http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/01/us-shutterstock-ipo-idUSBRE8400PC20120501

Here's the Reuter's report on the possible SS IPO - but why now? Jon wants to get his money out - but then I can't see how contributors will continue to be treated well at SS. Shareholders will press for more profits and contributors will be squeezed. It won't be in Jon's hands any more and...

I do hope this isn't true

No, this is not good news, not for us contributors anyway. The noose is tightening around photographers, thats for sure. Maybe its time to look for other avenues, before the blast.

Like I said a while back, something was bound to happen. All of this "SS is wonderful and Jon is a beautiful person so lets support them" stuff is ridiculous. It's a business and every decision is made based on improving financials. Money is #1, people are expendable.

I think I'm done being Microdamus. You're all business people and can make your own intelligent and informed decisions.

This is scary news, although not unexpected. Especially for me as an istock photo artist. If SS has fresh money and a dedicated leadership...what will getty do?

Especially if they plan to enter the news and editorial market?

I hope istock/getty come up with some fresh new ideas

Here's the Reuter's report on the possible SS IPO - but why now? Jon wants to get his money out - but then I can't see how contributors will continue to be treated well at SS. Shareholders will press for more profits and contributors will be squeezed. It won't be in Jon's hands any more and...

I do hope this isn't true

As far as I can tell squeezing contributors doesn't seem to have worked terribly well for either Istock or Fotolia.

At least with an IPO you can become a shareholder ...

NB: That's much better than the money going to hedge funds.

Quote from: jsnover on May 01, 2012, 12:29

Here's the Reuter's report on the possible SS IPO - but why now? Jon wants to get his money out - but then I can't see how contributors will continue to be treated well at SS. Shareholders will press for more profits and contributors will be squeezed. It won't be in Jon's hands any more and...

I do hope this isn't true

As far as I can tell squeezing contributors doesn't seem to have worked terribly well for either Istock or Fotolia.

At least with an IPO you can become a shareholder ...

NB: That's much better than the money going to hedge funds.

So can Getty ... with a lot more shares than I can afford.   

Well, I guess this shows they're all *insult removed*.

eta: oops, sorry

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 01, 2012, 14:05

An IPO could be a 49% sale with the current management staying in control (Gates remained the dominant voice at MS long after it went public) it is different from a takeover. Even if the majority of the company is sold, spreading the shares widely would prevent a single H+F-type owner from dictating terms to the Board.

I'm not sure the additions to the board are entirely encouraging but this is big business now.

I don't think you can try and retain 51% and expect an IPO to be taken seriously. The big players such as the pension funds won't stand for that. You have to give up significant control of your business and dance to the shareholders' tune. It doesn't always suit a true entrepeneur which is why Branson bought back all the shares to his business a few months after it floated.

Maybe not. Sadly I've never been in the position to find out for myself. Even so, if you give up 75% to several hundred major investors, you only have to have a small proportion of them on your side to retain effective control.

Anyone planning to buy shares?

Well, I guess this shows they're all *insult removed*.
eta: oops, sorry

I think we all would be *insult removed*, in a situation like this.

Imagine starting a company from nothing that grows into something like SS, I'm sure after 10+ years of dealing with business operations on a daily basis you get burnt out.

I wouldn't blame Jon for selling the whole thing and be done with it - surely I wouldn't be happy about it at all but this show can't go on forever.

I can imagine he has some other projects on the bucket list, so now he has the dough to ride it out. Good for him.

I can only hope that SS maintains more control over their business than IS did when they sold out and you know about how that went...

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on May 01, 2012, 13:04

... All of this "SS is wonderful and Jon is a beautiful person so lets support them" stuff is ridiculous. ...

No idea why you think it's ridiculous but Jon founded SS and always has been "more" than normally involved on the IT side if not setting the whole thing up himself from the get-go (also being responsible for running a pretty stable agency compared to others...). He is not the only human being who can do that, true, but I don't get why this is supposed to be ridiculous.

SS is the bread and butter of 99% of microstockers (except exclusives of other agencies), so SS still deserves some kudos IMO.

As other agencies experienced in the past, SS is also running into technical issues but in no way is it affecting our sales compared to the competition who f*cked up numerous times before and we all complained and most of us kept dealing with it.

The point is... that when everybody felt screwed by the big Istock changes the response was "let's destroy IS and support Fotolia!".  A week later when everybody got screwed by Fotolia it was "let's support 123RF, they've never screwed us".  Then 123RF screwed everybody. Then it was "Let's support Shutterstock. They would never screw us. Jon is the most amazing wonderfulest person". And now it looks like Jon might be lining his pockets with an IPO and possibly putting the contributors in a position to be screwed. Not sure if anyone is paying attention, but there's a pattern here.

The point is... that when everybody felt screwed by the big Istock changes the response was "let's destroy IS and support Fotolia!".  A week later when everybody got screwed by Fotolia it was "let's support 123RF, they've never screwed us".  Then 123RF screwed everybody. Then it was "Let's support Shutterstock. They would never screw us. Jon is the most amazing wonderfulest person". And now it looks like Jon might be lining his pockets with an IPO and possibly putting the contributors in a position to be screwed. Not sure if anyone is paying attention, but there's a pattern here.

Revisionist history.  Fotolia screwed us long before iStock did, and I don't recall much of anybody seeing them as a savior when iStock slashed our royalties.  The magnitude of the first screwing wasn't as extreme as at iStock, but it happened.  And then it happened again.  It was about the third time Fotolia adjusted rates downward and level requirements upward that many of us finally had enough.  I've been removing content from iStock and Fotolia ever since.  

As for 123RF, they haven't screwed anybody, at least not yet.  My earnings there are way up, putting them #2 for past year.  Their planned royalty adjustment, which won't take effect for another eight months, will likely cost me some revenue, but nothing like what I've seen with iStock or Fotolia or Dreamstime.  I'll reevaluate when I see where the changes put me.