MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: fun facts about shutterstock ($654 MILLION revenue 2018, $54 MILLINO profit afte  (Read 1378 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 30, 2020, 11:12 »
+4
Fun facts about shutterstock, in case anyone is wondering 'how well' they are doing.

$654 MILLION  IN REVENUE in 2018-2019. After ALL expenses (i.e., jet planes, hotels, bonuses for execs, salaries, etc) - $54 MILLION in profit. Extra money. That they couldn't figure out how to reduce lower to lower their taxes. (Envato btw, also apparently $113 MILLION in 2019 according to a forbes article, but since they are private & apparently have some interesting accounting, not sure if the figure is accurate, understated, etc), after trying to minimize contributors money as much as possible).

Financial reports for public companies are fun to read, I highly recommend it. Here is the 2018 financial report for shutterstock.
https://investor.shutterstock.com/static-files/8b795c10-8df0-403b-811d-1f39f8f34393

HIGHLY recommend reading it. Highly doubt they are 'hurting' at the moment (as they did transition to subscriptions, which actually take more money out of a contributors pocket than straight commission sale the way it is structured) - but rather a price gouge from their contributor base. Obviously I haven't seen their 2020 financials, but based on experience I'd say it's a) a boost for the execs to give themselves a bit more money, b) positioning for shareholders to say 'hey look, ain't we doing great!'.

Also - for someone who thinks they might be getting a 'great deal' with the new structure (whether videos or images) - you have to look at the 'average' sale you make. For the first six months let say you are at 15%. If the next six months you are at 30% (or even say 40%) assuming you sell the same # of clips consistently (which btw are incredibly HIGH thresholds) - you are still worse off than without it. Because the 'average' clip comission is lower overall.

Read the report. Fun read.

Wrong, very wrong.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2020, 11:51 by SuperPhoto »


« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2020, 11:22 »
+4
Thank you.

I love companies that are public and on the stock market. Such beautiful transparency.

Please note how little the producer community is mentioned in interviews of the new management.

They are treating us like we are an oil source, once you get the pipes down, the stuff keeps flowing in.

No awareness that our content belongs to us, that we are not mindless upload bots and that we are perfectly capable of ghosting a platform and going elsewhere.

Or that many of us are buyers who also recommend our favorite platform to our media clients.

I sincerly hope they finally wake up, but so far they are not showing any awareness how online communication works.


« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2020, 12:56 »
+5
Fun fact about Shutterstock 2022:
After a very difficult year 2021, due to the departure of most of the contributors, the company is forced to close its doors...

« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2020, 14:04 »
+2
Fun fact about Shutterstock 2022:
After a very difficult year 2021, due to the departure of most of the contributors, the company is forced to close its doors...

Highly unlikely - although at this point I wouldnt mind it to come true

They will still be profitable for a long, long time And will wring out every penny TIL the last one

« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2020, 14:15 »
+2
I dont want them to close. I very sincerly hope they prefer to work this out together with us.

At least this is what the old Shutterstock would do.

I loved that they welcomed critique, really considered it, thought about things and came back with a great solution.

Everybody I met from the Shutterstock team was fantastic and highly qualified.

What happened?

« Last Edit: May 30, 2020, 15:48 by cobalt »

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2020, 14:54 »
+2
I dont want them to close. I very sincerly hope they prefer to work this out together with us.

The way they are currently responding, it's not likely they're going to change anything. The problem is, even if they do work something out this time, there's the next time. And next time. It's clear their goals have changed and there's zero concern for contributors. The way the industry currently is, and is headed, one less large untrustworthy micro company might be a good thing.

« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2020, 15:03 »
+1
I dont want them to close. I very sincerly hope they prefer to work this out together with us.

The way they are currently responding, it's not likely they're going to change anything. The problem is, even if they do work something out this time, there's the next time. And next time. It's clear their goals have changed and there's zero concern for contributors. The way the industry currently is, and is headed, one less large untrustworthy micro company might be a good thing.

The only thing I would be concerned about that i haven't seen any other agency having those high value sales yielding $70-225 for the contributor. That's a really nice thing at SS and no other sites seem to have this kind of business.

OH, on a second thought, Alamy has those...   but much fewer than SS

« Reply #7 on: May 30, 2020, 15:46 »
+3
I dont want them to close. I very sincerly hope they prefer to work this out together with us.

At least this is what the old Shutterstock would do.

I loved that they welcomed critique, really vonsidered it, thought about things and came back with great solution.

Everybody I met from the Shutterstock team was fantastic and highly qualified.

What happened?

The main problem is that until recently companies were managed by humans, with all the positive and/or negative consequences that this can imply, but still considering the human aspect.
Today companies are managed by Excel files and algorithms... And this changes everything.

« Reply #8 on: May 30, 2020, 16:16 »
+1
I dont want them to close. I very sincerly hope they prefer to work this out together with us.

At least this is what the old Shutterstock would do.

I loved that they welcomed critique, really vonsidered it, thought about things and came back with great solution.

Everybody I met from the Shutterstock team was fantastic and highly qualified.

What happened?

The main problem is that until recently companies were managed by humans, with all the positive and/or negative consequences that this can imply, but still considering the human aspect.
Today companies are managed by Excel files and algorithms... And this changes everything.

They do employ/consult behavioral scientist especially when big changes are made, they will have discounted any action they expect us to take.  We need to take the unexpected action of closing out account.

Shelma1

« Reply #9 on: May 30, 2020, 20:55 »
+1
"Shutterstock Inc (NYSE:SSTK) and FTS International Inc (FTSI) have underperformed the S&P 500 index substantially in terms of share price growth over the past one-year, three-year and five-year periods.

Wall Street sell-side analysts also recommended an underweight rating for these companies, indicating that the share prices are predicted to keep on performing poorly in the months ahead."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/2-underperforming-holdings-ease-175039168.html


« Reply #10 on: June 04, 2020, 18:15 »
+6
If you know anything about investing in the market SSTK is a pretty terrible looking investment. Not even on anyones radar honestly. No idea why anyone would think to invest in stock photography lol. Unless you're just so simple that you're like... oh hey I like pictures, let me invest in a company that sells them. Pitiful volume. For example volume on Apple (AAPL) today was 20 million shares. SSTK was 200 thousand shares. That's nothing. Means no one is even talking about it. And a market cap of 1 billion is actually peanuts.

I'd imagine to increase profit all they can do is hire less people, pay them less, and give contributors less money from sales. From the look of their chart seems to be a downhill strategy considering their high was in 2014 at $94 and the trend is just downhill to current price of $36. Probably why Getty left the exchange in 2012. Sure you can make money as a stock photography company, but the only growth would be through acquisition. And without growth there's no reason for an investor to get on board.

Sorry to bore anyone here with these details. I actually use my profits from stock photography to invest in the stock market lol. So maybe ironic you couldn't pay me to hold SSTK. Garbage stock. Can't imagine why anyone would hold it outside of some sort of swing trade or as a short.

OM

« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2020, 03:58 »
+1
Pity I didn't buy 2 BTC with every month's SS earnings in 2014! (OK that's really the same as going to the casino and getting lucky!!!)

Wouldn't need to work any more.  ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
2950 Views
Last post July 23, 2013, 04:16
by shudderstok
159 Replies
17043 Views
Last post August 29, 2013, 02:52
by gbalex
107 Replies
35763 Views
Last post June 15, 2018, 09:02
by YadaYadaYada
3 Replies
3646 Views
Last post March 30, 2018, 04:21
by increasingdifficulty
195 Replies
28070 Views
Last post July 31, 2018, 20:05
by obj owl

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle