Snip
And your next question comes from the line of Brian Fitzgerald with Jefferies. Please proceed.
Brian Fitzgerald - Jefferies

When you guys think of the rev share agreements with contributors, there are competitors out there that have more generous revenue shares. Can you -- would that tend to impact or take share from you guys over the course of time or can you talk about how that dynamic is panning out?

And then, it seems like guys have been driving down pricing among your major competitors. They're now trying to price match.

Have you seen any real impact from that thus far? Thanks.

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.

Thilo Semmelbauer - President and COO
Yes, this is Thilo. May be I'll touch on the pricing topic a little bit. Obviously there's always lots of experimentation going on in this space. We ourselves are doing experimentation all the time. In the last 12 months we've launched and tested multiple different pricing plans. When you look at our offering, we really average, as you know about $2 per image, but for high volume users it could be a $1 or less and for lower volume users it could be significantly more including with our enterprises customers who are paying in the range of $20 and up. Sometimes hundreds per image depending on the licensing rights and so forth as we've talked about before.

At this point we are not seeing anything that is really changing the landscape from what it has been which is quite active in experimentation. As Jon mentioned, our acquisition costs are stable even as we increased our marketing spend, which is a great sign and our retention continues to be very, very strong. We haven't seen any degradation and we would continue to see positive movement there, so not much impact.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2037843-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q4-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

Quote from: gbalex on February 21, 2014, 20:13

http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1902033

Snip

Revenue

Revenue for the fourth quarter was $68.0 million, a 38% increase from $49.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2012.  Revenue for the full year was $235.5 million, a 39% increase from $169.6 million in 2012.

Net Income

Net income for the fourth quarter of 2013 was $7.9 million as compared to $29.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2012. Net income available to common shareholders/members for the fourth quarter of 2013 was $7.8 million or $0.22 per share on a fully diluted basis as compared to $28.7 million or $0.88 per share on a fully diluted basis in the fourth quarter of 2012.

Net income for the full year 2013 was $26.5 million as compared to $47.5 million in 2012.  Net income available to shareholders/common members for the full year was $26.4 million or $0.77 per share on a fully diluted basis as compared to $42.6 million or $1.79 per share on a fully diluted basis in 2012.

Both net income and net income available to common shareholders/members for the fourth quarter of 2012 and the full year of 2012 include a one-time tax benefit of $28.8 million related to the Company's reorganization from an LLC to a C-corporation on October 5, 2012.


To put those numbers into perspective Net income at Shutterstock dropped by 21 million in 2013 compared to Net income in 2012, despite the fact that overall Revenue rose by 65.9 million in 2013 over revenue in 2012.

The analyst should love those numbers and will no doubt have questions.

isn't the answer the 28.8 million "one-time tax benefit"?

Revenue for the full year was $235.5 million, a 39% increase from $169.6 million in 2012. 

Net Income for the full year was $26.5 million, a -44.3 % decrease from $47.5 million in 2012. 

Lets say you gave the same one time tax benefit in 2013 $26.5 million + $28.8 million = $55.3 million

With an equal tax credit Net Income for the full year of 2013 would then be $55.3 million, a -16% increase from $47.5 million Net Income in 2012. 

Besides the relocation and new product expenses I have not been able to find increased spends, in fact they are a lower %.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2037843-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q4-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

Snip
Shifting now to operating expenses for the fourth quarter gross margin was 61.6% in line with the prior quarter. Contributor royalties, which make up approximately 28% of revenue, have remained fairly consistent over the past several quarters.

Snip
Sales and marketing expense were $16.5 million or roughly 24% of revenue. This was in line as a percent of revenue as compared to the prior year.

Snip
Product development expense was $6.5 million in the quarter, roughly 9.5% of revenue. This was down from 11.5% of revenue in the prior year

Snip
G&A expense in the fourth quarter was $6.5 million or about 9.5% of revenue. And we expect G&A to be approximately 11% of revenue in Q1 2014. As we continue to expand our operations and we will also incur approximately $1 million in a one-time expense related to the completion of the relocation of our headquarters office in New York City

Snip
Turning now to headcount, we ended the quarter and the year with a total of 345 employees worldwide, this is an increase of about 47% from a year ago

Snip
As noted previously, we had planned to spend approximately $10 million in total related to our office relocation in New York City, approximately $2 million of that will extend past the year-end of 2013 into the first quarter of 2014.

Snip
Tim Bixby - CFO
In terms of the leverage and the model, you're not seeing a leverage externally that we can see internally and that's really when we kind of pull apart the business a little bit and say what are we spending to drive and support the core as opposed to what are we spending to drive new products and innovations that aren't driving significant revenue. And you can see really anywhere from 3 to 5 percentage points of
spend going new areas that aren't yet driving a lot of revenue.

That's a good point. I'm sure they will want to know what all the money was spent on. Maybe Offset launch? Which for the life of me, I don't understand why Shutterstock is doing that. The quality of images on Offset aren't really any better than what's on Shutterstock already for a sliver of the price. It'd be like Walmart trying to open a high end store and charging top dollar for stuff they're selling for cheap in their regular stores. Stick to what you're good at.

That and the move to the new vanity location.

Shutterstock Inc: Insider Trading and Stock Options

Total insider sales $340,871,142  Total Insider Buys since 11/2012 $0

http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1549346.htm

I just received this message from FT. Anybody have further thoughts?


Hi Martha,

Thank you for your email. Unfortunately we cannot remove your files from Dollar Photo Club unless we completely delete them from Fotolia first.

Please note that Dollar Photo Club is an affiliate site that is using the Fotolia api program. The database on Fotolia is mirrored on this site as it is on many other partner sites. The difference is that Dollar Photo Club isn�t available to everyone. It is an exclusive club (not exclusive content) that is going to be made available to heavy buyers.

The sales from Dollar Photo Club take place through Fotolia (as do all API sales) so your commission remains the same. It is essentially a giant subscription. You will receive the same subscription commission you would if the image were purchased directly from a Fotolia member with a subscription.

This is another way to drive traffic to your portfolios and should result in an increase in overall sales for each of us.

Sincerely,

I think we will see more sites using api to offer discounted sub deals to large entities. Fortune 500 companies and such.

It would not surprise me a bit to find that SS is offering similar API deals via BS where they pay lower royalties overall.

Quote from: adigrosu on February 03, 2014, 22:38

What about if the vast majority of old contributors who made you what you are today are collateral damage. Wouldn't be a bit of morality in the * business?
I know it is just business, but as the things going, their aim is to maximise their overall profit taking away ALL from us. It is not only me or a few guys. I wish it was like that, because it would mean that I did something wrong that it can be improved.

What morality?

The exact reason I adore microstock is that it is NEUTRAL. It doesn't matter if you joined 6 weeks or 6 years ago. Make a good image and it will sell. If anything, there is a slight disbalance skewed in favor of older contributors, only because their files already gathered some downloads and have priority in the search algorithm. It seems that SS is working on that imbalance and that's ok with me, since it makes the playing field even more neutral.

And also, if the algorithm changes one day so it moves away from neutrality, but impacts SS's earnings in a positive way (and mine in negative), I would understand. They are trying to maximize profits. They have no obligation towards me nor do they owe me anything. If I think I'm treated unfair, I will quit the agency. But talking about morals and business ethics in this contexts is a bit, you know, unnecessary.

Any company that expects its contributors to bear 100% of the expense of producing the content that they sell; does have the obligation to manage those assets as a whole fairly and responsibly. They can and do not produce any of the assets they sell themselves and they could not have become successful or continue to be successful with out our assets.

What about if the vast majority of old contributors who made you what you are today are collateral damage. Wouldn't be a bit of morality in the * business?
I know it is just business, but as the things going, their aim is to maximise their overall profit taking away ALL from us.

It is not only me or a few guys. I wish it was like that, because it would mean that I did something wrong that it can be improved.

I am at a point I almost wish they would pay everyone the same royalty and then promote images based on true merit.

I get sick to my stomach as more and more contributors that I know well are telling me that they have just been hit and month after month they see their sales drop.  We all think that we are immune and that we have control over sales through planning and hard work, until it happens to us.

As ShadySue mentions IS did it first and then Fotolia. They all do it to some degree. What they do not count on it the collateral effect of stiffing contributors who also work in the design industry.  We are tighter than they think and have direct influence even in very large companies over who we buy images, graphics and videos from. When you screw us we do not take it lightly.

A few of us have come out and talked about it here. Many more of us are talking about it in private to avoid repercussions with various sites. Over the last few months there is no doubt that perceptions have changed significantly and many people are not at all happy at the business changes SS has made and how those changes have affected our livelihoods. While the folks at SS are jetting around in helicopters, buying homes in Aspen, working in Aeron chairs, receiving massages and enjoying numerous job benefits. We are worrying about things like simply putting food on the table, paying house payments and paying for health insurance.

It is becoming clear that we can no longer depend on Shutterstock for a living, however we do have control over which sites we do buy images from in the future and it will not be from a company with low level ethics.

Quote

Tests can include changes to the user experience or the relevancy of search results. If you're seeing changes, it's possible that you're seeing a test that is targeted at a small audience, or that you're seeing the results of a test that won.  These tests are thoughtfully conducted and changes are never rolled out broadly without careful analysis.  For contributors, this might seem confusing in isolation, but it ultimately results in more successful customers, who then generate more downloads and more royalties.

As mentioned many times before, the "Popular" designation has nothing to do with popular.
If you want to play with search algorithms, you can add another option to the available sort orders, and call it "flavor of the day" or as "recommended by chief cook" but calling it popular is not only incorrect, it is a deception and outright lie.

As contributors, we are getting shafted when our bestselling images are hidden and as buyers, we are misled and have to wade through numerous pages just to find something decent.

Furthermore it is naive to assume that if a small test yields certain results, the same results would be obtained across other portfolios if the same change is rolled out to other contributors. Each portfolio is different, each buyer wants something else, and whatever worked today may not work tomorrow. Calling the popular (or most downloaded) order popular would make the system simpler, consistent, and more honest.

Well said, as a buyer on IS I found the content they served me infuriating and I left. Now we find shutterstock is playing the same games to increase revenue.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 02, 2014, 18:48

It's kinda sad that I post that microstock has become a waste of time and I get 17 plus posts for it. Time was when I would have got vilified for that (oops! it's just gone down to 16+ .... there are still people out ther who have hope! Good luck to you!).

I HEAR THAT!!. I left here for 3 years. because I told the truth as I saw it then, How i did it was wrong. The WOO HOO gang at IS shot me down then also. So much for that now. because I posted a erroneous story called "I did a test" stating at the time exclusives got better treatment and I lost $500 a month doing so. someone here turned me in and my account was closed. I know who it was.

Oh well. Im never sticking up again for "US" and yes.....Good luck to everyone. And I mean Good Luck and highly suggest you find options if ya wanna sell your work. And i would do it sooner than later. Most won't.

I wish I was positive. Im not. But if ya wanna earn a few hundred a month. This is the best way. You want more? then you better get real Busy...real quick. and I mean REAL BUSY  and "REAL QUICK" in a few short months theres gonna be 10 Million more to compete with and thats the truth especially when they complete there "Farming" of new contributors in asia and beyond in the next year.. Im gonna let my 5500 Images sit and see what happens. Then give it to my daughter as an annuity and let her deal with it.

BTW...Your back to 17 Now....lol

It is still possible to be vilified by microstock cheerleaders for mentioning the truth. There are still around, they currently reside at the new great microstock hope. In addition some of them also own stock and that investment increases protective ideals as well as denial.

Your all time totals are at the bottom of the current month's chart - click on 0 or whatever it now says for your account balance. You'll see the current month's sales and at the bottom your all time totals

You can see previous months/years by using the drop down menu at the top of the stats page, the drop down is located just under the page tab navigation options.

So, gbalex, you're theory is that it's not possible for a new file by a contributor on Shutterstock's top tier to reach the front of a search? In other words, an image gets buried if it pays 38 cents? I just want clarification on that point.

Do you Shutterstock cheerleaders ever read or do you just make things up to prove your false shot gun assumptions. Lets be clear I DO NOT and never did have a theory that it is not possible for a new file by a contributor on Shutterstock's top tier to reach the front of a search?

The key words are ""increased percentage of low cost files mixed into the most popular search" I have already explained this in detail twice in this thread.

Quote from: bunhill on January 29, 2014, 15:07

Quote from: gbalex on January 27, 2014, 17:10

Historically the SS search was based on the merit of individual content. Or in other words the buyers chose which images would be successful and which would sink to the bottom rankings.

If the search is not regularly given a stir and new content is not promoted then the front page will stay the same and very little else will ever sell. Because content which is on the front page of any search anywhere inevitably and obviously sells better than content further back in the search. Which does not necessarily mean that it is better.

Unless the search is hand picked.

I agree content should be stirred up.

However the micros can easily stir up content without penalizing the very people who helped them build their business.  I take issue with the "increased percentage" of low cost files they are serving buyers over proven NEW HCV content that in now being pushed to the back of searches because they have to pay more for that content in contributor royalties.

Take notice the next time a quarterly report comes out, every quarter "Return Per Download" goes up and they proudly display this to stock holders and analyst.

As for the search: It is simplistic to think in an "either or scenario in regard to cost of files". The search is not one dimensional it changes over time. It looks to be based on Hierarchies: Tiers of attributes, such as year > month > date,  or Continent > Country > City, e.g. your �country� would be �Europe.Spain�, and your �city� field would be �Europe.Spain.Madrid� � so there�d be no mixing of Madrid, Alabama in your results when filtering or faceting by city.

Some more complex units of measurement might be the total number of dollars spent after a user performed a given search or the age of individual files or contributor accounts � search changes are constant and look to be spanning the age of the entire image database dataset  so their search serves ever changing multidimensional data sets from the image database based on what type of return per download they are seeking at any given moment.

With the goal of returning higher Return Per Download to stockholders it is not surprising to see the dataset mix change or evolve to a higher percentage of low cost files being added to the most popular search.  Hence the drops some of us are seeing.

Clearly you do not read my reply's or you would know I did put your request into my originally intended and not twisted context a page back.

It is a waste of time entertaining any of your questions because you both make up facts to fit the business scenario you wish and hope will play out long term. I would have thought many here would have learned from both Fotolia's and IS's treatment.  It is time to let the sites know we are not happy with their treatment of our assets. It never helps any of us by ignoring the reality of the situation because we wish things were different.

It has become clear that it does not matter how many of us tell you that our sales have dropped drastically since March and that our new images are not showing up in searches. You have chosen to believe your own truth despite the facts offered.

As an example, I have posted the below snip directly out of Jon and key managements mouths and the comments have gone unread. Despite posting the snip multiple times in various threads on this forum; Ron still makes up his own facts in defiance of clear evidence that his comment is not factual.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/s-j-locke-uploading-to-shutterstock/msg362228/#msg362228

Quote from: Ron on January 22, 2014, 16:46

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on January 22, 2014, 16:41

Quote from: Travelling-light on January 22, 2014, 15:52

Once sold 5 ELs in one day at IS, for over $500 total, back in the good old days...BDE.

Used to get regular $300 days at iS in 2010 with no EL's.

Anyway back on topic Woo Yay for 38c sales.

Where have they gone then? Why blame SS for poor sales over at IS. According to Bunhill IS is cheaper then SS.

Straight from the SS founders mouth "If you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. "

Snip

Duck Swartz

Talking about your present strategy longer term?

Timothy E. Bixby - CFO

We think we can raise the prices over the long term but we�re primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level. We haven�t raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.

Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board

It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last

Quote from: gbalex on January 27, 2014, 17:10

Historically the SS search was based on the merit of individual content. Or in other words the buyers chose which images would be successful and which would sink to the bottom rankings.

If the search is not regularly given a stir and new content is not promoted then the front page will stay the same and very little else will ever sell. Because content which is on the front page of any search anywhere inevitably and obviously sells better than content further back in the search. Which does not necessarily mean that it is better.

Unless the search is hand picked.

I agree content should be stired up.

However the micros can easily stir up content without penalizing the very people who helped them build their business.  I take issue with the "increased percentage" of low cost files they are serving buyers over proven NEW HCV content that in now being pushed to the back of searches because they have to pay more for that content in contributor royalties.

Take notice the next time a quarterly report comes out, every quarter "Return Per Download" goes up and they proudly display this to stock holders and analyst.

I will sidestep the childish derisive comments from a few of you who always seem to be in a row with one person or another. Better to rise above than to entertain those who enjoy conflict.

As for the search: It is simplistic to think in an either or scenario in regard to cost of files. The search is not one dimensional it changes over time. It looks to be based on Hierarchies: Tiers of attributes, such as year > month > date,  or Continent > Country > City, e.g. your �country� would be �Europe.Spain�, and your �city� field would be �Europe.Spain.Madrid� � so there�d be no mixing of Madrid, Alabama in your results when filtering or faceting by city.

Some more complex units of measurement might be the total number of dollars spent after a user performed a given search or the age of individual files or contributor accounts � search changes are constant and look to be spanning the age of the entire image database data set so their search serves ever changing multidimensional data sets from the image database based on what type of return per download they are seeking at any given moment.

With the goal of returning higher Return Per Download to stockholders it is not surprising to see the dataset mix change or evolve to a higher percentage of low cost files being added to the most popular search.  Hence the drops some of us are seeing.