Quote from: luissantos84 on March 12, 2013, 20:36

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

Yeah 47,500 million.  Like you wrote.  That's the same as 47.5 BILLION. 

Not sure how we all got confused.. check out the link that Luis posted.
Shutterstock's net income is not in the billions.  It is in the millions.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm

The full amounts without any abbreviation are...

2009: $18,842,000         
2010: $18,938,000
2011: $21,864,000

Perhaps it's also confusing that some countries use commas, where others use a decimal.

Quote from: EmberMike on March 12, 2013, 19:47

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.

He only made $17M   I'd of probably sold out for $2M and I bet 99.9% of people would take the $17M.  We don't know if he was also offered bonuses for hitting targets do we?  I got the impression that the Getty deal seemed quite good for istock at the time and it all started going wrong when the hedge fund bought Getty and started squeezing it dry.  They seemed to change policy from keeping istock as a separate entity to effectively destroying it.  It's easy to see where it all went wrong with  hindsight but for every business that makes it big like Facebook, there must be hundreds that don't sell and wish they had later.  People don't seem to mention that the owners of Myspace did well cashing in for $580 million before Facebook ruined their business.  It was sold again for $35 million two years ago.  If Bruce had refused to sell, Getty could of set up their own microstock sites and crushed istock or perhaps they would of bought another microstock site that would of been a big problem for istock?

I think they came quite close at one time.  Don't people remember when istock was making them so much money that it wasn't such an easy decision to remain non-exclusive?  If they had raised commissions a little bit at one point, around 2008, I would of probably gone exclusive.  Some people I really respect, like Stephen Strahdee went exclusive but luckily form me istock rejected some of my best selling images and it wasn't such a tough decision.

Getty bought istock way back on February 9, 2006.  I think they did a good job with istock for a couple of years, except for not enticing more of us to go exclusive.  That was a huge mistake, as it would of been quite easy for them to dominate microstock if they had the majority of contributors as exclusives.  Then when Hellman & Friedman bought Getty in mid 2008, it all started to go badly wrong.

Getty bought istock way back on February 9, 2006.  I think they did a good job with istock for a couple of years, except for not enticing more of us to go exclusive.  That was a huge mistake, as it would of been quite easy for them to dominate microstock if they had the majority of contributors as exclusives.  Then when Hellman & Friedman bought Getty in mid 2008, it all started to go badly wrong.

Wow was it that long ago??? Then for sure I had my  best years while Getty  owned it.

Quote from: leaf on March 13, 2013, 02:59

Not sure how we all got confused.. check out the link that Luis posted.
Shutterstock's net income is not in the billions.  It is in the millions.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm

The full amounts without any abbreviation are...

2009: $18,842,000         
2010: $18,938,000
2011: $21,864,000

Perhaps it's also confusing that some countries use commas, where others use a decimal.

Not confused, just giving Luis a bit of a hard time.  He took the numbers from the Shutterstock report where it said (in thousands) and changed it to ($ M).  I guess he also changed the meaning of the comma from the report he cited, maybe?

I haven't changed anything, check the report and my numbers, I actually copy/past them

sorry for taking this discussion into SS but we were talking if Bruce did the right thing on selling, so I believed it was important to see SS doing close to 50 M in a year

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.

Not that long ago , even as recently as last autumn, you said that Bruce trousered the $50M himself. So since then you have new gossip ?

Funnily enough I don't recall getting an email from Brucie when he trousered $50M of Getty's money.

Livingstone bottled it and sold out way, way too early ... Brucie-babe sold out for just $50M.

If H&F bought Getty, how does Getty still own part of their own company with the latest "sale"? Possibly H&F never bought all of Getty? Maybe someone can explain how Getty can ratain shares in the latest sale, if they were sold in the past.

H&F sold the company - part to Carlyle Group and part to Jonathan Klein and members of the Getty family. They effectively bought part of it back versus "still" owned it.

Yes. Just over 50% of the business was bought by Carlyle with the rest now owned by the Getty family and management (i.e. Klein). My impression was that Carlyle only bought into it on condition that the Getty big boys put their money where their mouth was. I think that they'll live to regret it too. Carlyle should have done some of their 'due diligence' here, on MSG, to get a more comprehensive picture of what is happening within the industry.

It really amazes me how many of you don't get the whole industry in general. Monsters like Carlyle and Getty know exactly what is happening in the industry and don't really need to come into a forum for peon photographers to do due diligence on the industry. These guys know exactly what is going on in this ever growing industry. They dominate global sales, they make billions, and we make pennies. The last thing on their mind is to come into a forum such as this and see the same people complaining over and over again. They know they have you, and they don't care if you come or go, you are completely expendable and replaceable. That goes for all of us. That my friends is the ugly truth of it - industry wide. Sure some of them can spin it like you are a "community" or you can deify certain people, but in the end, it's all the same regardless of agency, persona, or concept. and we are the peon's.

Quote from: shudderstok on March 22, 2013, 20:50

It really amazes me how many of you don't get the whole industry in general. Monsters like Carlyle and Getty know exactly what is happening in the industry and don't really need to come into a forum for peon photographers to do due diligence on the industry. These guys know exactly what is going on in this ever growing industry. They dominate global sales, they make billions, and we make pennies. The last thing on their mind is to come into a forum such as this and see the same people complaining over and over again. They know they have you, and they don't care if you come or go, you are completely expendable and replaceable. That goes for all of us. That my friends is the ugly truth of it - industry wide. Sure some of them can spin it like you are a "community" or you can deify certain people, but in the end, it's all the same regardless of agency, persona, or concept. and we are the peon's.

You don't understand business mate. It never stands still. It is always subject to change, massive change, and never more so than nowadays in the internet age.

The Harvard Business School, when I was doing my MBA course (in the 1990's), reckoned that the average life of a business was about 40 years. That was usually about how long it took for a business to start small, grow big, become the market leader ... and then become complacent ... and allow faster, better, keener competition to overcome it. In the internet age it likely to be the case that the 'natural' life-cycle is going to be compressed.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that SS will eventually become bigger than Getty __ almost certainly within the next 5 years, quite possibly sooner. Getty is dying and is being usurped by faster, better, stronger competition and, it has to be said, they have few friends that will mourn their passing.

OK I don't know squat about business. What I do know is that this business is ever growing year by year, the agencies are making more and more, and paying less and less. And with my complete lack of understanding about business, we are the ones being shafted and working for pennies on the dollar. Not being an MBA holder I'd say we are all getting shafted by all of the agencies. Who in their right mind would put any images up onto SS for 0.25c per download - that and that alone was the deal breaker for me 6-7 years ago when I started uploading to microstock agencies. it's a buyers market, the industry is way over saturated with great images, the prices are falling, and so are the royalty amounts, the only ones getting rich on this game are the agencies. but what would i know, i don't understand business. SS won't be bigger than Getty in the next five years for sure (Getty holds too many brands under their belt and has the editorial thing wrapped up), and mark my words from a person who does not know business, your royalties will be sacrificed for shareholder dividends in the near future, it is a private company now, and you are nothing but a "liability" at this point. the industry as it once was is now over for sure, it is now all about maximizing profits for the owners/shareholders and having the peons supply the product. the overall market will grow worldwide and so will the profits to the comanies that sell the images, but the overall profit to the supplier will go down due to an over saturated market. surely with an MBA you would have figured that one out by now, it's been the trend for the last 15 years or more in the stock industry.

The average lifespan of a company listed in the S&P 500 index of leading US companies has decreased by more than 50 years in the last century, from 67 years in the 1920s to just 15 years today, according to Professor Richard Foster from Yale University.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16611040