I do not believe that the SS model is sustainable longer term. Especially given that they are now a public company and must exceed market expectations every quarter. At some point they will not - then they will either have to squeeze the suppliers or else they will have to go private again. And squeeze the suppliers. Either way they have committed themselves to needing to continually grow and to exceed market expectations. I do not believe that the stock photo market, which is now relatively mature, has so much growth potential.

Unless they move into a different business and grow that. Which is possible.

I'd say that SS is extremely sustainable longer term. Don't forget that Jon still owns 56% of the business so he gets to do want he wants. Whilst that remains there will be no pressure from shareholders. SSTK have already published their growth expectations until the end of 2013, nice and steady, just like it's been for the last few years.

I don't think SS really have to do anything more than what they're already doing to grow the business __ they're succeeding mainly by the greed and failure of others. Not only that but SS have a war-chest of $100M+ for 'possible acquisitions' too. That should provide some handy growth when they choose to deploy it.

SS have never described their business as 'unsustainable' either __ unlike Istock. Talk about a lie inadvertently becoming the truth.

Quote from: traveler1116 on December 21, 2012, 16:14

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 21, 2012, 15:41

my post was oriented for traveler1116, believe he is one the most active istock defender, hope he does well forever, I really do

I think you are misreading me a little bit but I do hope you have a great year (maybe SS will up their RPD to a buck or two).

no I am not, why don't you manage to understand we don't get 25 cents at SS, its not that hard really...

one thing I am sure, they might drop me to 30 cents (don't think so) but if that happens at least I was screwed in 2013 not 2009

Ok.  Good luck next year.

Even in December, it dropped for about 10 places.

 

This is the explanation for increase sales on SS FT and DT... ) nice

I usually do not comment much on forums but.. you people are crazy. Have you any idea how much quality content there's is on iStock? If those exclusives decide to transfer their portfolio to SS your earnings will suffer. Big time. It's just that the content on iStock is of higher quality as a whole.

quality is realative everyone has a different opinion here. But stock isn't about quality it's about buyers need. I don't care if exclusive stay exclusive, but to be dependant on one agency isn't very smart regardless how big the short benefits might be.

In this field to me Professional means someone who is reliant on photography as a significant proportion of income and an amateur is someone who makes a few dollars but is not reliant on the income. It has NO relationship to the quality of the image produced.

I'd say that SS is extremely sustainable longer term. Don't forget that Jon still owns 56% of the business so he gets to do want he wants. Whilst that remains there will be no pressure from shareholders.

None of us know for sure and everybody is entitled to guess as to what Jon's long term plans are, and it's only that a guess.

My guess is that Jon learnt from the huge mistake that Bruce Livingstone made when he sold iStock to Getty for much less than it was worth and then had to stay on for two years at the 'beck and call' of the Getty management, made even worse by seeing his company sore in profits.

So I'm guessing Jon has learnt from Bruce's business naivety, has 'sold out' wisely retaining the majority share so that he still controls the company until such time (by contract or freewill) that he can get out, and obviously because he's the main shareholder he'll still get a big chunk of whatever SS is worth at that time.

I don't for one second believe Jon is looking to remain any longer than he has to, and I certainly don't share the optimism you have about SS.

I love it when people tell me I'm not very smart.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I didn't tell you anything....

I am happy for two things this holiday season...

1. That exclusives are the only people who really need money. And all these years I thought I needed money to pay for rent, food, etc.

2. That I have never competed with anyone these seven years I have been in micro. No competition from better shooters than myself. But I really need to watch out, because if istock folds...BAM, life for me on microstock will be over.

Yikes. On both points.

In this field to me Professional means someone who is reliant on photography as a significant proportion of income and an amateur is someone who makes a few dollars but is not reliant on the income. It has NO relationship to the quality of the image produced.

Amateurs do not make any money on what they do. The minute you get paid for your product, you are considered a professional. Even the 28 cents per image that people keep saying SS pays counts as getting paid. I do agree with you, though, on the fact that being a professional has nothing to do with the quality of the image. It's all about sellability.

None of us know for sure and everybody is entitled to guess as to what Jon's long term plans are, and it's only that a guess.

My guess is that Jon learnt from the huge mistake that Bruce Livingstone made when he sold iStock to Getty for much less than it was worth and then had to stay on for two years at the 'beck and call' of the Getty management, made even worse by seeing his company sore in profits.

So I'm guessing Jon has learnt from Bruce's business naivety, has 'sold out' wisely retaining the majority share so that he still controls the company until such time (by contract or freewill) that he can get out, and obviously because he's the main shareholder he'll still get a big chunk of whatever SS is worth at that time.

I don't for one second believe Jon is looking to remain any longer than he has to, and I certainly don't share the optimism you have about SS.

Have you read 'Fast Food Nation' by Eric Schlosser? It features, as one of MacDonalds' suppliers, Jack Simplot, aka 'The Potato King of Idaho'. At the time the book was written he was well into his 80's and a multi-billionaire ... but working just as hard as ever to make more money and expand his empire. There's a photo of him sitting atop a pile of potatoes and cackling away "Most people sell out once they've made $10M or �20M but I just kept on going".

I think Livingstone falls into the "most people" category of entrepreneur whereas Oringer is the other type (like Branson or Trump for example) for whom business becomes an all-consuming game, their primary source of pleasure. Those people can never sell out. If Jon was going ... he'd already have gone. He's now in the game to win it.

Jon's given several interviews recently (since the successful IPO) and, if you read his answers carefully, he does actually drop quite a few clues as to his plans. In my view he is intent on wiping out his competition in dominating the image/footage industry, and that would include Getty and Corbis, but he's also a patient man and a strategist. I think he's enjoying the game immensely.

Quote from: gostwyck on December 22, 2012, 08:06

Jon's given several interviews recently (since the successful IPO) and, if you read his answers carefully, he does actually drop quite a few clues as to his plans. In my view he is intent on wiping out his competition in dominating the image/footage industry, and that would include Getty and Corbis, but he's also a patient man and a strategist. I think he's enjoying the game immensely.

I don't think it's healthy when one company dominates any industry, no matter how great it seems in the short term. Once competition is eliminated, they can screw their suppliers and their buyers as much as they like. Until the next upstart comes along.
Then - the bigger they come, the harder they fall.

But what if Jon wants to share that domination WITH buyers and contributors. He sees the mistakes made at Getty, squeezing money of buyers AND contribs. If Jon succeeds to dominate but/and shares it with buyers and contribs, he wont fall.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 22, 2012, 08:22

Quote from: gostwyck on December 22, 2012, 08:06

Jon's given several interviews recently (since the successful IPO) and, if you read his answers carefully, he does actually drop quite a few clues as to his plans. In my view he is intent on wiping out his competition in dominating the image/footage industry, and that would include Getty and Corbis, but he's also a patient man and a strategist. I think he's enjoying the game immensely.

I don't think it's healthy when one company dominates any industry, no matter how great it seems in the short term. Once competition is eliminated, they can screw their suppliers and their buyers as much as they like. Until the next upstart comes along.
Then - the bigger they come, the harder they fall.

But what if Jon wants to share that domination WITH buyers and contributors. He sees the mistakes made at Getty, squeezing money of buyers AND contribs. If Jon succeeds to dominate but/and shares it with buyers and contribs, he wont fall.

It's a mighty big if, and doesn't have many precedents, but it is theoretically possible. At 29% of a small amount, it's not looking too great at the moment.
But like you say, we'd only know his motives when/if he squashes the opposition. In the philosophical  trade, it's called eschatological verification.

Have you read 'Fast Food Nation' by Eric Schlosser? It features, as one of MacDonalds' suppliers, Jack Simplot, aka 'The Potato King of Idaho'. At the time the book was written he was well into his 80's and a multi-billionaire ... but working just as hard as ever to make more money and expand his empire. There's a photo of him sitting atop a pile of potatoes and cackling away "Most people sell out once they've made $10M or �20M but I just kept on going".

I think Livingstone falls into the "most people" category of entrepreneur whereas Oringer is the other type (like Branson or Trump for example) for whom business becomes an all-consuming game, their primary source of pleasure. Those people can never sell out. If Jon was going ... he'd already have gone. He's now in the game to win it.

Jon's given several interviews recently (since the successful IPO) and, if you read his answers carefully, he does actually drop quite a few clues as to his plans. In my view he is intent on wiping out his competition in dominating the image/footage industry, and that would include Getty and Corbis, but he's also a patient man and a strategist. I think he's enjoying the game immensely.

I haven't read the book you mention but have read similar one's, however a quick search on the Simplot company and the first thing of note is that it's a Privately owned company, so by your own testimont Jon has already broken Jacks rule. Either way one thing I do know is that you should never compare companies or people that run them in different industry sectors.

As I said none of us know what Jon's plans are, I do know however that he's quite a shrewd businessman and if he's hinted at something there's a reason, that reason may just be to halt any panic of what might be to come, I'd do the same if I we're him. What do you think would happen if he came out and said "I've sold half the company but I've got to stay on and run it for two years after which I'll sell up my half and be gone, then the 'suits' will bleed it dry". Jon is astute enough to know that the way Bruce Livingstone sold out has been a complete disaster for all concerned. I doubt anybody knows what he's going to do until he does it, and because of that speculating is, IMO, pointless.

On another note, I got a hand signed Christmas card from him in the mail this morning, which I thought was a nice touch (yours will probably have kisses on it  ), whatever he does I'm sure he'll be successful as he appreciates that there are human beings at the other end of the supply chain. Apart from Alamy every other agency sent me the usual e-card, no doubt they'll say it's to save money but I've always thought that if someone has gone to the trouble of signing and posting a card in the mail it is more meaningful.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I didn't tell you anything....

but to be dependant on one agency isn't very smart

I'm dependent on one agency, I am therefore, according to your quote above, not very smart.