pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Entrepreneurs turn photo world upside down from Victoria  (Read 8989 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 07, 2014, 10:30 »
+12
After a year of operating, were getting close to that magic number of $200,000 in royalty payments per month, Livingstone says. We hit profitability after eight months, started spending again and now were in profitability again. Its evidence that were there. After a year, for any business, its kind of unheard of, especially for an online start-up."

When I was at iStock, the profit margin was around 70 per cent. Thats a ton, Livingstone says. So we felt, after I sold iStock, that there was a way to share more and a way to be more altruistic with our goals of trying to help photographers by paying them as much as possible.

http://www.vicnews.com/news/258039681.html

(source: https://www.facebook.com/ThoughtsBohemian)


« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2014, 10:43 »
-5
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 21:32 by tickstock »

« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2014, 10:47 »
+2
I don't know much about profit margin or what it exactly means, maybe someone could explain that.  I see according to Motley Fool that Shutterstock has a profit margin of around 11%, how is it possible that iStock had 6 times that?  http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/guru-analysis/fool


I'm guessing that iStock's expenses - back at the beginning of microstock - were much less, particularly for marketing/advertising, but also for all the technical stuff. Remember then it was English only, BitPass or credits, pre-Akamai (following the truck crash in the snow that took the site down for a day or two).

Shelma1

« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2014, 10:50 »
+1
I don't know much about profit margin or what it exactly means, maybe someone could explain that.  I see according to Motley Fool that Shutterstock has a profit margin of around 11%, how is it possible that iStock had 6 times that?  http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/guru-analysis/fool


One-note Charlie.

« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2014, 10:52 »
-2
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 21:32 by tickstock »

« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2014, 10:55 »
+6
Congratulations stocksy! Well done!

Paying out 200 000 dollars a month a year after launch is incredible!

Thank you for all the hard work!

« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2014, 10:57 »
+6
Wikipedia says:
"On April 1, 2008 Getty Images disclosed, as part of its agreement to be sold to a private equity firm, that iStockphoto's revenue in 2007 was $71.9 million USD of which $20.9 million (29%) was paid to contributors.[5][citation needed]"


« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2014, 10:59 »
-2
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 21:31 by tickstock »

« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2014, 11:10 »
0
Bruce doesn't say which year the margin was 70% but when I joined in 2004 it was pre-exclusivity and everyone got 20%

« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2014, 11:14 »
+2
Bruce doesn't say which year the margin was 70% but when I joined in 2004 it was pre-exclusivity and everyone got 20%

Or maybe he means 70% as oppossed to Stocksy 50% (withoud considering end of the year bonus). Anyway, 200,000/month for 60,000 images or so, means a RPI of about 2,85 image/month. That's high.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2014, 11:16 »
+4
I don't know much about profit margin or what it exactly means, maybe someone could explain that.  I see according to Motley Fool that Shutterstock has a profit margin of around 11%, how is it possible that iStock had 6 times that?  http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/guru-analysis/fool


Unfortunately, Bruce does not explain which "profit" he is referring to.  In most businesses, profit can be expressed is any one of several ways.  On most P&L statements, all profit points are noted.  These are as follows:

Gross profit ... sales minus labor, material and overhead costs (some businesses do not include overhead costs at this point).
Net profit ... gross profit less S,G & A expenses (sales, general and administrative costs).
EBIT ... earnings before interest and taxes
EAIT ... earnings after interest and taxes (this is the final bottom line number often referred to as the southeast corner of the P&L statement).

The Motley Fool report indicates the SS profit percentage is the EAIT figure, but we do not know which point Bruce is referring to.

Note that different countries have differing rules on how a company must report it's earnings and may have different names for the different points.  But at the end of the day, it's what the company puts in it's bank account after all bills and expenses have been paid and accounted for that matters.

« Reply #11 on: May 07, 2014, 11:24 »
-3
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 21:31 by tickstock »

« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2014, 11:37 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 21:31 by tickstock »

« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2014, 12:38 »
-7
Brucey boy can stuff "more altruistic" where sun don't shine. Photographers need contracts that fairly reflect value generated in the deal, not agencies that are "more altruistic". All that says is that he can't wait to jack up his own take.

« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2014, 12:40 »
+3
Congratulations to Stocksy and its contributors.

Glad there's an agency that's working with artists in this way, keep it up!

« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2014, 12:45 »
+3
Brucey boy can stuff "more altruistic" where sun don't shine. Photographers need contracts that fairly reflect value generated in the deal, not agencies that are "more altruistic". All that says is that he can't wait to jack up his own take.

come back next year to see where Stocksy is and post some more constructive criticism ;D

its incredible how contributors can be negative about everything, great stuff!

« Reply #16 on: May 07, 2014, 13:01 »
+9
I think 50% royalty plus 100% on extended licenses plus 90% of all coop profits paid out to artists is a very beautiful contract.

But you can never please them all...

« Reply #17 on: May 07, 2014, 13:19 »
+1
I think 50% royalty plus 100% on extended licenses plus 90% of all coop profits paid out to artists is a very beautiful contract.

But you can never please them all...

yeah which is unbelievable looking at the industry standard these days, too bad they don't browse our portfolios and pick what they believe are the heroes, I would give them exclusivity straightaway!

« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2014, 13:26 »
-2
Brucey boy can stuff "more altruistic" where sun don't shine. Photographers need contracts that fairly reflect value generated in the deal, not agencies that are "more altruistic". All that says is that he can't wait to jack up his own take.

come back next year to see where Stocksy is and post some more constructive criticism ;D

its incredible how contributors can be negative about everything, great stuff!

I wouldn't say ffNixx is being negative. Isn't he/she simply being realistic based on past performance?

One moment Brucie-babe is bragging about how spectacular HIS margins were when he was running IS. But then, in the next breath, we are supposed to believe he has been re-born as "the photographers' friend". Exactly where and when did this transformation take place on Brucie's personal road to Damascus?

Also, do I detect a non-too-subtle change in the wording of what the photographer gets from Stocksy? I thought they originally got 50% of the revenue from image sales. Now apparently, they get 50% of the profit. There's a very big difference between those words.

« Reply #19 on: May 07, 2014, 13:32 »
+6
I get paid 50% from every sale. So if you add extended licenses etc... stocksy is definetly paying out more than 50% to their artists.

It certainly is a good offer. But you need to shoot what they need for their edited collection and cannot just upload everything like on the micros.

« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2014, 14:10 »
+4
Also, do I detect a non-too-subtle change in the wording of what the photographer gets from Stocksy? I thought they originally got 50% of the revenue from image sales. Now apparently, they get 50% of the profit. There's a very big difference between those words.

That's probably a mistype by the author.  It's still the same - 50% of the royalty, 100% of the EL, and a share of the profit at year end.

« Reply #21 on: May 07, 2014, 14:18 »
+2
Also, do I detect a non-too-subtle change in the wording of what the photographer gets from Stocksy? I thought they originally got 50% of the revenue from image sales. Now apparently, they get 50% of the profit. There's a very big difference between those words.

That's probably a mistype by the author.  It's still the same - 50% of the royalty, 100% of the EL, and a share of the profit at year end.

Ok, fair enough.

EmberMike

« Reply #22 on: May 07, 2014, 14:18 »
+6
I wouldn't say ffNixx is being negative. Isn't he/she simply being realistic based on past performance?...

Who is making decisions based on past performance? I don't care what Bruce did years ago with another company. Stocksy is what he is offering today, and I'd base any decision about whether to get involved on what today's offer is.

I wish I could just ignore what's going on today and make decisions based on the past. Then I could pretend that DPC doesn't exist and that Fotolia is still a good company.

« Reply #23 on: May 07, 2014, 14:56 »
+7
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 21:27 by tickstock »

shudderstok

« Reply #24 on: May 07, 2014, 19:04 »
+2
Brucey boy can stuff "more altruistic" where sun don't shine. Photographers need contracts that fairly reflect value generated in the deal, not agencies that are "more altruistic". All that says is that he can't wait to jack up his own take.

come back next year to see where Stocksy is and post some more constructive criticism ;D

its incredible how contributors can be negative about everything, great stuff!

I wouldn't say ffNixx is being negative. Isn't he/she simply being realistic based on past performance?

One moment Brucie-babe is bragging about how spectacular HIS margins were when he was running IS. But then, in the next breath, we are supposed to believe he has been re-born as "the photographers' friend". Exactly where and when did this transformation take place on Brucie's personal road to Damascus?

Also, do I detect a non-too-subtle change in the wording of what the photographer gets from Stocksy? I thought they originally got 50% of the revenue from image sales. Now apparently, they get 50% of the profit. There's a very big difference between those words.

yes funny that, take the money and run from IS, then come back as your "friend". well if you ask me, he had the chance to show his integrity with IS in regards to his new found concerns of being our "friend" and his laughable genuine concerns for photographers. wonder why the sudden change of heart?
BTW: the personal road to Damascus made my coffee come shooting out of my nose when i read that. brilliant!!!



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1538 Views
Last post May 23, 2008, 03:12
by leaf
2 Replies
1805 Views
Last post June 19, 2010, 20:07
by Johnny26
7 Replies
1655 Views
Last post March 09, 2012, 06:16
by etienjones
1 Replies
2001 Views
Last post March 02, 2017, 03:33
by Rina21
0 Replies
1396 Views
Last post November 08, 2016, 06:40
by sarah2

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors