That depends on the institutional investors.

The company is being held by Oringer 45% and many mutual funds, pension funds etc...small time investors are not that many.

With his 45% he can do a lot to stabilize the stock price, simply by refusing to sell at lower prices.

However, institutional investors regularly analyse companies and give out recommendations, but SS is a very small fish and does not get a lot of coverage.

With specific analysis tools, my program is already considering  SS to be completly overpriced by 230%. The program sees the fair value at 11 Dollars, not 38.

On the other hand - the company is debt free, has 300 million in cash and in the middle of the pandemic paid out an unchanged dividend. They also did not lay off a large group of workers, so this can make them look good.

Any company that keeps paying during the pandemic will have a real bonus going forward.

Inside imaging has a good article

https://www.insideimaging.com.au/2020/shutterstock-shafts-contributors/

They explain in great detail, that instead of really looking into problems and cutting operational costs, the company took th lazy way of instant profit by cutting the producer share.

The main problem I see is that those who review companies, might really misunderstand how stock agencies work.

In 2013 I was interviewed by one of these reviewers from New York, he also had other artists on his lists.

They really thought SS is somethingblike ebay, where Jack and Joe upload pictures and then Kate and Jill buy them and that it was mostly a amateur to consumer business.

I gave him a rough estimate how expensive professional production is, but at the time SS was going well and I gave him a positive endorsmemt. Imalso bought SS stock and left positive comments about the company on all the investing boards I was on, just like I do with other stock.

But that was before Adobe bought Fotolia. That changed everything.

When reading across the boards, it was easy to see, that many investors had no idea what they were buying, or who the producers really were. To them the uploads seemed automatic and that agencies were actively competing for the top level content...they had no idea...

So...back to the stock price.

I think by lowering producer costs drastically and then the additional drop again in January, maybe also by dropping the floor down to 5 cents, they are trying to create a nice little profit upswing.

Just in time until April 1 and the new CEO can get his bonus.

In addition they are obviously going on an aggressive sales blitz with these ultralow packages, they are advertising tze option to buy 4k video at 9 dollars.

Of course with these ultralow packages, they will indeed see great growth.

Then my trading tool, a year from now, might recommend SS because in paper (or on the screen) it all looks dandy.

So...how many investors will really dig deep into the company and ask the hard questions?

How many will even notice the ultranegative sentiment against Shutterstock in the designer community and the media and news industry?

Without Oringer, things might move quickly, but with his 45%?

I really don�t know, I am very curious how this develops. That is why I bought one single share, to make it easier to follow.

On one of the SS boards a well known artists says he is shorting the stock. It might indeed be the much easier way to make money with SS instead of photos. The share price has been in a downward trend for years.

On the other hand, you might find investors who think squeezing the little folk is a fine idea...but personally from what I have seen most investors prefer companies without scandals. Business is all about perception.

If you have the choice - why buy sstk if you can buy Adobe?

With his 45% he can do a lot to stabilize the stock price, simply by refusing to sell at lower prices.

No, it doesn't work this way.
If he wants to stabilize the stock price he needs to actively buy shares once the price drops.
Just not selling his shares does nothing to influence stock prices.

Investors are only interested in the profit of the company, a bunch of upset suppliers does not worry them.
In the short term what Shutterstock did is cutting costs, so that does help their profits - looks good for investors.
And loosing a few million assets (out of more than 300 million) does no harm to the business as well.

Only when the income side (revenue of shutterstock) is impacted (by actually big customers moving their accounts elsewhere), investors will start to notice.
And probably only when this is either visible in numbers (sales numbers in the quarterly reports going down) or very visible in the media.
The shitstorm contributors are making right now will have no direct impact on investors, what it would need would be a bigger shitstorm from customers.

So any (negative) impact on the share price will take some time.

Will probably stay steady for the Q2 results, won't be until the Q3 results come out that it starts to increase.

The whole thing is just a tease, a �fake it till you make it� strategy.

They are trying to gaslight the investor community by putting up a �show�.

But it only works if nobody explains the deatils to investors.

Sadly, because this is a niche stock, I think they will get away with it for a while.

But if large companies like Microsoft, CNN etc.. publicly switch to Adobe, then sentiment might change.

What the total silence from HQ also tells you - they have given up all longterm planning for the company.

They know, they will not be there in 2-3 years.

This is the last parade, the last coup to make their billions and disappear forever.

Fundamentally, Shutterstock owns nothing. They are just a marketplace that brings buyers and sellers together.

How long does it take for shareholders to realise that without any images or videos these fools have nothing to sell? I don't care how clever they think they are to cut the pie ever smaller for contributors, they have just destroyed one of the fundamentals to their business model.

Surely "investors" will notice that too? And the sh!t storms only getting started.

Until there won't be a 0-images and 0-videos there, these are only empty words. They have the power and organization. We ARE power only if we organize ourselves as a unique thing, speaking about rights, laws, contracts, and the need of a DIALOGUE that they always take away.

We need a different platform kind to move to, a platform with a two-ways contract, not only one-way.  Here is only the take-or-leave option.

That kind of platform doesn't exist. And even if it would exist, are you seeing Arcurs, Pressmaster or the like LEAVE an income powerful source?

AHAHAHHAHA , I don't think so. They are like Shutterstock, too rich to be interested in a moral and fair move.

This wall-against-wall kind of fight needs a mass-move from one place to another... not a copy. Of course they'll always win if we give power to the fair market AND AT THE SAME TIME we give power to the UNFAIR market.

Unfair market will always win in price.

SS share price down 3% today.

Best news I've heard all day. Maybe all week.

Frankly it was a garbage stock even before this. Something for traders maybe, who play the chart not the investment, that's why it dips and peaks so much. Low volume. Not really even on anyones radar.

Shareholders may actually like this move as they like the idea of less at the bottom for more at the top. But ultimately it will depend on profit margin. People who don't actively invest sometimes don't realize that investing is about growth, not revenue. Same revenue year after year is not a good investment, as that means what you bought the stock for doesn't change, ie you don't make money.

I actually transfer all the money I make (which hasn't been much considering I just got started with stock photography a couple months ago) from stock photography into my stock investment account. Been a photographer for 20 years and actively trade the market for 5. Never even considered this stock. It's just not even talked about, which isn't a good thing.

SS share price down 3% today. I'd be nervous af if I had shares with these fools. I'm pretty sure it's going to tank fast as they start to realise that without contributors they don't have a business.

Genius.

When Shutterstock has lost 10 or 15% over a month, then we can exult...