI they got 1K+ give or take and i made $400. in today's world, if GI sells the image i might make $100 tops if it's RF, if i sell it client direct it's now $425 as the rates have gone down due to the microstock phenomena, now if i sell that same image via IS i am lucky to make tops $40 if the image is S+, but if i sold the same image on SS i'd make as low as 0.25c, which is the case of a good friend of mine who is on SS, he sold a cover to an in-flight magazine, and only got 0.25c as the print run was less than the required amount for the add on rates. now seriously, how can anyone make a living on this? not sure about you, but my cost of living is only going up, but from what i have seen industry wide, the prices are only going down and rapidly. this in the end will catch up with all of us. the industry is in complete shambles for all contributors, GI lover, SS lover, Stocksy lover, it will get us all in the end. but the agencies, oh yes, they will be profitable.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 07:13 by shudderstok »

« Reply #62 on: February 22, 2014, 07:19 »
+2
10 years? when I joined in 2009 people talked about 2 years, now its 10? ;D

drama drama drama, I just decided to quit!

« Reply #63 on: February 22, 2014, 09:51 »
+1
mark my words on this, my money says in 10 years or less of this feeding frenzy, most of us won't be making a living from stock photography, but the agencies will be still profitable in every way. just sayin.

I tend to agree, it does seem like it has to hit some critical density at some point. Although if contributors start failing to make money, I'm not sure if the companies will still be successful. That said, I'm always surprised when it all keeps chugging along in a fairly healthy manner.

shudderstok

« Reply #64 on: February 22, 2014, 11:14 »
+5
mark my words on this, my money says in 10 years or less of this feeding frenzy, most of us won't be making a living from stock photography, but the agencies will be still profitable in every way. just sayin.

I tend to agree, it does seem like it has to hit some critical density at some point. Although if contributors start failing to make money, I'm not sure if the companies will still be successful. That said, I'm always surprised when it all keeps chugging along in a fairly healthy manner.

there is no shortage of contributors who have dreams of paying their electricity bill via selling photos, we/they (contributors) are a dime a dozen nowadays, and the agencies are full aware of this fact. they win, we lose. not to be negative, but it's the cold hard truth. once upon a time stock photography was personal in nature and sustainable, now it's corporate, and corporations only care about one thing, profit, not the source of the product, especially if they know there is a never ending supply of the product. they are taking in millions of dollars per year in profit, and most of us are dreaming of paying an electricity bill and/or having a pissing contest on whether being exclusive or non-exclusive is better, they have us sorted out where they want us, and trust me when i say this, they could care less, cause they know we are replaceable expendable ++ sean.

we need to wake up, and it starts by never supporting a subscription site of any sort. this is the kiss of death for all of us.

we as contributors need to start thinking long term and sustainable, all of us, and taking action now because we all know the agencies won't.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 11:29 by shudderstok »

« Reply #65 on: February 22, 2014, 11:43 »
+3
we need to wake up, and it starts by never supporting a subscription site of any sort. this is the kiss of death for all of us.

I'm all for that (I wish it could happen), but nothing really exist like that for the vast majority of contributors. So, you are really just asking people to quit stock altogether.

« Reply #66 on: February 22, 2014, 11:49 »
+3
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
« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 11:58 by gbalex »


« Reply #67 on: February 22, 2014, 11:53 »
+1
[snip]

we need to wake up, and it starts by never supporting a subscription site of any sort. this is the kiss of death for all of us.

we as contributors need to start thinking long term and sustainable, all of us, and taking action now because we all know the agencies won't.

ok, so no Getty, no Corbis, no SS, no DT, no FT, It looks like mostly relatively closed shops, Alamy (unless you consider NU to be like subs) boutique RM, and self hosting are the only options then? I am sure there are others, but it would be hard to do much more than pay the electric bill without managing to get into one of the semi closed shops.

(actually in general I agree with your basic thesis that the agencies will continue to do well and the photographers less so based on the basic principles of supply and demand). That makes much more sense than expecting the agencies to suddenly become unprofitable as was perhaps previously predicted.

shudderstok

« Reply #68 on: February 22, 2014, 11:55 »
+5
we need to wake up, and it starts by never supporting a subscription site of any sort. this is the kiss of death for all of us.

I'm all for that (I wish it could happen), but nothing really exist like that for the vast majority of contributors. So, you are really just asking people to quit stock altogether.

no i am not asking anyone to quit stock altogether, but what i am suggesting is that we all have choices of sustainability. i made mine, 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?

shudderstok

« Reply #69 on: February 22, 2014, 12:08 »
+3
[snip]

we need to wake up, and it starts by never supporting a subscription site of any sort. this is the kiss of death for all of us.

we as contributors need to start thinking long term and sustainable, all of us, and taking action now because we all know the agencies won't.



ok, so no Getty, no Corbis, no SS, no DT, no FT, It looks like mostly relatively closed shops, Alamy (unless you consider NU to be like subs) boutique RM, and self hosting are the only options then? I am sure there are others, but it would be hard to do much more than pay the electric bill without managing to get into one of the semi closed shops.

(actually in general I agree with your basic thesis that the agencies will continue to do well and the photographers less so based on the basic principles of supply and demand). That makes much more sense than expecting the agencies to suddenly become unprofitable as was perhaps previously predicted.

you have a point, however i think GI and Corbis got into the game of subscription because they had no choice due to economic pressures forced upon them by the likes of subscription sites, contributors of certain sites enabled them (GI, IS and Corbis) to 'compete' as it became sink or swim, and i do believe that by pulling out of subscription sites that there can (utopia) be a reversal in the trend. again, what is you work worth? i will be a hard ass right till the end and not support subscription sites at all.

they are selling 'our 'work, apart from that none of these agencies really have a product unless we agree to their terms, and that is what they sell, our product, not theirs. so i choose to not enable them to sell my product for subscription prices and subscription royalties so they can make millions. i stand by my decision, do you?

shudderstok

« Reply #70 on: February 22, 2014, 12:16 »
+3
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? :)
 

« Reply #71 on: February 22, 2014, 12:27 »
+4
no i am not asking anyone to quit stock altogether, but what i am suggesting is that we all have choices of sustainability. i made mine, 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?

Last time I checked, iStock was a subscription site. That's why I left. I didn't want to be part of it. If everybody went exclusive or all the independents left, then guess where Thinkstock's content is going to come from. Just because you're insulated doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Like I said, I love the idea of the death of subs, but there is no REAL escape plan. Believe me. I've tried (even had modest success). But, to eliminate them altogether would require some new big player to enter the market. Even then, it would be tough.

« Reply #72 on: February 22, 2014, 12:37 »
+4

we need to wake up, and it starts by never supporting a subscription site of any sort. this is the kiss of death for all of us.

we as contributors need to start thinking long term and sustainable, all of us, and taking action now because we all know the agencies won't.

As a group, photographers are very independent... getting them to do anything is a difficult, if not impossible task.

Corporations have realized the money to be made for them in subscription sites.  Realistically the chances of these site closing due to photographers not submitting is very small...close to nil.

In this new and changed world of photography would it not be a better idea to think how you, as a photographer, can profit from the subscription sites.  They are here, and they will not go away.  I may be wrong, but I think you do well selling exclusively on one site.  I, as a newbie, don't have that option, so to survive and prosper I have to learn how to live with the world the way it is....not the way it was, and not the way I wish it was.

« Reply #73 on: February 22, 2014, 12:39 »
+5
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.


farbled

« Reply #74 on: February 22, 2014, 12:47 »
+3
In this new and changed world of photography would it not be a better idea to think how you, as a photographer, can profit from the subscription sites.  They are here, and they will not go away.  I may be wrong, but I think you do well selling exclusively on one site.  I, as a newbie, don't have that option, so to survive and prosper I have to learn how to live with the world the way it is....not the way it was, and not the way I wish it was.
I want to frame this. Nicely put. :)

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