|
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 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 64
326
« on: November 13, 2014, 19:20 »
Mind boggling that Shutterstock can be selling a high volume of footage clips for great prices one moment, and then introduce footage sales at world record low prices the next, in fact footage sales even cheaper than DFC giveaway photo prices. It's not April, so what's going on? Is there a collective wish at SS to wind down and bankrupt the company? Are they on drugs?
There is a collective wish at shutterstock to drive up stock prices... Annual revenue at shutterstock is 235.52Million. To date the SSTK take for stock shares sold by key inside investors is 351.5 Million excluding stock sales by INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P, SHUTTERSTOCK INVESTORS I LLC, as well as Institutional holdings via INSIGHT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC. Just think what their take must be when you add in their larger holdings. Again these guys are in it for the short term and they do not give a rats @$$ what happens to the video market long term. By then they will be cashed out and will have moved on to the next vehicle/victim.
327
« on: November 13, 2014, 13:51 »
This is very worrying news indeed. On fotolia at least the subs download was limited to web size files.
There is no market saturation in video, the whole market is just starting out.
if they really want to offer lower price files, then they could offer different price points and allow the contributor to opt in voluntarily with individual files. testshots or outtakes.
But to opt in all files is very strange. they know that the contributors did not upload their content for this price model.
I was just talking about Bigstock with a friend yesterday, wondering if uploading videos to Bigstock was a good idea.
But I suppose this means we have to stay away.
i sincerly hope SS will not copy this model. i really like working with SS.
so this looks like really bad news.
It is not strange at all, "If" you consider who we are actually dealing with. The VC crowd stands to make many more millions by driving up SSTK stock prices, than they ever will via microstock or video revenue. These guys are in it for the short term and they will do what ever it takes to get what they want. It is abundantly obvious that they do not consider the welfare of contributors. If contributors fail to stand up to them, we can count on video pricing following microstock's downward trend. We are dealing with the same company who has not raised pricing or given raises since 2008 so that they could capture the lions share of the market. Insight Venture Capitol also own a significant portion of SSTK stock under various entities. These are large and easily tracked INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P, SHUTTERSTOCK INVESTORS I LLC, as well as Institutional holdings via INSIGHT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC
SSTK Insider Activity (SEC Form 4)http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/insider-tradesTop 5 Insider TradesSHUTTERSTOCK INVESTORS I LLC 2,835,697ORINGER JONATHAN 2,530,000 INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P 1,610,000
INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P 1,610,000
INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P 1,300,000Top 5 Holders of Institutional Holdings1. PRICE T ROWE ASSOCIATES INC /MD/ 2,729,747 2. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY/MN 1,923,913 3. WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT CO LLP 1,344,486 4. JACKSON SQUARE PARTNERS, LLC 1,318,414 5. INSIGHT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC 1,289,748Insight Venture PartnersCreating a Successful IPO http://www.insightpartners.com/assets/Uploads/SuccessStory/Shutterstock.pdfRe the Above Document reports that Insight Venture Partners worked closely with Jon, to recruit a new executive team at Shutterstock, in particular the President, CFO, CTO, VPCD and other mid-level managers. Shutterstock Team At Insight Venture Partners: Jeff Lieberman, Jeff Horing, Hilary Gosher, Cian Cotter Jeff Lieberman Board Director At Shutterstock, Inc.Independent Director at Shutterstock, Inc. and a Managing Director at Insight Venture Management LLC. He is on the Board of Directors at Cvent, Inc., Shutterstock, Inc., Call24, Inc., HauteLook, Inc., Karmaloop, Inc., Ecova, Inc., Mimecast Ltd., and Tongal, Inc. http://people.equilar.com/bio/jeffrey-lieberman-cvent--inc./salary/530332#.U6hBt7FRdeAInsight Venture Partners Tech SupportMentored and worked closely with shutterstocks existing technology development team prior to James Chou CTO joining ShutterstockJames Chou CTOChief Technology Officer at Shutterstock, Inc.Insight Venture Partners Introduced James Chou to Shutterstock from Insights network http://people.equilar.com/bio/james-chou-shutterstock--inc./salary/800789#.U6hB8LFRdeAThilo Semmelbauer President
President and Chief Operating Officer at Shutterstock, Inc.http://people.equilar.com/bio/thilo-semmelbauer-shutterstock--inc./salary/723350#.U6hCVrFRdeATimothy E. Bixby CFO
Chief Financial Officer at Shutterstock, Inc.http://people.equilar.com/bio/timothy-bixby-shutterstock--inc./salary/27954#.U6hCp7FRdeADavid Fraga VPCD
Vice President, Corporate Development at ShutterstockPreviously an Insight Venture Partners Employee - Analyst at Insight Venture Partners http://tinyurl.com/q4xdd6kRecent INSIGHT VENTURE MANAGEMENT's SSTK stock sales. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Stock/SSTK/insideractionshttp://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/institutional-portfolio/insight-holdings-group-llc-651789http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/ownership-summary#ixzz3IafANBvJ
329
« on: November 11, 2014, 10:05 »
Actually this will all play out in 10Q reports once shutterstock has assimilated the majority of IS exclusives and they have all hit $.38. Once this occurs and has become stable we will be able to see the reality of the situation in Decreased Revenue and/or Decreased Revenue per download.
You don't have to wait for reality, it's here, now. Tomorrow's reality may be a bit different, just as yesterday's was, but in the end you have to live with whatever today's reality is. Reality never "becomes stable".
Theoretically I agree, and personally I don't have to wait I can see it in my numbers and my friends numbers. I will be interested to see the changing ratios for Revenue per download once the majority of exclusives jump ship. I think the fact that they want to lure IS exclusives to SS is one of the main reasons shutterstock answers contributor concerns here on MSG; while they refuse to answer them on shutterstocks own boards where the answers would reach all contributors. They want IS exclusives to see that they are responsive to contributor concerns when that is not the case at all. They also fear that analyst will be watching this board.
330
« on: November 10, 2014, 15:07 »
...simply for the extra 3-5 cents, ...
Without disagreeing with everything else you said, if a company can reduce the cost of sales for one item from 38 cents to 25 cents, that is about 30%.
Go to any big company and ask them what they would pay you if you had an idea how they could reduce their cost of sales by 30%.
That is not insignificant.
That being said, although I can see the motivation, that alone is no proof that they actually did/do punish specific portfolios.
Actually this will all play out in 10Q reports once shutterstock has assimilated the majority of IS exclusives and they have all hit $.38. Once this occurs and has become stable we will be able to see the reality of the situation in Decreased Revenue and/or Decreased Revenue per download. Typically return for the venture capitalist as a shareholder depends on the growth and profitability of the business. Venture capital funds are most interested in ventures with exceptionally high growth potential, as only such opportunities are likely capable of providing financial returns in the short window they require and thus offer a successful exit within the required time frame (typically 37 years) that venture capitalists expect.
331
« on: November 10, 2014, 10:58 »
Ok, so if I understand correctly, you are saying that this group specifically targeted a segment of the contributor base to decrease their sales and increase the shareholder earnings?
The venture capital crowd understands that they have a short window of opportunity to drive stock prices up, grant themselves stock and cash out. http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/insider-tradesThey stumbled upon the perfect scenario with shutterstock a company who was openly willing to hold prices down to gain market share while its main competition was failing and large numbers of contributors were willing to jump ship with portfolios of proven content that they had built up over a number of years.
332
« on: November 09, 2014, 23:01 »
There is no question that these key holders will not hesitate to squeeze contributors if they see their positions losing value via plunging stock prices. In fact I am sure they have been doing so since March 2013 when Insight Venture Capital previously put key stakeholders in place to build and implement the new search that they rolled out out in March.
Not trying to start an argument, but where exactly do you see contributors being squeezed? I haven't seen any reductions in royalties? Can you clarify exactly how we are being squeezed to get more profit to shareholders?
Those of us who experienced large drops when they rolled out the new search have explained ad nauseam, that the income drops occurred overnight. If these sudden overnight drops in income had occurred because of large quantities of new exclusive content the drops would have occurred slowly over time. Do you actually believe that the majority of exclusive content was uploaded overnight and that all exclusives jumped ship together on the very day our earnings were slashed? Most everyone I know who had large quantities of images in first pages experienced these drops. I do understand that if you did not have many images in first page searches to begin with, your sales would not have changed much. We are now dealing with a venture capital firm and each quarter they prominently display "Revenue per download increased 13% to $2.65 " Do you really suppose that they choose to promote higher royalty contributors over comparable quality content from departing IS exclusives they initially pay $ .25 It will be interesting to see what occurs once SS has the lions share of exclusive content and those new members reach $ .38. New contributors from then on out will not have built up 10 plus years of content that they can upload with a few months or years work.
333
« on: November 09, 2014, 11:53 »
I hope all of you people who rely on SS for income have a Plan B in place. Because they are running over the competition like a steam roller. When they have dominant market share, and stock price growth stalls, they will have no choice but to start changing contributor terms to improve their financials. And at that point they know they will be able to do whatever they want to contributors.
I don't know if you have to wait that long, from what I remember every earnings report investor call has had a question about royalty rates and the company is beating expectations every quarter. It might just take one quarter of meeting expectations?
That would be a very dangerous game for SS to play. Istock already tried 'management by quarterly target review' when H&F were their masters ... and look where it got them.
If SS were to destroy itself through greed, as IS did, then another agency or two would simply step up to take their place.
I'd definitely have concerns if Oringer were to walk away but I don't think he will. It's now a game to him. He wants to make SS as big as possible and he knows that he won't achieve that by messing with either his customers or his contributors. If short-term greed were in his nature then we'd already have witnessed it. Instead the opposite is true.
So far they have been consistent in saying they aren't planning on changing the royalty rates. One thing that bothers me from their answers is that some quarters they say the royalty rate has been and will be 28% while other quarters (including the most recent one) they said the royalty rate was about 30%. Maybe that's not such a big deal but with the amount of money they are dealing with the difference between 28 and 30 percent is over $500,000 in royalties paid per month.
My point was more about investor pressure than how great Jon is, I'm not sure how much influence investors have over the company.
Documentation of Insight Venture Capital Insider Moves http://tinyurl.com/lfeszawInsight Venture Capital placed insiders within shutterstock and not only granted them key positions within the company but large quantities of stock at a cost of $0. They also own a significant portion of its stock under various entities. These are large and easily tracked INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P, SHUTTERSTOCK INVESTORS I LLC & Institutional holdings via INSIGHT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC SSTK Insider Activity (SEC Form 4)http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/insider-tradesThere is no questionthat these key holders will not hesitate to squeeze contributors if they see their positions losing value via plunging stock prices. In fact I am sure they have been doing so since March 2013 when Insight Venture Capital previously put key stakeholders in place to build and implement the new search that they rolled out out in March. http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/institutional-portfolio/insight-holdings-group-llc-651789Top 5 Insider TradesSHUTTERSTOCK INVESTORS I LLC 2,835,697 ORINGER JONATHAN 2,530,000 INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P 1,610,000 INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P 1,610,000 INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P 1,300,000 Top 5 Holders of Institutional Holdings1. PRICE T ROWE ASSOCIATES INC /MD/ 2,729,747 2. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY/MN 1,923,913 3. WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT CO LLP 1,344,486 4. JACKSON SQUARE PARTNERS, LLC 1,318,414 5. INSIGHT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC 1,289,748http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/ownership-summary#ixzz3IafANBvJ
334
« on: November 08, 2014, 23:33 »
The price is set by the market and that's what they value it at.
they've good reasons to market SS so high but it won't last forever, SS is not a tech/media company that is launching new product every year or that is doing M&As, all they're doing now is preparing the company for a sell out and yes the most obvious candidates for this are companies like apple/MS/google/adobe.
As BT has already pointed out 'they' can't be "preparing the company for a sell-out" ... because 'they' already sold it in an IPO two years ago.
For all we know Apple or Google (or any other potential purchaser) could already have been buying SS, share by share, for a couple of years.
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/institutional-holdings
335
« on: November 08, 2014, 23:24 »
I can bet that in 2/3 of the times they used the 'New files' filter. It will not get any better, especially for people like me who missed the last six to ten years.
sure but ultimately this factor alone WILL kill the microstock model because they won't be able to keep the promise of selling cheap but selling many times, you'll barely sell only once and for half a dollar, thus making it impossible to sustain the production costs.
i'm the first saying in stock you need a big portfolio but once the leading agency is doubling or tripling the size of its whole archive every year you just can't stay afloat, sooner or later your portfolio will be irrilevant, a drop in the ocean.
They have been able to double the size of the archive solely because IS failed to compete and so many small contributors came here to brag about their outrageous and never ending sales at SS. Once all the IS exclusives have cut and run the growth at SS will stall. The will have a hard time maintaining current rates via new contributors generated by skill feed etc.
336
« on: October 27, 2014, 11:28 »
It would be far more constructive, to band together and seriously address the issues that the sites have created for us, in lieu of bashing contributors who are attempting to find ways to survive in this business.
To be fair Yuri tried the above and failed. If we want things to change, we need to step up to the plate in mass.
So true we should not be bashing contributors for doing what they have to do to survive in this business. But recently that happens a lot here. Check out the DPC and DP threads if you want to see people getting bashed. Not sure why its okay to criticize some small timers but not Yuri, who actually was big enough to help change things for everybody, but just went for himself.
LOL you are talking to someone who gets bashed often. Bashing other contributors in lieu of addressing the real culprits keeps us mired in the muck. Again we need to firmly step up to the plate and protect our assets and incomes. Our other choices are pointless and more importantly unprofitable.
337
« on: October 27, 2014, 11:16 »
It would be far more constructive, to band together and seriously address the issues that the sites have created for us, in lieu of bashing contributors who are attempting to find ways to survive in this business.
To be fair Yuri tried the above and failed. If we want things to change, we need to step up to the plate in mass.
To be fair, we really don't know what avenues he has explored and whether they have failed. If "stepping up to the plate" is code for a sort of unionised action, it isn't going to work. Even an outrage like the DPC only saw about a quarter of files pulled - probably the best quarter, but not enough to close down the site.
If you think you will fail and convince other contributors to believe the same fallacy you will certainly fail. It is a fact that there is a long line of other industries who have stepped up to the plate to protect their interests with positive results. I have posted this information from Yuri before and he posted it here himself, you must have missed it Snip I would estimate that for the last three years I tried very hard to convince myself that microstock was in fact the right place for the professional photographer. After all, my photography carrier was born here. Perhaps exactly because of that, I tried so hard to disregard a growing mismatch between microstock and myself, in product refinement, sophistication and budget. As we grew in skills, as our company grew, our distribution partners in microstock did not. Some agencies where ok, but in total, as a mass and as a workplace, the picture was not nice. Sometimes it felt like having a michelin restaurant inside a burger joint and at the same time having to match the prices. At some point the professional gets tired of selling 12 course testing menues at 0300AM at burger prices. I tried everything I could for three years to inspire our microstock partners to close the gab. I submitted plans, did projection forecasts, showcased examples that worked, presented solutions and had literally hundreds of meetings.
I tried every kind of approach I could think of to get the micro agencies to raise prices just a bit and leave place for the kind of photographer both photographers and customers love. I spent literally months in airplanes. No Luck.http://tinyurl.com/phnjox6
338
« on: October 26, 2014, 14:26 »
Another example of the parent companies brilliant programming skills.
Bailing twine meet duct tape.
339
« on: October 26, 2014, 14:24 »
It would be far more constructive, to band together and seriously address the issues that the sites have created for us, in lieu of bashing contributors who are attempting to find ways to survive in this business.
To be fair Yuri tried the above and failed. If we want things to change, we need to step up to the plate in mass.
340
« on: September 18, 2014, 15:33 »
Istock made a choice to cut off these customers, why is anybody's guess.
To compete against Shutterstock, it's clear. Shutterstock is advertising that they always had every size image at the same price, now it's not an advantage for them. Both companies now see that as the most profitable way to do business. I'm glad they aren't trying to compete with the likes of DPC.
My guess would be that they already lost most of these customers to SS, DT, DPC etc. They must be attempting to maximize returns on the market segment they think will tolerate higher pricing.
341
« on: September 18, 2014, 15:21 »
The should have raised prices long ago. Let hope they actually do.
342
« on: September 14, 2014, 02:03 »
Double post
343
« on: September 14, 2014, 02:02 »
From a buyers perspective the interface and functionality are a big improvement.
344
« on: September 13, 2014, 09:30 »
My sales on DT now exceed my sales on SS and have for over 12 months now.
Is this because of getting better sales on DT or simply the decline you have reported at SS?
1. My new images sell on DT while only my very old low selling images sell on SS. 2. We have experience several levels of demotions to our most popular files on SS. They purposly buried them to the point they no longer sell... Ever. While DT has not done this.
345
« on: September 11, 2014, 18:14 »
My sales on DT now exceed my sales on SS and have for over 12 months now.
346
« on: September 11, 2014, 18:12 »
Yes it has been like this for years now, we sometimes have delays of 24 hours before individual query reports sync up to represent current/correct sales information.
347
« on: September 09, 2014, 09:52 »
Gino I could offer links to ports that use to make 3 to 4 times the amount you currently make that have seen hits of 50 to 70 drops. I am sure that if they wanted this type of exposure they would post themselves. No one wants this kind of attention and you would not either. However if you think it can not happen to you, you are wrong.
Their ports are top shelf and sell well at every site they are upload to including macro and yet shutterstock and previously fotolia are the only one they are seeing these kinds of drops. I think your assumption of superiority will be costly to your business in the end. New submitters have been given a gift and they would be wise to make hay while the sun shines because very few niches will be immune the bitter economics of site greed.
348
« on: September 08, 2014, 08:16 »
f16 is dead to me. It's f8 or bust.
f8 sounds pretty possible to be the sweet spot. most lenses stop down 2, 21/2 , 3, for that.
and in my case, with most of my working lenses, i found f8 to be the sweet spot.
congrats on both approval of this image and finding f8.
According to this site and their 3d blur graphs (pretty cool), f5.6 is the sweet spot for the 24mm f3.5 PC-e and the 24mm f1.4g:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1176/cat/12
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1325
I'll have to try f5.6 next time. I'll also make sure I do some research on this in the future before shooting.
I have found found f5.6 to be the case with many of my lens.
349
« on: September 08, 2014, 07:57 »
Do you really think, If he knew the answers to our "Real" questions he would say anything? I think Not. Do I blame him?...No. Being a VP anywhere means politics period. My wife has been senior VP of many HUGE Film Companies that do 10 times the money SS does. She never talked to folks under her about company Issues she was Privy to. And they all sign NDA agreements so. Forget it.
Individual drops in sales for groups of people have been extremely documented like never before, More threads have been started than I've ever seen in My 10 years. It ain't gonna happen guys, This is all were gonna get. Like it or leave it. your replacement is already submitting.
Maybe thats why Moderators and content division employees/supervisors is a transient Job.
I've seen More folks...Some really Good folks have come and gone than I can remember, The days When you could feel a personal touch...Thats all gone and ya can't bring that back. Pete is correct on many accounts but...so wrong on many more because he doesn't have the history that some have had with huge commercial ports that used to make huge money.
And until you have the history of what came before, you have little credibility going forward. And my friend pete has a specific Niche and he enjoys it more than the money he makes..
Like I said in another thread. These issues are a virus.....A virus that is separating us. It's to late to think we have the power anymore. We lost it around 2008 when we could and should have done something But the Lure of 38 cents or whatever killed it.
I Blame us and no one else.
Moderation is not the only transient job, the President/COO has moved on to greener pastures. Shutterstock Announces Yearend Departure of President and COO Thilo Semmelbauerhttp://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/shutterstock-announces-yearend-departure-of-president-and-coo-thilo-semmelbauer-20140807-01513#ixzz3CjCfeSLF
350
« on: September 07, 2014, 11:30 »
I don't get the complaining. Let SS buy pizza if they want. It's a COMPANY and company's Make PROFIT. Nobody is forcing people to join them.
SS: hey guys! We have an online image selling website! Join us and we will pay you an x% for every sale we make! Our terms and conditions can be found on our website!
Photographers: Ok! Looks like fun and make some extra income!
(Some) photographers after x years: I don't like your terms and conditions. I want MORE and since many other photographers are in now I make less money. You solve that for me and I don't like you anymore!!!
Maybe... Just maybe it has something to do with competition. No 'cap' or algoritm change. But better images competing with outdated images.
Ok. I must admit you do have a strong point there. Royalties should rise with inflation but I don't think SS did a price raise for their buyers? So they did nit get a raise also? I am at SS for just 2 years so for me it had not been 8 years and I am used to get $0.38. But then again if my income keeps growing as it does I don't know if I will ever mind the 38 cents since I am just happy that SS is making me money.
You do not get it because as a new contributor you hit .38 in less than 2 years and your income is still rising. I could also say this for 9 years. We thought that as long as we worked hard our incomes would also continue to rise. Things changed drastically after the IPO. We have worked hard since 2004 and have every right to step to the plate and look out for our own assets.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
