|
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 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 64
626
« on: March 20, 2014, 14:29 »
You know Gbalex, you say a lot of stuff that makes sense. And I think you have me convinced that we could and should earn more than what we currently earn at Shutterstock. Your endless posting of the same quotes over and over probably worked.
What I dont get is that you are know moaning over their location. After all is said and done you come across as a bitter and jealous person. You are probably not that, so maybe you want to stop moaning over where they set up office.
Someone else mentioned in another thread when you brought it up that they could possibly move to a cheap office somewhere in the middle of nowhere, but they need to hire close to 300 staff, with certain skills. You dont find that everywhere. Thats why companies set up office in certain places.
Business is business, there is no room for jealousy. Why would I be jealous of a company I believe is making poor business decisions which put it at a competitive disadvantage long term?
I do expect the companies I work with to make sound business decisions and when they do not we ALL have the right to let the world know what we think of those choices and we can also choose to put a larger portion of our images elsewhere.
I posted this link earlier in the thread, from the comments you made I will assume you skipped it. It details plenty of areas in the US that have greater numbers of tech and advertising employees available for hire. And those areas also have lower cost of office space and living expenses. In fact SS could have bought superior office space with less money than they chose to spend on tenant improvements this year alone. Now instead of owning outright they will have to pay 3 million in office rent every year; while their competitors can spend those funds on advertizing etc.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg369602/#msg369602
Are you suggesting that Shutterstock should fire 300 employees and hire 300 new staff elsewhere? I figured from your comments on your dads fortune 500 company you were more social than that. Now I think laying off 300 staff to reduce cost so you can earn more seems okay in your book.
It is a fortune 200 company and they have moved employees, when making strategic changes. They did not fire employees but paid all relocation expenses for those who understood that there was more opportunity at the new location for company and employee growth. The employees that did not want to move, stayed at the old office location which became a smaller regional office.
627
« on: March 20, 2014, 14:02 »
You know Gbalex, you say a lot of stuff that makes sense. And I think you have me convinced that we could and should earn more than what we currently earn at Shutterstock. Your endless posting of the same quotes over and over probably worked.
What I dont get is that you are know moaning over their location. After all is said and done you come across as a bitter and jealous person. You are probably not that, so maybe you want to stop moaning over where they set up office.
Someone else mentioned in another thread when you brought it up that they could possibly move to a cheap office somewhere in the middle of nowhere, but they need to hire close to 300 staff, with certain skills. You dont find that everywhere. Thats why companies set up office in certain places.
Business is business, there is no room for jealousy. Why would I be jealous of a company I believe is making poor business decisions which put it at a competitive disadvantage long term? I do expect the companies I work with to make sound business decisions and when they do not we ALL have the right to let the world know what we think of those choices. We can also choose to put a larger portion of our images elsewhere. I posted this link earlier in the thread, from the comments you made I will assume you skipped it. It details plenty of areas in the US that have greater numbers of tech and advertising employees available for hire. And those areas also have lower cost of office space and living expenses. In fact SS could have bought superior office space for less money, than they chose to spend on tenant improvements this year alone. Now instead of owning outright they will have to pay 3 million in office rent every year; while their competitors can spend those funds on advertizing etc. http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg369602/#msg369602
628
« on: March 20, 2014, 13:46 »
At this stage in the game, why would anyone want to open a business where you had to take the bread off the table of your suppliers to remain competitive.
so you are afraid of paying us badly, oh right
anyway, does that mean that Stocksy and Symbio are going to fail?
Stocksy, DT, etc. are very low overhead. That gives them an competitive advantage and more room for suppliers to earn a fair income. That said I do not envy those companies they have a very rough road ahead of them because Shutterstock has chosen to undercut buyer pricing while paying suppliers less every year to gain market share. As you know they have no problem admitting this to the world. If Stocksy can overcome those odds, while paying suppliers a fair percentage they will have my admiration.
629
« on: March 20, 2014, 12:28 »
1 - its not your company and Jon haven't consulted you
2 - Jon haven't talked about how expensive is to live or hire people in NY, you have...
again why don't you open your agency and run it as you say, we would be delighted to contribute to it 
I can remember as a kid tying to convince my father to move the main office to one of our satellite locations by the sea. He responded with anger and called me selfish. He asked me to think about how the move would affect different families I knew who worked for the company. He asked me where they would live with the incomes they made. Wise business owners set up their companies to succeed long term in very competitive environments. And they make those decisions with everyone who works for the company in mind. They locate in areas that will give the company competitive advantages without being prohibitively expensive. And they make sure those locals also offer the employees who work for them good quality of life. At this stage in the game, why would anyone want to open a business where you had to take the bread off the table of your suppliers to remain competitive. My father can go to sleep at night because for many years he has made choices based on what is best for the company as a whole. Jon not so much, thou it has worked out nicely for him.
630
« on: March 20, 2014, 11:57 »
.."opslog jeg min ridder hjlm, og de s jeg var Holger Danske og ingen formummet sklm"..
Sentence from old lyrics we learned in school.
translates loosely, "open your helms visir so you can be recognized as who you are".
Thats what men do. They dare, also when it costs. They are men.
There are tons of excuses, for this and that, there are lots of good reasons, but it all boils down to to dare to be who you are.
And if you dont, there is no place in Valhalla for you.
When you expressed your views on SS they responded by sending you to hell with a ban. Thus you can no longer express any of your views at shutterstock.
631
« on: March 20, 2014, 11:47 »
632
« on: March 19, 2014, 15:58 »
In all fairness, Istock goes down all the time. This is the first time I can remember DT having any down time in years. They are one of the most reliable sites. It isn't really a fair comparison.
I would agree with that, I do think they are one of the most reliable and bug free sites.
633
« on: March 19, 2014, 09:02 »
It hurts all of us....and reinforces the impression of some buyers that microstock providers are makeshift cloud setups put together with rubber bands and gaffer tape, maintained by someone called Norman who still lives with his mum.
The sites have become to large to be stable. I always admired Dreamstime for keeping the numbers lower than the rest of the sites. Unfortunately they succumbed to the "we have the highest number of images" pressure and started accepting more images this year. Lets hope they invest in their site as problems grow, unlike the two largest sites which "are makeshift cloud setups put together with rubber bands and gaffer tape, maintained by someone called Norman who still lives with his mum."
634
« on: March 17, 2014, 22:07 »
I have never spent time trying to figure out who is who on this site. I pay attention to the what the person posts. I value contributors who ask questions and exhibit consistency of thoughts, values, ideals. I know quite a few people here, however I do not find them more credible than some anonymous posters who consistently make good points or ask valuable questions.
635
« on: March 17, 2014, 17:57 »
I have noticed a drop in honest feed back once the campaign to villainize anonymous contributions took hold here.
If you want a pasteurized board where everyone is afraid to say what they think go to the mirco boards. I find sycophantic feed back designed to win preferential favor with the sites distasteful, I would rather hear honest uncensored feedback from someone who is anonymous.
To wrap it up, I prefer widespread anonymity to the axiom: I don't want yes-men around me. I want everyone to tell the truth, even if it costs them their jobs!
If you don't want yes men and want the truth why are you hiding?
Do I question your choices or follow you around the boards taking jabs at your posts? You are entitled to conduct your business and express your beliefs any way you please. I intend to do the same no matter how many jump on the slam band wagon. When did the lines become so blurred in this business that everyone thinks they should be entitled to business information that should remain private. How many other business's share the type of information we do on microstock sites. If you post non anonymously that you have great sales, within a few days you will notice that other contributors are copying your best selling images. And if you post that you have poor sales, it does not take long for the same crowd to offer derogatory comments regarding your port.
636
« on: March 17, 2014, 16:23 »
To wrap it up, I prefer widespread anonymity to the axiom: I don't want yes-men around me. I want everyone to tell the truth, even if it costs them their jobs!
that is why you are anonymous...
As usual you missed the point Luis. Just the opposite, there is no need for people to expose themselves to retribution from the sites if they remain anonymous. Or maybe you just enjoy taking snippy sideways jabs. You changed the meaning of my post by highlighting the wrong part, It should be like so. To wrap it up, I prefer widespread anonymity to the axiom: I don't want yes-men around me. I want everyone to tell the truth, even if it costs them their jobs!
that is why you are anonymous...
Edit to clear ambiguity
637
« on: March 17, 2014, 14:13 »
I have noticed a drop in honest feed back once the campaign to villainize anonymous contributions took hold here.
If you want a pasteurized board where everyone is afraid to say what they think go to the mirco boards. I find sycophantic feed back designed to win preferential favor with the sites distasteful, I would rather hear honest uncensored feedback from someone who is anonymous.
To wrap it up, I prefer widespread anonymity to the axiom: I don't want yes-men around me. I want everyone to tell the truth, even if it costs them their jobs!
638
« on: March 13, 2014, 15:03 »
Gbalex, if you and the others saw this drop a year ago then it coincided with the dropping of crowns over the gdrive affair. Could it be that the resulting influx of ex-exclusives hit some key areas of your portfolio and you lost out because of the extra competition?
I can guarantee you there was no policy decision made to hide the portfolios of long-established, high-paid contributors, because if there was I would have been buried, too (I joined in October 2004 and have always been in the top pay group, ever since they started introducing different levels). I haven't heard Gostwyck complaining, either, and I think he joined in 2005.
So if there is no malice it follows that your problem lies somewhere else, and the only thing I can think of is that some files that had had not previously been visible, either because they were buried or because they had only just arrived, went into competition with your best-sellers and you lost out.
That would be most likely to happen if your sales relied heavily on a small niche that others had trouble getting into, or if you were heavily reliant on a very small group of files for a large percentage of your income, so the loss of pole-position for a handful could hit you hard.
Or you could believe that Oringer picked on your portfolio specifically for demotion while leaving Gostwyck and me alone. But I don't think that is a conspiracy theory that will fly.
I can't see your portfolio so I can't be more specific about why it might have been vulnerable to competition.
Think what you will, it happened in one day. Unfortunately I am not alone and it is not a conspiracy theory.
I never said you were alone or it was a conspiracy theory, I said that there must be a rational reason for it other than the demotion of all top-level contributors.
It seems to me that the most likely explanation is that a rival portfolio from an ex-exclusive got dropped into the best match one day, was given its moment in the sun and promptly started picking up sales that were previously going to you, and the combination of new files and quick sales cemented those files above yours.
Of course, I don't know anything at all about your portfolio so it's just the best hypothesis I can offer for a sudden collapse in sales for a limited number of high-ranking old-timers on SS.
Or maybe there was a search shift for certain categories of files, causing older stuff to sink and more recent stuff to rise. Istock did that back in 06 or 07 and a lot of people saw their sales slump 40% or so overnight, I was lucky that time and only suffered a minor hit - so these algorithm changes affect different kinds of portfolious differently. If the target was the "38c crew" we would all get hit the same at the same time.
So people approaching the 38c level don't need to expect it will lead to a demotion in search ranking, it almost certainly is not something they target.
PS: Which day did it happen on? I'd be interested to see if there was any sign of a shift affecting my sales at that moment.
If that were the case our new images would sell. In fact they do not. I do agree that different types of ports have been affected differently. By chance do you shoot in an area not well covered. It happened at the beginning of March 2013
639
« on: March 13, 2014, 12:42 »
There are a number of biases on Wall Street that investors can take advantage of to beat the market. Some are human psychology, others the result of wishful groupthink from those who are invested. That is why so many investors and analyst watch insider trading so closely.
Companies who have NOT gone public to monetize, focus on the long term health of the company.
CEOs of companies who have gone public are often criticized for managing for the short term instead of the long term and they do so in response to Wall Street's demands. Because it is a fact that analysts and institutional investors are overly focused on the short term because they have a smaller window of opportunity to make $$$$$$$$$$ hay. Think of all the public tech companies that ran up to bubbles that burst.
For example, 70% of stock in this country is owned for 12 months or less and that can encourage companies to target short-term opportunities at the expense of long-term stability and growth. In this case it would also be at our expense.
As for the drops the market tends to overweight immediate news as we've seen in the recent past with the debt ceiling standoff, the financial crisis, and the fiscal cliff. The analyst will be looking for this quarters results.
640
« on: March 13, 2014, 10:49 »
gbalex,
have you tried talking to someone from SS directly? They have admins for "contributor success", wouldt it be worth contacting them?
I am new to SS, so I dont know how accessible the staff is,but since they even send people here, wouldt it be worth a try?
Thanks for the concern cobalt. Yes I contacted them multiple times and got no where. I know of at least 6 other contributors who have also contacted them and they received the same non response we did.
Was it a non response or was it a response just not confirming your theory?
I think Baldrick hit the nail.
Ron you and Louis are starting to remind me of yippy little poodles following me around while nipping at my heels. Instead of playing hall room monitors and planing what other people should be doing and saying. Focus on forming some of your own contributions to the larger community. You can attempt to negate and suppress the experience of long time contributors if you wish, however that will certainly not change the facts or even suppress them, because the community at large talks to each other in private. The tact you have taken will leave you out of those conversations.
641
« on: March 13, 2014, 10:39 »
Gbalex, if you and the others saw this drop a year ago then it coincided with the dropping of crowns over the gdrive affair. Could it be that the resulting influx of ex-exclusives hit some key areas of your portfolio and you lost out because of the extra competition?
I can guarantee you there was no policy decision made to hide the portfolios of long-established, high-paid contributors, because if there was I would have been buried, too (I joined in October 2004 and have always been in the top pay group, ever since they started introducing different levels). I haven't heard Gostwyck complaining, either, and I think he joined in 2005.
So if there is no malice it follows that your problem lies somewhere else, and the only thing I can think of is that some files that had had not previously been visible, either because they were buried or because they had only just arrived, went into competition with your best-sellers and you lost out.
That would be most likely to happen if your sales relied heavily on a small niche that others had trouble getting into, or if you were heavily reliant on a very small group of files for a large percentage of your income, so the loss of pole-position for a handful could hit you hard.
Or you could believe that Oringer picked on your portfolio specifically for demotion while leaving Gostwyck and me alone. But I don't think that is a conspiracy theory that will fly.
I can't see your portfolio so I can't be more specific about why it might have been vulnerable to competition.
Think what you will, it happened in one day. Unfortunately I am not alone and it is not a conspiracy theory.
642
« on: March 12, 2014, 19:59 »
gbalex,
have you tried talking to someone from SS directly? They have admins for "contributor success", wouldt it be worth contacting them?
I am new to SS, so I dont know how accessible the staff is,but since they even send people here, wouldt it be worth a try?
Thanks for the concern cobalt. Yes I contacted them multiple times and got no where. I know of at least 6 other contributors who have also contacted them and they received the same non response we did.
what things do you have in common with those 6 contributors? 10 years at SS? same or different content? level of earnings? do they contribute to many agencies? give us more information so we can understand your experience
Louis after the remarks you and a few others have made to me on these boards, why would I entertain any of your questions? As for the other people who have experienced drops, don't you think it should be up to them to give you the details? Some of them talk about it on shutterstock. Ask them yourself, if you genuinely care about their welfare!
643
« on: March 12, 2014, 19:34 »
I am sorry to hear that. Losing nearly half your income from an agency in one night is very serious.
Diversification is really important for us all.
Thank you, I completely agree with your assessment. If we look at this or any business with rose colored glass's and fail to diversify or heed the warning signs, we leave ourselves vulnerable to rough roads.
644
« on: March 12, 2014, 18:02 »
gbalex,
have you tried talking to someone from SS directly? They have admins for "contributor success", wouldt it be worth contacting them?
I am new to SS, so I dont know how accessible the staff is,but since they even send people here, wouldt it be worth a try?
Thanks for the concern cobalt. Yes I contacted them multiple times and got no where. I know of at least 6 other contributors who have also contacted them and they received the same non response we did.
645
« on: March 12, 2014, 17:52 »
Every company can pay 70%. It's just that few choose to do so.
But you would make less money if they paid you more.
...
Jon Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman
Yes, as far as our contributors go, we've had 30% of them and we've seen competitors come in and try to play with that number. What happens is if they payout more to contributors, they leave less room for marketing spend and that causes less sales in the long run and less payout to their contributors. So with this we really found the sweet spot over the past 10 years with the subscription plan, with the 30% payout, and competitors have come and gone and tried different things but we haven't seen much change...
Competitors have come and gone for a variety of reasons. Some have come and gone while trying to pay less than 30%, so the percentage often is not the problem.
I also don't understand Jon's comment that 30% is the "sweet spot". As far as I know, Shutterstock never experimented with other percentages.
This is possibly one of the only businesses in the world where you'll hear companies say that they need to keep 70% of every sale on a digital product that costs them very little to acquire and sell.
And yet other businesses dealing in physical goods that need to be warehoused and shipped do well on smaller percentages. Or even on other digital goods. How can Apple survive by only keeping 30% of each iTunes sale? They probably have more marketing spend than Shutterstock or any other stock agency. They put physical gift cards in stores around the world, they run tv ads, magazine ads, etc.
The only problem with contributor percentages is that we've been conditioned to believe that no one can pay us more than 30% and have enough left over to promote the business and pay employees.
I agree. We forget that Jon was speaking to a group of analyst at the time and his job is to sell his company to those analyst. His intent was to convince them that shutterstock is now the market leader and will remain the market leader. Shutterstocks stock prices depend on key shutterstock insiders making a good sell and of course they are going to down play the downside. What Jon fails to mention is that if his competitors do not spend millions going public, 11 plus million for tenant improvements, 3 million on annual office rent etc. The competitors will have plenty to spend on sales and marketing as well as raises for their contributors. And I am certain that this was not lost on the analyst.
646
« on: March 12, 2014, 17:16 »
I'm sorry, that just makes no sense. Unless these long term contributors have real info and not just theories about newer contributors being favored somehow, all of it is just that, theories.
Just for the record, I have never claimed to have anything other than a theory. In fact, I did not originate this theory. I was responding to another member who was expressing his theory and getting a great deal of skepticism for it. Since my stats and experience exactly matched his theory, I choose to share that.
I don't imagine I have any insider info that anyone else doesn't have other than my own stats and observations. I am making educated guesses about what's going on based on my own experience and that of others I have either spoken to or read.
Isn't that all any of us can do? When your sales tank, or soar for that matter, you try to figure out why and collect as much information as you can from what sources are available. Is that proof? No. Are we going to get any "proof"? Not likely. This is not a court of law or a gov't inquiry it's a discussion board, and presumably that's what's happening - a discussion.
This is exactly why most people keep quiet about large drops. Lisa I am sorry you are experiencing the same type of drop and I am sorry that you have been caught up in the digs. I did not mention my drops for months. In the end I brought it up because I don't think I am going to see a recovery and I thought others who are experiencing the same scenario ought to know they are not alone. It has been almost exactly a year now. It is hard to imagine that after 10 years of consistent and strong sales that the bottom would drop out in just one day and stay there for a year. It is pretty clear that some would like to assign blame and others would just as soon employ the ostrich metaphor to manage their business. What ever happened I think it is safe to say shutterstock pulled the trigger that caused our images to disappear from the searches. They alone know how and why. We can guess using anecdotal evidence which is all that is left to us.
647
« on: March 12, 2014, 14:18 »
The BigStock like royalty structure implemented on SS is closer than we think...
How are your sales @ BS
648
« on: March 12, 2014, 14:17 »
All that chart means is that investors have got cold feet over Getty's latest giveaway. It doesn't mean SS is doing any worse than it was a week ago, just that stock market traders are having one of their panics. I doubt if any of them know more than we do about the market and where it is headed (and we've certainly been talking it down for a week, I bet that has an impact, too).
I agree, it is wary investors taking profit until they can see some evidence that Getty's move is actually exerting downward pressure. If there is minimal downward pressure I expect SSTK to move up again. At this point it is clear to anyone who can read the SEC reports, that shutterstock is doing fine. We will know more at the end of the next quarter.
649
« on: March 12, 2014, 14:08 »
Snip Venture Partners Insight, a major owner of Shutterstock , recently disposed of 2,000,000 shares of the company. The disposals took place at $0.00 per share, on dates ranging from February 27 to March 03, 2014. Insight still owns 3,339,748 shares of the company. Insight operates out of New York, NY. Some additional info was provided as follows: http://tinyurl.com/nuxh9kpShort Interest Expands By 57.5% For SSTKSnip The most recent short interest data has been released by the NASDAQ for the 07/15/2013 settlement date, which shows a 372,566 share increase in total short interest for Shutterstock Inc (SSTK_), to 1,020,693, an increase of 57.48% since 06/28/2013. http://tinyurl.com/pocscf8
650
« on: March 11, 2014, 21:04 »
 SSTK data by YCharts</p>
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
