|
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 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 210
501
« on: September 21, 2013, 15:09 »
I strongly suspect that a major acquisition is just around the corner. SS to buy DT maybe? Any other guesses?
Well maybe. But do they need to ? Is it worth the headache of integrating with DT or Fotolia when they could probably take most of that business via competition ?
And would they not be better sitting on the cash as a war chest ? Surely in the coming microstock price war those with the deepest pockets will be able to survive longest.
Also - don't they need the money in order to start diversifying on price ? Aren't they over-exposed to microstock (and therefore a price war) whilst being almost not there at midstock etc. Other companies can probably sustain a prolonged price war on microstock because they have other revenue streams and are not public.
All that said. Well done to the shareholders for ditching a significant proportion of their stock at what must surely be close to the top of this crazy cycle.
I think DT have quite a loyal following of customers and, it would seem to me, have held their share of the market remarkably well in the face of the SS juggernaut. Far better than IS or FT judging by my own numbers. I didn't upload to DT for 30 months and yet their proportion of my total earnings remained relatively static. They also generate the best RPD of the 'Big 4/5' by some margin too. I think DT would be a very good buy for SS __ they already have an office in the USA so integration, to the limited degree necessary, should be relatively simple. BigStock remain as a separate business with their own staff even though they are housed in the same building as SS. I think SS wants to acquire other agencies in order to grow quickly, have greater market share and more control of prices. They'll make more profit too which should help to keep the share price rising.
502
« on: September 21, 2013, 13:01 »
Lead underwriter Jefferies is pumping the deal. Is its buy rating on the shares a conflict of interest?
I strongly suspect that "pumping" is exactly the right word.
I strongly suspect that a major acquisition is just around the corner. SS to buy DT maybe? Any other guesses?
503
« on: September 20, 2013, 18:39 »
I don't think its one thing eg price changes that signifies panic its the sheer number of half arsed changes that don't seem to have a coherent pattern - e.g now accepting almost anything. Yes the "relaunch" needs some significant change at the same time and some kind of strategy framework where the changes fit in
It seems coherent to me, changes to compete better with Shutterstock. Shutterstock has many millions more files than Thinkstock and they want to close that gap. Exclusives could already upload as many as they liked (pretty much, I'm sure there was an exception or two but over a year probably not many) so the change really only allowed nonexclusives to upload more. Those images go straight to the Partner Program (at least they are supposed to), upload limits had limited how fast Thinkstock could grow and with the subscription model you need a large volume of new files.
Istock are still f*^ked IMHO. With their buggy, slow site which takes forever to do anything (it doesn't work at all with IE8 for example) then price pretty much becomes irrelevant. They won't be getting any new content from the independent contributors that actually matter either. It'll be a slow death ... but the writing is already on the wall and the situation is virtually irreversible. They've massively reduced prices for Main Collection, which has significantly increased volume for independent contributors ... whilst also reducing their (and Istock's) revenue by 40% ... and that volume increase for independents has to be impacting exclusives' sales and income. Guess what's going to happen next? Looks to me like Yuri has hitched his horse to the wrong cart at the worst possible moment. "PDWP"
504
« on: September 20, 2013, 12:59 »
News from Seeking Alpha; Shutterstock jumps on 4.6M share follow-on 1:13 PM
Shutterstock (SSTK +12.2%) shares jump after the company prices a 4.6M (600K overallotment) follow-on at $60/share.
The company is selling 1M shares, and founder and CEO Jon Oringer and Insight Venture Partners are releasing 3.6M.
SSTK price at time of publication: $67.68.http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/sstk
505
« on: September 19, 2013, 07:07 »
I'm disappointed they haven't featured a single female filmmaker. Certainly they exist.
... or a black one, or an Asian one, or a Jewish one, or a Muslim one, etc, etc. Who the bloody hell cares about the gender, race or religion of the artist? What's wrong with them choosing on the value of the product itself? I'm disappointed that you feel 'female filmmakers' deserve to be singled out for special treatment irrespective of their talent ... just because 'they exist'. What utter nonsense.
506
« on: September 18, 2013, 12:54 »
;
507
« on: September 18, 2013, 10:29 »
Interesting how clear the TOS is but how much confusion there is about the summary of those changes. It's almost like the summary is meant to mislead.
Compare the summary:
"If you decide to remove more than 100 items or 10% of your content, whichever is greater, Shutterstock has up to 90 days to accommodate the request."
to the actual TOS
"You may remove Content from your account at any time, provided that in any ninety (90) day period, you remove no more than (i) 100 items of Content and (ii) 10% of your Content, whichever is greater."
The summary says shutterstock has 90 days to accommodate the request and even adds "we expect this to go faster" while the TOS says you can't remove more than 10% or 100 files.
What I don't understand is why you are constantly posting on this thread when, being as you are exclusive, you don't have a dog in the race. I've just counted and 21 of the 98 total posts are from you __ way more than anyone else! Why?
508
« on: September 18, 2013, 09:14 »
<snip> So what appears to have happened in the last three years is a) iStock revenues have dropped a bit - by maybe 5%, contrary to the expectations of growth Istock revenues have dropped a bit? I think you'll find it's actually a lot more than 'a bit'! Dropping the prices on Main collection images alone will have reduced income from those by about 40% if my numbers are anything to go by. They certainly wouldn't have taken such drastic action unless the situation was critical. From what I read in the forums, particularly from exclusives with mature portfolios, I'd hazard a guess that Istock's revenue could easily be down 40% from their peak. The difference in revenue from my own portfolio is way more than that.
509
« on: September 18, 2013, 09:01 »
As we all can agree old files keep selling and new ones don't. Huh? I wouldn't agree with that at all. New images, if they're good ones, are selling very well indeed as far as I'm concerned. "It's not the arrows, it's the Indian" as they say.
510
« on: September 17, 2013, 19:25 »
By issuing more shares, they are diluting the value of the existing shareholders, but not by a whole lot, since they have 33 million shares outstanding. 1 million more are new shares, and 2 million are from "certain existing shareholders", which usually means shareholders from when they were private that have reached the lockup period.
Why do this? Most likely, this is the best time and method to capitalize on the big run up from the IPO. This gives them a war chest to jump on oppourtunities that may arise without having to borrow money, and proves to potential investors that they have the market power to raise capital.
What oppourtunities? Well, say that there was a once high flying competitor that needed to be put out of it's misery- some poorly managed hapless bunch of clowns that can't get it right, and are on an unsustainable path. And they were owned by a bunch of clowns that have burned through all the cash and just want out...
They're not 'issuing more shares' are they? I thought they were just transferring existing shares.
511
« on: September 17, 2013, 19:22 »
No, I agree it is probably about the future. And to me it sounds like bad news is coming.
I agree, damage control up front.
Don't panic people! I've been with SS for nearly 9 years now and still have every confidence in them. They are naturally maturing as a publically-quoted business and it is not surprising that they need to make minor adjustments to the TOS to reflect their current status. I think SS have a history of valuing their contributors and treating them fairly and I think that those fundamentals have been critical to their success. We all know what happened to IS when they lost the confidence of their content providers. Why on earth would SS want to do the same? Oringer still holds the majority of the stock and shareholders cannot 'force' him to do anything against his better judgement. If Oringer wants to 'rule the world' of stock imagery, which he clearly does, then messing about with contributors for short-term gain now would make no sense. He has a much bigger war to win yet.
512
« on: September 17, 2013, 15:30 »
Perhaps the gig is really up this time.
It's beginning to feel like it might not pull up enough to prevent a hard crash. I used to sell 150+ images a day, now I regard 20 as a normal day with three times the number of images.
Some of the problem is dilution of the library, that's been inevitable for years. We all saw that coming. But I do think a big problem is the destruction of the company as a trusted, desirable brand. I think they greatly underestimated how much cross over there was between buyers and contributors, if not directly then through a shared experience of the creative industry. Treat contributors badly, squeeze them until they squeak and customers leave in droves, as we have seen.
The new logo is good, but it'll take a concerted effort and real rewards to return the trust of designers and artists. iStock's dead in the water without them.
Yep. The real destruction started in Sept 2010 with the introduction of the hated RC system. It's all been downhill ever since ... and so it will remain until they get rid of it.
513
« on: September 17, 2013, 14:33 »
My uploads to Istock are permanently 'disabled' anyway (or until they increase their pathetic royalty rates).
514
« on: September 17, 2013, 13:48 »
I don't see a problem with the wait on a portion of your portfolio - we already accepted it with DT years ago (although if you remember they originally proposed 12 months no exceptions and we stopped uploading and fussed and they changed it to 6 months). I don't like it, but I can see that as they're dealing with larger companies as clients they need to accommodate more of these types of requests - grab the comp now and buy in a month or two.
I wish they would be more forthcoming about what exactly happens with these premier customers. What makes a customer premier; how many unwatermarked comps (at what size) can they have for how long without purchasing anything before SS will audit them to see what they're up to; do these higher prices paid for the premier customers who get unwatermarked comps show up in higher royalties for contributors when they do buy? Does that show up as a single and other download? Do they offer unwatermarked comps on subscriptions (one would think not, but as I had no idea they were even offering such a service, it makes me wonder how this works).
I wasn't comfortable when they introduced the Single and Other Downloads that they wouldn't give us any information about the price the customer paid or what the license terms were. I'm still not happy (but not unhappy enough to walk away from SS) as it may or may not be a good deal for us - the numbers can be high (yesterday I had one for $82.50 which was great, but I have no idea what I sold for that amount) but we can't know if we're being ripped off or fairly compensated. Finding out about these other Premier customers with special rates just adds to this concern that they are not being transparent enough with contributors about what terms they sell our content on.
Our content, not theirs, and we can't see the terms of the sales (other than subscriptions, enhanced licenses and on demand).
As far as not discussing earnings, they post an earnings schedule with royalty rates - how can we not discuss publicly what they post on their web site? The full section in the new TOS says:
Confidentiality
By submitting any Content to Shutterstock, you acknowledge that you will acquire certain confidential information, including but not limited to royalty rates, royalty payments and earnings data (collectively, "Confidential Information"). Confidential Information shall not be disclosed to any third party other than representatives, agents, attorneys, accountants, auditors and advisors with a bona fide need to know, who shall first agree to keep the terms confidential.
I might also argue that as fellow contributors have a need to know about rising or falling monthly earnings, it'd be fine to keep discussing it. However, that's a stretch and as they can terminate my account at any time for pretty much any reason, I'm a little concerned that this might give them an excuse. Section 3.a. about termination of our accounts for various reasons ends "..., or for convenience."
People are always writing about guesstimates of public companies' earnings and whether they're on the rise or fall. I don't see why writing about how well (or not) SS is doing is suddenly not acceptable.
I don't talk about my monthly totals in $$ in forums, but I don't like being told I can't 
I'm not thrilled at the Facebook and other social media section not making any mention of steps they would take - such as watermarking our content - to prevent theft when "marketing" our work this way. I hope that they would, but I think they should say so.
Great post Jo Ann. May be the apparent lack of transparency on the prices paid for SOD's, etc is mainly to do with commercial sensitivity (i.e. they don't want their competitors knowing what they're doing)? Overall though I think SS are by far the most transparent of any agency by virtue of the fact that they publish their financials. At least we do know exactly how much profit they make from us. I wouldn't mind seeing the same from IS, FT and DT.
515
« on: September 17, 2013, 11:51 »
How would me talking about my earnings affect the share price, when their numbers are public anyway?
Financials are only published every quarter. It's the periods in between that are sensitive.
516
« on: September 17, 2013, 11:46 »
Good luck enforcing that. You'd need a full time staff just doing that. 
Hmmm. Must admit if I had friends or family who owned SSTK stock then I'd certainly be keeping them appraised of how I thought the business might be doing in relation to my own earnings. Who wouldn't?
517
« on: September 17, 2013, 11:43 »
The part that you cannot talk about your own earning does not seem to be fair.
It's because SS are now a publically traded company and therefore have to comply with regulations. Significant changes to your own earnings for example could be deemed 'insider information' so they don't want contributors blabbing about it all over the internet. It might lead to a situation in which some traders have information, that could affect the share price, that others do not.
518
« on: September 17, 2013, 10:59 »
I read those. All very reasonable IMO. #1 and #2 seem to be a direct result of Yuri's departure leaving them and their customers in the lurch. No wonder they want to avoid that sort of thing in the future.
Also pleased about the second paragraph in #4 stating that if your photo depicts sensitive uses, it is automatically available for sensitive uses. I have my images opted out of sensitive uses because it's too broad, but I do have some photos of people smoking, or experiencing illness and it would be silly if the opt out prevented them for being used for those purposes.
All in all, a smart batch of changes.
I'd agree __ especially about #1&2! There's nothing there that particularly concerns me.
519
« on: September 17, 2013, 10:32 »
Read a summary of the changes here; http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/terms-of-service-updatesHere's the details; At Shutterstock, one of our most important goals is to support your success by delivering healthy and reliable earnings to you. We do that by growing and investing in customer relationships. Over the years, that investment has led us to deliver record milestones of 750,000 customers, 300 million paid downloads, $150 million in contributor earnings, and royalties of up to $120 or more per download.
We also have goals to minimize changes and to be open and transparent when changes do have to be made. With the latter goal in mind, wed like to explain a few modifications to our Terms of Service. A summary of the most significant changes is below; please consult the Terms of Service for the full details.
1. If you decide to remove more than 100 items or 10% of your content, whichever is greater, Shutterstock has up to 90 days to accommodate the request. With over 29 million assets, were seeing record levels of content growth and contributor activity, but also record levels of customer activity. As we grow, there are new technical, workflow and customer realities that we need to accommodate. Ninety days gives us some time to make sure images come out of search results gracefully, as well as handle other administrative and technical tasks. In practice, we expect this to go faster.
2. Customers that have shown a commitment to licensing an image can convert their comp licenses into full licenses. Some of our most trusted large accounts request unwatermarked preview images (also called comp images) in exchange for paying higher rates and as a result of that, royalties when they purchase a license. If you choose to remove your images, but a customer has already signaled the intention to license an image, they can complete the transaction and well make sure that you get paid. This avoids any last-minute changes for customers when layouts have already been approved or a project is close to completion.
3. We can market your content via social media. We already market your content to customers through many different channels, and social media is one of the most powerful ways to drive customers to your work. This update formalizes our ability to use social media channels for marketing with the intention of growing sales for you.
4. Images used in commercial contexts related to tobacco use are now considered a type of sensitive use. Unlike many of our competitors who dont give you a choice, Shutterstock puts you in control of whether your images can be licensed for sensitive use. In reality, sensitive uses are rare and a very tiny percentage of image uses, but opting-in gives you access to higher royalties and the highest number of sales opportunities. This minor adjustment brings our licenses in line with those of competitors and industry standards.
In addition, if your image or your description of your image already depicts a sensitive subject, you acknowledge that its appropriate for sensitive use (for example, a model-released image clearly depicting drug abuse being used for a poster campaign against drugs).
For a full explanation of sensitive use, see here.
5. If you are paid by paper check, $500 is the minimum payout threshold. We want to spend the majority of our time driving sales and royalties for you. In a digital world, relatively few contributors get paid by paper checks. Were raising the payout threshold for paper checks to $500 to increase efficiency and decrease the amount of time we spend on paperwork.
6. Shutterstock has the option to control litigation and costs in the event of a legal complaint. To indemnify means to protect against damages. In this case, depending on which party has offered to protect the other from damages in a legal claim, theres mutual agreement to promptly let the other party know about the complaint. The protected party also agree to cooperate in defending against the complaint. This clause also contains specific language with regards to the obligations of each party, including financial obligations.
7. Confidentiality: We Protect And Respect Your Privacy. Please Respect Ours. As an artist at Shutterstock, youre in a position to acquire information that you would not otherwise receive outside of our platform. Your earnings information might sometimes contain data that can be used by our competitors to reverse-engineer our products and services. We work hard to both protect and respect your privacy; we respectfully ask that you do the same and keep specific information about your earnings private. General characterizations are fine.
These are highlights of the most important changes to our Terms of Service. Please consult the full document for additional details, and please let us know if you have any questions at [email protected].
Best Regards,
The Shutterstock Team
520
« on: September 17, 2013, 09:05 »
To me, "reviewers" means "inspectors," so the first time I read this I thought they were poking fun at their own inspectors. People who review my advertising work are "clients," "creative directors" and "account executives." I would never call them reviewers. I would probably use the word "clients" in this instance.
I think 'reviewers', in the context in which they are using it, means 'those who express an opinion' on a given subject. As in 'film or theatre reviewers'.
521
« on: September 17, 2013, 08:53 »
I'm on target for an unusually good month at DT although I suspect that I have merely been on the right side of the cyclical 'feast or famine' line and now I will have to pay for it with several days of lean pickings.
Strangely DT, IS and FT are almost neck and neck for me this month. That's a measure of just how much IS and FT have slumped rather than how well DT are doing though.
522
« on: September 16, 2013, 21:03 »
it might be helpful to have some kind of guide on how to:
* disable files at various sites
* shut down entire portfolio at various sites
they are all different and it's even more time consuming to disable a file at some of them than it is to upload.
I am ditching all the small players and it's proving to be quite painful.
anyone got any easy advice for:
Cutcaster, Canstock, Veer, Stockami, Pond5 etc....
Stock imagery is long-term project and you should choose your partners very carefully before jumping into bed (i.e. handing over your valuable portfolio) with them. This thread reads like it's from a dating site where folk are asking how to most easily ditch the latest irksome date they've just met. That's not professional and it's not good business.
523
« on: September 16, 2013, 16:58 »
524
« on: September 16, 2013, 14:37 »
OMG ... they're changing the name on the front page! The site will probably have outages for weeks afterwards if history is anything to go by. This is very ambitious territory for developers in Calgary.
525
« on: September 15, 2013, 07:59 »
Getty is doing fine, don't believe the hype on Bloomberg
What's the problem ? a 10-20% loss ? so what, there's economic crisis in the entire West, many industries are going to be shut down, Stock photography instead is not yet in dire straights, Getty selling a bit less is compensated by SS and some other micros selling a bit more.
I would be more scared in the pants of Apple or Microsoft or BlackBerry.
Debts : they will be repaid, it will just take a bit longer than expected and therefore cost a bit more in interests, but that's all, do you think banks have any problems ? their business is to keep you in debt forever not to make you pay back faster !
As for premium vs midstock content : it may be an indicator that the buyers are changing their needs and their budgets, actually i would have expected a drop in their editorial sales but instead they're doing fine.
But Getty aren't 'doing fine' are they? Their revenues appear to have been roughly static since 2007 as you can read here; http://company.gettyimages.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=169&isource=corporate_website_ind_press_releaseBack in 2007 Istock were still a tiny part of the business but over the last 5-6 years they probably grew to become 30-40% of total revenues. It's pretty obvious from the recent drastic actions that Istock's revenues are imploding and it's not easy to see if and when they will be able to improve the situation. If revenue continues to fall then servicing the mountain of debt, bestowed by H&F as a parting gift to Getty, may become increasingly difficult. Personally I think we are witnessing a massive upheaval, of truly geological proportions, within our industry. It won't happen overnight but the process is most definitely underway.
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 210
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
