Quote from: Freedom on March 12, 2013, 15:38

With Sean's talents and abilities, I have no doubt he is going to do very well regardless if his status is exclusive or indie. With his sense and sensibility, lol, you never know what comes the next. Maybe after all, he will still be an exclusive?

By the way, I am never clear whether or not he was going to be terminated as an exclusive or as a contributor. At first, I thought, from the title of the thread, he was "booted", which means his account is going to be deleted. It does not look like to be the case now.

As of now, they are going to close my portfolio, just a few weeks later than originally stated, due to a technical issue.

Sean, I am really sorry to hear that. Hopefully a middle ground can be reached through your on-going communication with them. I wish you all the best!

Quote from: Freedom on March 12, 2013, 15:55

...
Sean, I am really sorry to hear that. Hopefully a middle ground can be reached through your on-going communication with them. I wish you all the best!

If you think about it, who in their right mind would place any trust in an organization that had pulled the sleezeball tactics Getty has pulled with Sean over the last month?

It might be in Sean's best interests to stay at iStock as an indie if Klein, Carlyle & Co are willing, but as far as going back as an exclusive if they said "oops! We didnt' really mean it. Please stay", I think Sean's way too smart to do that. Possibly he might say "yes" for a few months more breathing room to plan a transition, but that'd be about it, IMO.

I agree that Sean's best bet is to stay on as an indie. Because of his involvement with Stocksy, it does not look like he can remain as as exclusive for now.

Sean, have you thought about writing to Klein directly?

Quote from: shudderstok on March 12, 2013, 12:46

Quote from: wds on March 12, 2013, 12:24

Quote from: shudderstok on March 12, 2013, 12:17

Just to play devil's advocate here...
Sean would have never left IS on his own accord, and Sean is not IS. The industry does not care about Saint Sean. Getty/IS (love them or hate them) knows the game well and we are all expendable. The market is way over saturated with really great and amazing images and it's truly a buyer's market. Very few of us (including myself) are bringing anything new to the table of the stock industry, and Getty knows this, and for that matter so does every other agency out there. Stock photography has always been a numbers game with total ebb and flow. With the advent of digital photography, the internet, and microstock - which were total game changers in the industry, the game is now totally beneficial to all the successful agency owners and becoming less so to the demise of the photographers who produce the work and carry the burden of expense to do so. I am saying this from having 25+ years experience as a successful full time stock photographer. that's my two cents.

All makes sense, but you could have said the same thing two years ago and it would have made as much sense then also. However, for a bunch of exclusives at iStock, there is a world of difference between 2 years ago and now.

I have been saying this, or most of this for more than two years (delete the Sean part), just not here on this forum.

My point was there is something going on in a negative way beyond the general industry trend at iStock.

That was also my point too "there is something going on in a negative way beyond the general industry trend at iStock". But a few of the replies did not note this judging by their comments as they tend to get overwhelmed in their emotions. The whole industry is in turmoil and we are all expendable regardless if we are exclusive or this newbie term of "indie". If you have been around long enough you will soon start to realize we are all "indie" regardless if you are with one agency or ten. And Shlocksy won't save us. Hell the fella who is the brainchild behind it could have done this "co-op" concept with his old agency, but chose not too and sold out for a bunch of millions knowing who it was being sold to and the way they operate. Now it's time to get all "grassroots" and moral with Shlocksy? Give me a break man.

Quote from: shudderstok on March 12, 2013, 19:33

...Hell the fella who is the brainchild behind it could have done this "co-op" concept with his old agency, but chose not too and sold out for a bunch of millions knowing who it was being sold to and the way they operate. Now it's time to get all "grassroots" and moral with Shlocksy? Give me a break man.

To be fair, you know that you, me, and everyone else in here would have done the same thing as Bruce if we were in that position.

Anyone really think they'd turn down $50 million? Anyone?

I would have sold out too. It's only business, and my "community" was expendable. Smart fella in my opinion.

Quote from: shudderstok on March 12, 2013, 19:33

...Hell the fella who is the brainchild behind it could have done this "co-op" concept with his old agency, but chose not too and sold out for a bunch of millions knowing who it was being sold to and the way they operate. Now it's time to get all "grassroots" and moral with Shlocksy? Give me a break man.

To be fair, you know that you, me, and everyone else in here would have done the same thing as Bruce if we were in that position.

Anyone really think they'd turn down $50 million? Anyone?

Are you serious? Anyone with any judgement, access to the numbers and knowledge of the greater market wouldn't even have considered selling out at that time or at that price. I said so many times at the time. Oringer didn't sell SS and  Enache didn't sell DT when each business way exceeded $50M. Zuckerberg didn't sell FB when he was literally offered millions, then hundreds of millions, then eventually billions to do so.

I think it is most likely that IS was effectively owned by investors at the time and it was they who chose to sell. That is so often the case when you allow investors (VC's) to own the majority of the business. It was a long time ago, and my memory might be confusing this story with another similar one, but I think I heard that BL only actually made about $17M from the deal __ the rest was owned by the investors.

Quote from: shudderstok on March 12, 2013, 19:33

...Hell the fella who is the brainchild behind it could have done this "co-op" concept with his old agency, but chose not too and sold out for a bunch of millions knowing who it was being sold to and the way they operate. Now it's time to get all "grassroots" and moral with Shlocksy? Give me a break man.

To be fair, you know that you, me, and everyone else in here would have done the same thing as Bruce if we were in that position.

Anyone really think they'd turn down $50 million? Anyone?

Sad part (relativity speaking) is that he stayed there and saw IS was worth at least 1 Billion dollars before he left. 

How many people create and sell a company worth 1 billion us dollars.  Especially from nothing!!

SS (net income) ($ M)

- 2009 (18,842)
- 2010 (18,938)
- 2011 (21,864)
- 2012 (47,500)

(http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm)
(http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html)

Man I didn't realize Shutterstock's net income was 47 BILLLION dollars last year.  High fives all around!

Quote from: tickstock on March 12, 2013, 20:31

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 12, 2013, 20:29

SS (net income) ($ M)

- 2009 (18,842)
- 2010 (18,938)
- 2011 (21,864)
- 2012 (47,500)

(http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm)
(http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html)

Man I didn't realize Shutterstock's net income was 47 BILLLION dollars last year.  High fives all around!

those are commas my friend

($ M) means millions right? 

And someone said only yesterday that SS couldn't afford to give it's contributors a raise!

Quote from: tickstock on March 12, 2013, 20:35

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 12, 2013, 20:34

Quote from: tickstock on March 12, 2013, 20:31

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 12, 2013, 20:29

SS (net income) ($ M)

- 2009 (18,842)
- 2010 (18,938)
- 2011 (21,864)
- 2012 (47,500)

(http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm)
(http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html)

Man I didn't realize Shutterstock's net income was 47 BILLLION dollars last year.  High fives all around!

those are commas my friend

($ M) means millions right?

not BI

Depends where you live.
In some countries, a Billion is a thousand million and in others it is a million billion.
The UK and US are on either side of that divide, IIRC

Quote from: ShadySue on March 12, 2013, 20:39

Depends where you live.
In some countries, a Billion is a thousand million and in others it is a billion billion.
The UK and US are on either side of that divide, IIRC

Apparently it could mean a million million or a thousand million.  Either way if Shutterstock is making $47,500 million or $47,500,000,000 they are better off than I knew.

Yeah, sorry, typo.
Amazing what you can accumulate by piling 'em high and selling 'em cheap.

.

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 12, 2013, 20:57

.

Good work Luis.

its just a . ahah (leaf can delete that .)