pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Shutterstock Creates First Silicon Alley Billionaire  (Read 17241 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ron

« on: June 28, 2013, 12:09 »
+15
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-28/shutterstock-creates-first-silicon-alley-billionaire.html

Quote
Oringer, 39, owns about 55 percent of Shutterstock, which has about 28 million licensed photos, illustrations and videos available for sale on its website. His 18.5 million shares, which he controls through closely held investment company Pixel Holdings Inc., were valued at $1 billion at 12:25 p.m. in New York.


Congratulations, but makes me sad at the same time.

Paying cents, but laughing all the way to the bank over our hard worked backs.

Aaaah, whatever, but pulling stunts like on BS with astronomical targets doesnt favor his likability factor, especially when you read stuff like that.  :D

Come on Jon, a raise please !!  ;)

Its a remarkable business story for sure. I should have bought stock. lol


ETA: My comments are tongue-in-cheek, dont take it too serious ;)
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 12:23 by Ron »


« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2013, 12:27 »
+2
The inequity is stunning.

A raise is long past overdue!

I am sure he/they could spare a dime or two to restore the site to good working order.

« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2013, 12:33 »
+2
I see losing Yuri has made the share price go up :)

Ron

« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2013, 12:38 »
0
Funny, reports of Jon being a billionaire, and I am seeing the bottom fall out of June the last two days. As if someone hid my portfolio. LOL. Sales are pathetic at the moment.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 18:15 by Ron »

« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2013, 12:57 »
0
Funny, reports of Job being a billionaire, and I am seeing the bottom fall out of June the last two days. As if someone hid my portfolio. LOL. Sales are pathetic at the moment.

while somebody is having a stunning week, I guess you know who I am talking about, one week is sweet other it sucks and leaving LOL

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2013, 13:47 »
-7
Oh look it was posted on SS 17 minutes before here.☺

   Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:52 am 

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131094

« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2013, 15:11 »
+6
Congrats to Jon! It's pretty awesome success story.

I'm happy to be able to utilize his creation to sell my creativity.

Shutterstock has made me a very happy thousandaire.

« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2013, 15:37 »
+1
Yes, congratulations, and I think a Nobel Prize is in order, for research leading to the discovery that the optimum compensation for commercial use of a photo is 35 cents.  It's truly a better world.

Tror

« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2013, 15:46 »
+1
Yes, totally great news. Shutterstock is tripling its value while many full time stockers which provide the soul of SS are starving and running out of money...getting side jobs etc. ....really great news Jon...

« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2013, 16:01 »
-1
Yes, totally great news. Shutterstock is tripling its value while many full time stockers which provide the soul of SS are starving and running out of money...getting side jobs etc. ....really great news Jon...

Can you name some of these "many full time stockers" who are actually starving please? Between us on MSG we should be able to have a whip-round and send them food parcels.

What about the $50M per annum that SS is distributing to it's contributors? That should buy a lot of food for 'starving' contributors.

Why are people criticising SS but not FT, DT, IS, etc? SS have historically treated their contributors much better than the others. It would seem that their main crime now has to become successful and, via the IPO, publish their financial data (which we don't get from any other microstock agency).

ShadySue

« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2013, 16:05 »
+4
Why are people criticising SS but not FT, DT, IS, etc?
Because this is an SS forum.
The others, especially iS, get plenty of bashing in the appropriate places.

Tror

« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2013, 16:19 »
+22
Yes, totally great news. Shutterstock is tripling its value while many full time stockers which provide the soul of SS are starving and running out of money...getting side jobs etc. ....really great news Jon...

Can you name some of these "many full time stockers" who are actually starving please? Between us on MSG we should be able to have a whip-round and send them food parcels.

What about the $50M per annum that SS is distributing to it's contributors? That should buy a lot of food for 'starving' contributors.

Why are people criticising SS but not FT, DT, IS, etc? SS have historically treated their contributors much better than the others. It would seem that their main crime now has to become successful and, via the IPO, publish their financial data (which we don't get from any other microstock agency).

When earnings of a company which mainly consists of equity of a third party rises without adequate compensation for those entities which deliver the original content something is wrong. We need and deserve a raise. Period.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 16:26 by Tror »

« Reply #12 on: June 28, 2013, 16:42 »
+1
Yes, totally great news. Shutterstock is tripling its value while many full time stockers which provide the soul of SS are starving and running out of money...getting side jobs etc. ....really great news Jon...

Can you name some of these "many full time stockers" who are actually starving please? Between us on MSG we should be able to have a whip-round and send them food parcels.

What about the $50M per annum that SS is distributing to it's contributors? That should buy a lot of food for 'starving' contributors.

Why are people criticising SS but not FT, DT, IS, etc? SS have historically treated their contributors much better than the others. It would seem that their main crime now has to become successful and, via the IPO, publish their financial data (which we don't get from any other microstock agency).

When earnings of a company which mainly consists of equity of a third party rises without adequate compensation for those entities which deliver the original content something is wrong. We need and deserve a raise. Period.
But in the real world, we wont get one, because all the other big sites have cut commissions.  Its not good for us but that's the reality and there's no pressure on SS to give us a raise.  I really wish it was different but until we see the other sites stopping commission cuts or reversing them, I don't see much point in thinking SS should give us a raise.

« Reply #13 on: June 28, 2013, 16:58 »
+1
I really wish it was different but until we see the other sites stopping commission cuts or reversing them, I don't see much point in thinking SS should give us a raise.

Yes, that's a well established principle in economics and law,  technically known as the "gee Dad, all the other kids were doing it" defense.

« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2013, 17:04 »
+3
What seems odd is that iStock is meant to have the revenues of Shutterstock several times over but seems to be valued at less, taking account of the fact that it is also supposedly the little brother of Gettyimages.

As for the bitching, I guess Jon's main crime is that he had the wit to hang on to his creation and then float it as an IPO instead of grabbing a bag of cash from Getty or Corbis.

« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2013, 17:30 »
+16
When earnings of a company which mainly consists of equity of a third party rises without adequate compensation for those entities which deliver the original content something is wrong. We need and deserve a raise. Period.

SS 'earnings' (in the proper financial sense) are pretty much directly related to contributor compensation. You can hardly expect to get a raise based on the share price which is subject to the whims of the market. Would you welcome a decrease in royalties if the shares fell in value?

The truth is that SS alone have stuck reasonably firmly to the basic principles of microstock since I joined them in 2004. All the others got much too greedy, much too fast ... and thus they blew it. Don't blame SS for that. Back in 2004 I had an RPD of 20c with SS. Nowadays it's nearly 80c. That's a four-fold increase, in less than a decade and right through a severe recession. Remind me what the problem is again?

I don't understand why some people are whining. SS haven't changed their terms (unlike almost every other agency). If you didn't like SS's terms when you started with them then why did you ever contribute to them? SS's discipline in keeping their heads and sticking to the original business plan (when all around them were losing theirs) is precisely the reason for their success.

I have made a lot of very easy money through SS over the years and it continues to rise, month by month, year by year. This evening I am raising a glass (of an excellent Jack Daniel's Tennessee Honey) in honour of Jon and his extraordinary success. I hope he goes on to make $10B and also wipe the floor with Getty in the process.

Cheers to Jon!

« Reply #16 on: June 28, 2013, 18:17 »
0
+1  gostwyck

(-2 for agreeing with a great post)
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 08:43 by luissantos84 »


Tror

« Reply #17 on: June 28, 2013, 18:35 »
-5
When earnings of a company which mainly consists of equity of a third party rises without adequate compensation for those entities which deliver the original content something is wrong. We need and deserve a raise. Period.

SS 'earnings' (in the proper financial sense) are pretty much directly related to contributor compensation. You can hardly expect to get a raise based on the share price which is subject to the whims of the market. Would you welcome a decrease in royalties if the shares fell in value?

The truth is that SS alone have stuck reasonably firmly to the basic principles of microstock since I joined them in 2004. All the others got much too greedy, much too fast ... and thus they blew it. Don't blame SS for that. Back in 2004 I had an RPD of 20c with SS. Nowadays it's nearly 80c. That's a four-fold increase, in less than a decade and right through a severe recession. Remind me what the problem is again?

I don't understand why some people are whining. SS haven't changed their terms (unlike almost every other agency). If you didn't like SS's terms when you started with them then why did you ever contribute to them? SS's discipline in keeping their heads and sticking to the original business plan (when all around them were losing theirs) is precisely the reason for their success.

I have made a lot of very easy money through SS over the years and it continues to rise, month by month, year by year. This evening I am raising a glass (of an excellent Jack Daniel's Tennessee Honey) in honour of Jon and his extraordinary success. I hope he goes on to make $10B and also wipe the floor with Getty in the process.

Cheers to Jon!

Marketing blablaahhh....

« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2013, 19:00 »
+1
When earnings of a company which mainly consists of equity of a third party rises without adequate compensation for those entities which deliver the original content something is wrong. We need and deserve a raise. Period.

SS 'earnings' (in the proper financial sense) are pretty much directly related to contributor compensation. You can hardly expect to get a raise based on the share price which is subject to the whims of the market. Would you welcome a decrease in royalties if the shares fell in value?

The truth is that SS alone have stuck reasonably firmly to the basic principles of microstock since I joined them in 2004. All the others got much too greedy, much too fast ... and thus they blew it. Don't blame SS for that. Back in 2004 I had an RPD of 20c with SS. Nowadays it's nearly 80c. That's a four-fold increase, in less than a decade and right through a severe recession. Remind me what the problem is again?

I don't understand why some people are whining. SS haven't changed their terms (unlike almost every other agency). If you didn't like SS's terms when you started with them then why did you ever contribute to them? SS's discipline in keeping their heads and sticking to the original business plan (when all around them were losing theirs) is precisely the reason for their success.

I have made a lot of very easy money through SS over the years and it continues to rise, month by month, year by year. This evening I am raising a glass (of an excellent Jack Daniel's Tennessee Honey) in honour of Jon and his extraordinary success. I hope he goes on to make $10B and also wipe the floor with Getty in the process.

Cheers to Jon!

Marketing blablaahhh....

That feeble response is a clear indication of how little you understand.

« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2013, 19:55 »
+8
I don't understand the complaining either. Shutterstock pays me ten times what any other site does. If it weren't for Shutterstock, I wouldn't even bother with stock photography. I only upload to other sites because all the work has already been done. If you don't like the fact that the guy who created it and turned it into the No. 1 microstock site has made good, then stop contributing there in protest.

Although Yuri leaving didn't even cause a blip, so it's not like anyone would notice.

« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2013, 20:58 »
+3

I don't understand why some people are whining. SS haven't changed their terms (unlike almost every other agency). If you didn't like SS's terms when you started with them then why did you ever contribute to them? SS's discipline in keeping their heads and sticking to the original business plan (when all around them were losing theirs) is precisely the reason for their success.

I have made a lot of very easy money through SS over the years and it continues to rise, month by month, year by year. This evening I am raising a glass (of an excellent Jack Daniel's Tennessee Honey) in honour of Jon and his extraordinary success. I hope he goes on to make $10B and also wipe the floor with Getty in the process.

Cheers to Jon!

Couldn't have said it better myself.  Jon created a platform that richly rewards people who understand what his customers want.  He built it, we participate in it and reap rewards based on our ingenuity. 

I supplied him with pictures that were fairly easy for me to create, and he's paid me handsomely.  SS (and to a smaller extent, the other agencies) has made it possible to take my family on lavish vacations every year, drive new cars, and move into a larger home.

To anyone who cries about his success, feel free to demand your raise, and if they don't see fit to grant it to you, feel free to walk away.  Build your own site, make your own rules and build your own wealth. 
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 21:01 by stockmarketer »

« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2013, 22:36 »
+3
" But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

- George Orwell: "1984"


EmberMike

« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2013, 23:47 »
+1
...This evening I am raising a glass (of an excellent Jack Daniel's Tennessee Honey) in honour of Jon and his extraordinary success. I hope he goes on to make $10B and also wipe the floor with Getty in the process.

I'll drink to that.

:)

« Reply #23 on: June 29, 2013, 00:03 »
0
...This evening I am raising a glass (of an excellent Jack Daniel's Tennessee Honey) in honour of Jon and his extraordinary success. I hope he goes on to make $10B and also wipe the floor with Getty in the process.

I'll drink to that.

:)

I'm not much of a drinker, so I'll just agree with the sentiment. If a little more falls through the cracks to the artists I won't complain either.

« Reply #24 on: June 29, 2013, 00:49 »
+4
" But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

- George Orwell: "1984"


Yep never ending newspeak and doublethink.  One thing not mentioned in that article is the millions Jon made every year before going public.  He must have a nice stash besides the new billion.

The enforced wisdom of the thought police from the "SS thought crime enforcement brigade" is entertaining.

No one is ever going to brainwash me into thinking that .38 cents is sufficent return on investment for the type of images the micros asks us to produce to remain competative.  The return on investment is not sufficent, no matter how many copies they sell or the new markets they may break into.

Take a good look at the economies SS is entertaining and moving into. It is no coincidence that Jon is hosting dinners in Brazil and talking about Turkey in interviews. How low do you suppose submitters in the dark green zones would be willing to go?
 
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/gmaps.jsp
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 00:55 by gbalex »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Shutterstock down

Started by Greg Boiarsky Shutterstock.com

2 Replies
3482 Views
Last post March 24, 2006, 12:13
by leaf
1 Replies
1843 Views
Last post January 19, 2010, 10:38
by donding
4 Replies
2655 Views
Last post August 27, 2012, 16:40
by leaf
1 Replies
1356 Views
Last post June 29, 2013, 13:22
by cathyslife
0 Replies
969 Views
Last post June 20, 2016, 17:28
by increasingdifficulty

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results