|
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 - gostwyck
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 210
376
« on: November 11, 2013, 17:23 »
The sustainability of their growth is seems doubtful to me especially given that their business is so little diversified. The stock has risen in a rising stock market. There are only two reasons to hold stock - either an increasing price or the dividend. Do you think it likely that they will announced a dividend ? If the stock price comes under pressure that will surely affect contributors. No ?
I would be much less dubious about them if they were not a public company. I am not seeing any evidence that they have usefully re-invested in the business so far (apart from the prestigious new HQ). Offset has largely gone un-noticed. Have I missed something ?
Have you missed something? I'd say you have missed pretty much everything. You must have your eyes and ears closed. SS have diversified. Less than 50% of revenue now comes from subscription. The rest comes from single images sales, special licensing deals and footage. The diversification continues with the launching of Offset. You don't 'see' the investment because it's not in the form of bricks and mortar. SS invest massively in their data collection and analysis (literally $10M's per year) which is why they can offer a better service than their competitors. They also invest hugely in marketing too (again several $10M's per annum). They closely monitor the cost to gain each customer which currently stands at about $100. Since before the IPO SS have also expressed their interest in 'a major acquisition' and they are sitting on a gigantic pile of cash for when the right opportunity comes along. Of course, for all we know, such discussions might already be at an advanced stage. I'm still seeing growth in the sub's market anyway. IS's PP is all the proof you need of that. Thanks to all the Getty sales guys contacting IS's own customers the PP has come from nowhere to become maybe 25% the size of SS. Possibly bigger than that in subs alone. All the information on what SS are doing is out there ... you just have to read it (you will have to register to read the full article); http://seekingalpha.com/article/1820992-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q3-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?source=email_rt_article_readmore
377
« on: November 09, 2013, 19:59 »
Cracking work Luis!
while having a nice cup of jasmine tea 
What's a good-looking young man like you doing drinking 'jasmine tea' of a Saturday night? You can't be that skint surely?
378
« on: November 09, 2013, 19:48 »
removed a few posts that didn't solve anything and were simply a little bickering.
Thanks! It gets a bit rough in here some times!!
You ain't drinking enough. I'd recommend a few slugs of JD's Tennessee Honey before any forum interaction. As you can probably tell, I do follow my own advice to the letter.
379
« on: November 09, 2013, 19:45 »
Cracking work Luis!
380
« on: November 09, 2013, 19:44 »
381
« on: November 09, 2013, 17:32 »
Actually I'd say that the people 'jumping ship' are actually Istock themselves. It would seem that they've thrown out their own rule-book in a truly desperate attempt to turn things around. When a business takes such panic actions it is always bad news ... for them.
That seems a rather OTT analysis. From a neutral and dispassionate perspective I think that many people would quietly agree that it would be stupid for any business to be arbitrarily or artificially constrained by a set of one-size-fits-all conditions put in place around a decade ago in a very different market.
No, I think these 'special deals' represent a massive shift in power. When Istock was at it's most successful it was one set of rules for all contributors. No concessions were given to anyone __ because they didn't need to. Now apparently they do. It smacks of desperation when they herald Yuri's images as "Only from Istock" when actually many of them are available from multiple other outlets, at much cheaper prices, including Yuri's own platform. I'm not well-versed in Canadian law but I'd be surprised if that's even legal. The concept of exclusivity is hardly a minor or 'artificial constraint'. It's supposed to be a statement of fact and it's supposed to protect Istock's own business interests by ensuring the artist's work is not available to competitors thereby allowing higher prices to be achieved.
382
« on: November 09, 2013, 06:35 »
Regarding various posts in the last couple of pages, how can we need to wait and see whether he has a special deal when he simultaneously has an exclusive portfolio at iS and another portfolio at SS? Clearly, iS has broken the rules to let him do that, which is a special deal.
How could it be SS's failings, pushing him to become exclusive? SS doesn't dictate how iS applies (or doesn't apply) its rules.
Being able to collect exclusive-only benefits while operating as an independent is obviously a huge financial incentive, especially if they don't even insist on him leaving SS. Why would there need to be any hidden millions up front? If you offer people more money for doing nothing then you don't generally have to throw in a golden hello.
They transferred Yuri's stuff into new accounts (while keeping its sales history from the old accounts, oddly enough, presumably for search ranking purposes) but he's not on image exclusivity.
It appears to me that Andres stopped uploading to SS, DT and FT around the beginning of October and all his new stuff is going to his new 'exclusive' portfolio at IS.
383
« on: November 08, 2013, 17:56 »
Here we go again, people need to remember that this board if full of non English speakers. How do I say it then? How do I phrase myself correctly, Mr. Tickstock, so that you can approve of my comment. How do I say someone jumps from one agency to another without implying the other agency is doing bad?
In case you have missed it, Shutterstock aint sinking, they are catching up with IS very fast.
http://www.shutterstock.com/releases/110713.mhtml
I would say he decided to go exclusive, I'm sure he did his research (jump ship also means to make a quick decision).
It is interesting that the top 2 best selling Shutterstock contributors (if Andresr is recognized as the #2) decided to go exclusive at a time when Shutterstock is bringing in record revenue and bigger profits. I wonder what that means?
Actually I'd say that the people 'jumping ship' are actually Istock themselves. It would seem that they've thrown out their own rule-book in a truly desperate attempt to turn things around. When a business takes such panic actions it is always bad news ... for them.
384
« on: November 08, 2013, 16:27 »
There is some evidence that people who are doing well don't post in the iStock thread because they are doing well, at least a few people said that on this forum.
You'll never know until you open the box :-)
Hello Xanox. Back again, eh?
385
« on: November 08, 2013, 04:58 »
Thanks for posting. Definitely interesting.
+1
386
« on: November 07, 2013, 11:45 »
It's now nearly TWO WEEKS since our stat's have been updated. I can scarcely believe such incompetence. It seems that almost every month Istock's so-called 'web development team' amaze us all by breaking entirely new boundaries in their uselessness.
Every other agency can provide real-time sales data and statistics which Istock haven't been able to do for years. The volume of sales data generated at SS is probably 3-4x greater than at IS and yet they have never had a problem. Why are Istock so utterly and embarrassingly crap?
387
« on: November 05, 2013, 07:45 »
I noticed that (somewhat bizarre) article in the Guardian only yesterday! I'm sure the model would have been delighted to see herself 'in action' in a national newspaper. Tear sheets like that will be good for her career.
Here's a link to the article itself. The comments below it are well worth reading if you fancy a chuckle;
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/14/fantasise-group-sex-old-obese-men
The Guardian is posting these sorts of articles precisely to drive the mostly Mike Giggler-esque comments which account for much of their traffic. It is all about advertising. They are also peppering the online edition with increasingly deliberately inflammatory articles headlined so as to attract controversy and therefore comment attention (e.g. opinion pieces written by commentators and correspondents with relatively hardline political and social opinions which are likely to divide and upset the readers).
It's all about the comments.
Interesting. I hadn't thought about that although I'm pretty sure that the agony aunt 'letter' was either sent in as a joke or simply made up by Guardian staff. I wonder if that's why Amazon does nothing to discourage spoof (but often hilarious) reviews like those for 'Tuscan Whole Milk, 128 fl oz' for example, amongst many others? http://www.amazon.com/Tuscan-Whole-Milk-Gallon-128/product-reviews/B00032G1S0/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
388
« on: November 05, 2013, 06:03 »
I noticed that (somewhat bizarre) article in the Guardian only yesterday! I'm sure the model would have been delighted to see herself 'in action' in a national newspaper. Tear sheets like that will be good for her career. Here's a link to the article itself. The comments below it are well worth reading if you fancy a chuckle; http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/14/fantasise-group-sex-old-obese-men
389
« on: November 04, 2013, 12:03 »
It means that the average of all votes for Shutterstock was $413.50. $500 was selected to equal 100 in the poll so each point is $5.
How many times will Leaf have to come on and say that you can't work on that assumption before you will believe it?
This is based on what Leaf has said in the forum. He said he picked an arbitrary constant number to be 100 and then he said that arbitrary constant number was $500. Leaf has never disputed that. What he has said is that it's not exact because the categories are broad, ex. $2000 and 2500+ you can't say for sure if a vote for $2000 means the contributor made $2000 or $2499 so there is some error in that. He's also said that the top number is $2500+ so that can artificially keep the numbers lower than what they actually are. The second point probably just affects iStock exclusive earnings since only a very small percentage of independent contributors are making more that $2500 per month on a single site. Instead of saying it definitely is 100 = $500 maybe I should say approximately $500, would that make you happy? So 82.7 means that the average earnings of all the responses for Shutterstock is approximately $413.50.
So ... based on your latest pet theory (as usual on a subject of which you know very little) ... the average Istock exclusive must be making over $15K per month because "each point is $5". Duh!
390
« on: November 03, 2013, 10:07 »
I wouldn't hold your breath in anticipation of any relaxation in the RC targets.
Getty are $2.6B in debt (that's close to 3x annual earnings) with revenue falling, thanks to H&F and Carlyle. I don't think they'd have the balls to reduce royalties yet further (although I'm sure they'd like to) as it would probably prove to be counter-productive and would hasten the departure of more exclusives.
391
« on: November 02, 2013, 20:06 »
Looks cool, there are so many cameras I want now and none of them are Canon's. Maybe it's time to start thinking about selling some of it off?
Perfectly happy with my Canon which I've had for nearly 6 years now and about 250k shutter operations. Not to mention 400k sales. It's not the arrows Son __ it's the Indian.
392
« on: November 02, 2013, 18:38 »
Thanks for checking in Stacy. It's nice to hear how things are going with you. Glad you are doing well and adjusting to non-exclusivity
Indeed! I was wondering where you had been. Keep up the good work Stacey, you are a true 'creative'.
393
« on: November 01, 2013, 19:48 »
Are you coming to the Microstock expo Ron? You could visit the new SS office directly...
I wish I could, but the budget wont allow it for now.
I spoke to the ladies today, and it was a very interesting meet. I will write up some stuff and post it later.
For now I can say, lots of stuff Gostwyck is saying about Jon and Shutterstock is spot on. Shutterstock is not in the slightest going to do stupid stuff that will upset contributors. They follow the forums and they are well aware of what is going on. They dont want any backlash as we've seen at other agencies. They know that having a positive contributor base is eminent to be successful.
As for the IPO, the investors they attract are aware of the philosophy at SS and they know that squeezing contributors is not something SS wan therets to do. So they know what they are getting into. Its all just really thought out, at SS they have a plan, a vision, and everyone involved is on the same wavelength. Its all about bringing success to Shutterstock, the contributors and the buyers.
Really, really interesting stuff (and thanks for the compliment). Good luck in getting a position with SS! You are certainly committed enough to deserve one. Very glad to hear that SS understand the connection between their contributors' success and their own.
394
« on: November 01, 2013, 17:51 »
Does your $9 RPD include Getty?
No. Getty RPD is about twice that.
I refer the Honourable Member to his previous beliefs, espoused on this forum today, that to not roll IS and GI earnings together, for the purpose of reporting, was both illogical and unreasonable. Indeed he criticised the Honourable Member for St Louis, Mr S J Locke (Independent), for doing just that. Now he does it himself when 'quoting RPD'.
395
« on: November 01, 2013, 15:42 »
At the moment. i think you are by far the most enthusiastic public istock exclusive. I am not seeing anyone else post so positively about istock like you do. Not even on the istock forums, not on their facebookgroup or other places.
And any public comment,especially a positive one, is free advertising for an agency.
Hmm __ good point. Tickstock could easily be an Istock admin in disguise.
... or a PR agency
I'm thinking they could find someone better to do their PR don't you?
Not at all. You're well worth all the money they're paying you. I just hope they are paying you as it would be really sad otherwise.
396
« on: November 01, 2013, 15:18 »
At the moment. i think you are by far the most enthusiastic public istock exclusive. I am not seeing anyone else post so positively about istock like you do. Not even on the istock forums, not on their facebookgroup or other places.
And any public comment,especially a positive one, is free advertising for an agency.
Hmm __ good point. Tickstock could easily be an Istock admin in disguise. Obvious when you think about it!
397
« on: November 01, 2013, 13:41 »
It is the same as when you buy houses or cars.
Entities are entities.
So it means that I and my dad can have both an accont no matter if we share same pc?
No. I think JPSDK means you and your Dad can both live in the same house and ride in the same car. He doesn't mention anything about SS.
398
« on: November 01, 2013, 11:01 »
My theory is that agencies have been selling images so cheaply, for so long, that it's gotten to the point where a growing number of customers simply don't need that many images anymore. I'm not suggesting that they have stopped buying, but perhaps they buy less than they used to?
I can't back this up with data. But for years many have argued that there was no difference between selling 5 images for $7 each and 100 images for $0.35 each. It still pays the same, right? The difference is the former option theoretically keeps demand higher (because I only own 5 images and I need 95 more), whereas the latter option reduces demand more quickly (I already have 100 images, I don't need any more).
I don't think the agencies have all the answers, regardless of their data. It could be that they realize they are killing demand long term by grabbing market share now, and are looking to make their money and run before the market collapses.
I have a printer friend who supplies marketing materials for small to medium local businesses. Five years ago he was spending a few hundred quid per year buying stock images on his clients' behalf for their projects. Nowadays however they nearly always supply their own images taken by themselves (usually of their own premises, staff or services in action). Digital cameras are just so cheap and easy to use that almost anyone can produce a passable image.
399
« on: November 01, 2013, 08:45 »
My entry is also deleted. I think there were too many facts at once about fotolia. 
That's a shame. I thought your post provided useful information to the group and was certainly heartfelt. The wording was strong because it reflected your feelings __ quite understandingly so.
It would be interesting to know if this was a decision taken by the site, or if there was some pressure from Fotolia.
What 'pressure' could FT bring to bear here? They don't appear to advertise on MSG and, unlike Scott and Anthony from SS, they do not bother to contribute or help here either.
400
« on: November 01, 2013, 07:28 »
Cool! Looks like the place to be, unlike istock that closed their office in Berlin.
Get yourself along there Jasmine! Check this out. SS are currently recruiting for a staggering 93 positions worldwide; http://www.shutterstock.com/jobs.mhtml
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 210
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
