|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - gbalex
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 ... 64
1226
« on: May 15, 2012, 01:08 »
Some numbers in here don't match:
"For the year ended 2011, Shutterstock earned 21.8 million on a revenue of $120.2 million. More than 550,000 active, paying users contributed to revenue in 2011, representing an increase of 71 percent compared to the prior year.
"
"In 2011, the company delivered more than 58 million paid downloads. The average cost per image on the site in 2011 was around $3."
All quoted from some of the quotes in this thread. Either the revenue number is wrong (I doubt it...) or the cost per image is not $3 but closer to $2.
For those who want to take their own RPD to calculate their overall percentage....
It looks like the quoted article rounded up, there is more information located in SS's SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION FORM S-1 REGISTRATION STATEMENT http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm#da47301_businessSection 72 "We are the beneficiaries of significant network effects. As we have grown, our broadening audience of paying users has attracted more images from contributors. This increased selection of images has in turn helped to attract more paying users. The success of this network effect is facilitated by the trust that users place in Shutterstock to maintain the integrity of our branded marketplace. Every contributor in our marketplace and every image we make available must pass our proprietary screening process and meet our standards of quality. In addition, and unlike the significant majority of free images available online, our rigorous vetting process enables us to provide confidence and indemnification to our users that the images in our library have been appropriately licensed for commercial or editorial use. We make image licensing affordable, simple and easy in order to encourage a high volume of purchases and downloads. Our customers' average cost per image in 2011 was less than $3.00. We are a pioneer of the subscription-based usage model in our industry, whereby subscribers can download and use a large number of images in their creative process without concern for the incremental cost of each download. T he majority of our downloads come from subscription-based users, who contributed 59% of our revenue in 2011. We also offer simple and easy-to-use On Demand purchase options for users with less consistent needs. As a result of our simple and affordable licensing models, we believe that we have achieved the highest volume of commercial image downloads of any single brand in our industry. In addition to driving revenue, this high volume of download activity allows us to continually improve the quality and accuracy of our search algorithms, as well as to encourage the creation of new content to meet our users' needs. Our revenue is diversified and predictable. More than 550,000 customers from more than 150 countries contributed to our revenue in 2011, with no single customer accounting for more than 1% of our revenue. We have historically benefitted from a high degree of revenue retention from both subscription-based and On Demand customers. For example, in 2009, 2010 and 2011, we retained 82%, 96%, and 102%, respectively, of the prior year's revenue from the same set of customers. Customers typically pay us upfront and then use their downloads in a predictable pattern over time, which results in favorable cash flow characteristics and has historically added predictability and stability to our financial performance. We have achieved significant growth in the eight years since our company was founded. In 2010 and 2011, we generated revenue of $83.0 million and $120.3 million, respectively, representing year-over-year growth of 35.8% and 45.0%, respectively. In 2010 and 2011, we generated Adjusted EBITDA of $21.8 million and $26.5 million, respectively, and Free Cash Flow of $27.6 million and $36.1 million, respectively. See "Summary Consolidated Historical and Unaudited Pro Forma Financial DataNon-GAAP Financial Measures." In 2010 and 2011, our net income was $18.9 million and $21.9 million, respectively. In 2011, 34% of our revenue came from North America, and 66% came from the rest of the world. "
1228
« on: May 14, 2012, 16:36 »
http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/14/shutterstock-files-for-ipo-plans-to-raise-up-to-115-million/"According to its S-1 filing, Shutterstock currently offers one of the largest content libraries in the commercial digital imagery industry with over 19 million photographs and illustrations and about 500,000 videos from more than 35,000 contributors. In 2011, the company delivered more than 58 million paid downloads. The average cost per image on the site in 2011 was around $3. Shutterstock says that it had more than 550,000 paying customers in 2011.
1229
« on: May 14, 2012, 16:24 »
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/idUS173640104520120514
"Shutterstocks total revenue has grown from $61.1 million in 2009 to $83.0 million in 2010 and $120.3 million in 2011 representing a compound annual growth rate of 40.3 percent since 2009, according to the S-1 filing.
The company will use money from the IPO for operational purposes, as well as possibly acquiring other companies that are strategic to its current business."
thanks for sharing  we do deserve a raise lol
"For the year ended 2011, Shutterstock earned 21.8 million on a revenue of $120.2 million. More than 550,000 active, paying users contributed to revenue in 2011, representing an increase of 71 percent compared to the prior year."
1230
« on: May 14, 2012, 15:41 »
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/idUS173640104520120514"Shutterstocks total revenue has grown from $61.1 million in 2009 to $83.0 million in 2010 and $120.3 million in 2011 representing a compound annual growth rate of 40.3 percent since 2009, according to the S-1 filing. The company will use money from the IPO for operational purposes, as well as possibly acquiring other companies that are strategic to its current business."
1231
« on: May 14, 2012, 15:32 »
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/net-us-shutterstock-brief-idINBRE84D0N320120514?feedType=RSS&feedName=internetNewsReuters) - Online stock photography provider Shutterstock plans an initial public offering of common stock to raise up to $115 million. Sources told Reuters earlier this month that Shutterstock, which competes with stock photo leader Getty Images, is close to filing for an IPO. It owns a library of photographs and illustrations that customers can license and download through subscription deals. Shutterstock is backed by entities affiliated with Insight Venture Partners and Pixel Holdings Inc. Shutterstock Chief Executive Jonathan Oringer is the sole shareholder of Pixel Holdings Inc, according to a regulatory filing with U.S. regulators on Monday. Oringer who hails from Westchester, New York founded the company in 2003, uploading 30,000 stock photos to the site. The site currently has more than 19 million images. It competes with other online marketplaces for imagery like iStockphoto, Fotolia and Dreamstime and traditional stock content providers such as Corbis Corp. Getty Images was taken private by Hellman & Friedman for $2.4 billion in 2008. For the year ended 2011, Shutterstock earned 21.8 million on a revenue of $120.2 million. More than 550,000 active, paying users contributed to revenue in 2011, representing an increase of 71 percent compared to the prior year.The New York-based company told the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in a preliminary prospectus that Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank Securities and Jefferies were underwriting the IPO. The filing did not reveal how many shares the company planned to sell or their expected price. The company intends to list its common stock on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "SSTK". The amount of money a company says it plans to raise in its first IPO filings is used to calculate registration fees. The final size of the IPO could be different. (Reporting by Tanya Agrawal and Vidya P L Nathan in Bangalore; Editing by Joyjeet Das)
1232
« on: May 14, 2012, 14:55 »
So much for low overhead http://voices.yahoo.com/cfo-tim-bixby-announces-departure-7126822.html?cat=3According to Forbes magazine, Bixby served as Vice President of Finance for Universal Music & Video Distribution, Inc., from 1994 until 1999. Prior to joining Universal in 1992 as Associated Director, Bixby worked for Credit Suisse. Bixby holds an M.B.A. from Harvard and A.B. from Dartmouth. His position with LivePerson is estimated to be worth $4.8 million in stock options as of 2009.
1233
« on: May 14, 2012, 14:24 »
I'm nervous but hopeful. At the very least, I figure we've got at least a year before investors will try to put any pressure on the company to show a return on their investment. Meaning there's still plenty of time before we would even begin to see any possible negative effect of this.
So in the meantime, it's just business as usual for me, with fingers crossed that SS never has to take anything away from us to make investors happy.
I'm not overly worried. If Jon was looking to maximise short-term return then he would have jumped on the same price-increase and lower-commission bandwagon that other greedy b@stards have done. By doing so he might have made far more from the IPO. He hasn't done that and appears content to grow his business by doing the right thing and benefiting from the mistakes of others. I don't see that changing any time soon.
I'm sure Jon must also have had innumerous offers to sell the entire business outright over the years but again has refused to do so.
Don't forget that whilst the shareholders might collectively own the business they don't get to run it in any meaningful way. Provided that the business continues to grow then they should be kept content.
I think the ultimate objective of this move is to grow an image empire to rival or beat the traditional agencies such as Getty and Corbis both of which have been painfully slow to adapt to the threats of new technology and the interweb.
that was my initial thought as well but then, wait a second, inside the major 4 micro agencies are many, many Getty and Corbis photographers, hiding under all sorts of pseudos. I am not sure its even worth it? heck, I know its a big market but its hardly the Petrochemical-industries, is it.
As I can see it, the only way to even start to rival these outfits, well its the pricing policy yet again, isnt it. Package deals, lowering prices, this and that, in the end its nothing left at all for suppliers like us, I mean how many times can you split a buck.
That is it exactly, SS was successful because it maintained low prices and overhead. In the last year we have seen a change in that overhead policy and the type of people SS is bringing into the company. Check out the stock options the new CFO was pulling in before SS brought him on board. And then there is the timing of the new search engine changes. There are just so many unknown variables that "we can only guess". I hope that the greed bug has not overtaken SS at the cost of its contributors. There have been no raises since 2008... companies like to go public in years where they have good revenue... especially if they know those revenues will not last. Timing an IPO at the peak of revenues can boost perceived value long enough to sell the company and get out before the downsides become visible. The prospectus will be interesting and until we have more information we can only make haphazard guesses at the reasons SS is choosing to go public. Hopefully SS did not use vulture capitalist to grow, because venture capitalists have been known to use IPOs to cash in on successful companies that they helped start-up. IPO also may be used by founding individuals as an exit strategy. A best case scenario would be that SS is looking to further the growth of the company and they are using the IPO as a way to generate the cheaper capital needed to expand. The upside is that IPO's can also generate publicity by making the company known to new groups of potential customers. I guess we could take a look at the track records of the board members and key new employees for a clues into where SS may be headed.
1234
« on: May 14, 2012, 11:24 »
I think those of us without blinders, knew it was a given when the new board/key employees appeared and the IPO piece showed up in Reuters.
1235
« on: May 13, 2012, 14:23 »
This is great. I've been waiting for someone to come up with this. Hope it is successful. 
LOL, I posted a link to http://www.picturengine.com in another thread on MSG and got a much different response.
"Sounds like a loser all around for the artist. The only engine I would be willing to pay for would be one that exclusively searched the artist's own sites, not the micro agencies."
Fair enough. I didn't realize this was the same one that was searching the agencies. The other thread gave a more detailed explanation of what was on offer.
I've been waiting for somebody to come up with one that would ONLY search member artist's sites. If this one isn't that, then I will have to sit back and wait for one that does that.
Seems like it's always that way with new great things to revolutionize the stock industry - the Devil's in the details. 
No worries, we would be much better off if we all questioned each bit of information served to us no matter who it comes from. I would like to think that one day we will be mad as hell and decide to do something to end the greed. Forming a cooperative to develop or license similar technology would be a nice start.
1236
« on: May 13, 2012, 13:16 »
This is great. I've been waiting for someone to come up with this. Hope it is successful.
LOL, I posted a link to http://www.picturengine.com in another thread on MSG and got a much different response. "Sounds like a loser all around for the artist. The only engine I would be willing to pay for would be one that exclusively searched the artist's own sites, not the micro agencies."
1237
« on: May 11, 2012, 11:07 »
Time will tell how this new search will affect our bottom line, in the mean time six of my latest batches are missing AGAIN
Two of my latest uploads have disappeared over night.......again. I wonder if there's as many bugs on the buyers side of things.
This happens almost every time I submit, some batches gone for 15 days. And yes there are bugs on the buyer side, but not as many as we endure. The last batches are still missing today.
1238
« on: May 11, 2012, 09:29 »
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/improved-search-system?rid=212929&ref=212929
Time will tell how this new search will affect our bottom line, in the mean time six of my latest batches are missing AGAINRe: "The order of images in search results may change. (However, the fundamental principles powering the New, Most Popular and Relevant sort orders are not changing.)" I can't help but worry that best match disease is now in place to put a fork in it
1239
« on: May 09, 2012, 17:04 »
It stinks, of course, but anyone going into this should understand that the rate of growth of the collections is bound to outpace the rate of growth of established individual portfolios as well as the growth in the market for images. That means that, long term, the return to artists will eventually fall - unless, that is, the low return deters people so much that an equilibium between the growth of the market and the growth of the size of the collections is arrived at.
This makes sense, and I think it was something many of us understood and were prepared for. What I (and probably others) wasn't prepared for was the way the agencies have grabbed back more commissions for themselves, and manipulated their search engines to boost their profits at the expense of their better selling artists. The law of diminishing returns is inevitable and can't be helped. The law of screwing the contributor is a much more immediate threat.
I could not have said it better myself!
1240
« on: May 07, 2012, 14:12 »
No my new images are not selling at anything like the rate they did a year ago.
1241
« on: May 04, 2012, 13:43 »
http://www.picturengine.com/
It looks as if they want us to pay them a monthly fee for the pleasure of uploading our stuff there so that they can redirect buyers to the existing agencies (and probably collect a referral fee) where they buy our stuff. It will help them find the cheapest way to get our work.
Is that the game plan?
To work, a lot of leading photographers would have to agree to join up and spend time uploading.
Sounds like a loser all around for the artist. The only engine I would be willing to pay for would be one that exclusively searched the artist's own sites, not the micro agencies.
"The only engine I would be willing to pay for would be one that exclusively searched the artist's own sites" Yes that would be the idea... the technology, not picturengine itself is the focus, however picturengine shows that a similar search vehicle could be used by a group of submitters who shoot different types of images. A collective if you will.
1242
« on: May 04, 2012, 12:45 »
I think if his site becomes successful, it would be a logical next step to become an agency in its own right. It's human instinct to want to expand.
He will, but not exactly the way we imagine.
First he will give us possibility to create our own sites using "Yuri's stock store engine" - a kind of Ktools Photostore - for free. Once 1000 individual stores are on line a mega Yoogel search image site will be deployed. Yoogel will research images among all Yuri's engined sites and take 10% from each sale.
This could be the way of the future and a way for all of us to get a larger proportion of sales. Individually we are too small, but a coordinated search of many individual sites could provide the breadth of a large agency. This could really work if everyone used the same template for their own sites so they could be searched together. If Yuri is heading in this direction then it really could lead to a new way of selling images that would bypass the agencies or at least give artists some leverage to get agencies to increase commissions.
Of course it wouldn't require Yuri if someone else has the programming skills to put it together ... a virtual agency of individual sites that are searched as one, like Travelocity or Amazon but for images. There would have to be caveats about quality since everyone would be their own reviewers and some sort of agreements about pricing or it might be too complicated for buyers but something like this really could work - each individual is responsible for their own individual site and you'd just need a search engine and front bit to manage sales. There would be no costs for reviewing images or maintaining a huge database, just a search engine. Wish I had the time and the programming skills... If someone is working on something like this it would be great!
http://www.picturengine.com/
1243
« on: May 02, 2012, 14:47 »
My guess is more things will change at SS besides the logo...
I agree
1244
« on: May 02, 2012, 14:33 »
Looks good. It doesn't really fit in with the color scheme of the site though.
I bet it fits nicely as a header on the IPO documents, thought 
My thoughts exactly. The front page has changed, with new logo and Search being the most prominent page feature. The light boxes have been scaled down to one etc.
1245
« on: May 02, 2012, 11:43 »
So when do you think the new window dressings and promos will go out preparing for the IPO?
1246
« on: May 02, 2012, 11:39 »
My reviews have been consistently running between 1 and 2 days. I would not be surprised if the slow downs are related to the work they have been doing on the site/servers.
1247
« on: May 01, 2012, 19:55 »
Anyone planning to buy shares?
It could be wiser to buy stock in a company that is setting itself up to grow and increase its profits, than it would be to spend our hard earned resources and time producing revenue generating images, illustrations and video for a publicly traded company. It is pretty much a given that a publicly traded SS, will be under pressure to divert revenue obtained from our hard work and financial investments to its new shareholders. "Shutterstock, which competes with stock photo leader Getty Images, generated close to $100 million in revenue in 2011, another source close to the company said. The company OWNS a library of photographs and illustrations that customers can license and download through subscription deals."
1248
« on: May 01, 2012, 13:18 »
Shareholders will press for more profits and contributors will be squeezed. It won't be in Jon's hands any more and...
These sorts of things are aways fascinating but isn't it more complicated than that. Doesn't it depend what the initial price is set at and what the stock ends up trading at relative to earnings. And don't stockholders typically become troublesome only when the P:E ratio is all out of kilter and they know that the stock is trading too high ... not meeting expectations.
Also - you don't know how much of the stock they might make available. They may not give up much. And it is a relatively small company anyhow. You can't pre judge these things.
I wonder what they want to use the investment for. Expansion maybe.
Not at all surprised.
Do you mean in a now or possibly never kind of a way? Or do you mean .... In the current climate ? Or both ?
I mean they have been making changes within the company and to the site. It looked to me like they were gearing up for something.
1249
« on: May 01, 2012, 12:45 »
Not at all surprised.
1250
« on: April 30, 2012, 14:52 »
Good for Yuri, the sites have become too greedy!
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
