|
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 ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... 64
876
« on: August 24, 2013, 18:16 »
What difference does that make? I sell more than one kind of image. You act like that's where I get all of my downloads. It's not. A search for "town" returns 428,933 images. One of my recent photos is No. 16 most popular and rising. No. 16 out of more than 400,000 isn't too bad for an image that's barely a month old, and not a person in it.
Your premise is that people on the top tier automatically got their images demoted. There's two examples where I showed you that isn't the case. It's older images that lost out in the search change, not older contributors.
That is only your opinion and not my experience or the experience of many long term submitters I have talked to personally. Our new files are not selling and that was not the case just a few short months ago!
877
« on: August 24, 2013, 15:47 »
Ron is an active stock contributor.
On the other hand, the theory that Shutterstock adjusted the search to benefit lower level contributors is just not true. I had a photo jump to No. 4 in popularity under "pets" (4 out of 427,724). It was submitted in mid May after the search change. I'm on the 38 cent tier. It would not have jumped that fast that far before the search change. The change helped new images, not new contributors.
That's as it should be. Old images should be less "popular." It's better for buyers, and it's better for contributors, unless you don't bother doing new work.
You can not use EITHER ~ OR thinking when talking about search "ranking" algorithms. Are they steering all sales to new submitters? I would say no. Are they steering more sales to new submitters? Based on the collective feedback I have been getting from many long term submitters, I would say it is very likely.
You can also not judge what is happening with the search by example of what is happening with your own port and with one type of file. Especially when your port consists of images that most contributors are hesitant to submit. Children images sell well on SS because many submitters do not want to expose their children to miss use issues. Therefore what you are experiencing in regard to sales is not the general experience of most submitters. In your case the pet image that went to a first page search most likely also included a child which also helped give it a boost.
You have to look at the global picture and talk to a large number of older contributors to see what they are experiencing. I can tell you that in general new files are not selling, our older files sell well but they have killed off our best selling images. Does that mean that I never have images that hit first page searches? No I do, but in general that is happening less and less often since the search change and I am getting the same feed back from friends with large quality ports.
It is naive to think that now that SS has put ranking capabilities in place that they are not steering a percentage of sales to lower tier contributors when it makes sense for the long term and benefits the sites bottom line. Especially since a large portion of IS submitters who jumped ship have high quality files.
I don't think they are steering sales toward new contributors as much as they are steering sales toward new images. It just so happens that new contributors with large portfolios have all new images, so the end result is the same. That doesn't mean Shutterstock is trying to cut down earnings of people on the 38 cent tier. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to break in with some of my new photos like I have. Besides, those new contributors with large portfolios will probably be on the top tier in a matter of months if not weeks.
You are discounting skillfeed and the new video advertisements they are asking us to provide to lure and train new contributors. Again, you can not compare the contents of your port to the average contributors port. Many contributors do not even shoot people and if they do their ports have far more adults. You shoot a large number of children and that gives your images a boost in the searches because SS has fewer images of children to serve buyers. You are well aware of this yet you continue to compare apples to oranges. boy 767,610 results kid 837,552 results child 1,236,279 woman 4,488,134 results adult 2,834,611 results man 2,421,178 results
878
« on: August 24, 2013, 14:59 »
interesting topic, the other day I did a small list of many contributors, the ones that contribute here regularly and also other, I have found a contributor that left this forum I believe after Tyler entering the topic regarding anonymity, he uploaded close to 10k pictures this year
so I wonder if 10 or 50 stopped uploading will change anything, I am starting to think we are just give them advantage as they will continue to collect as our income dry
We forget that these sites are operating on slim margins and losing the top 100 contributors who bring in higher than average download for their images would have a huge effect on their bottom line. The sites are hoping we will not wake up to this fact. http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1845768&highlightNumber of paid downloads in Q2 three months = 24,300,000 x $2.33 Reported Revenue Per Download or $56,619,000.00 SS Revenue per total downloads per Three Months in Q2 Number of paid downloads Q2 2013 24,300,000 / Images in collection (end of Q2) 2013 27,300,000 = .89 Paid Downloads Per Image in SS collection Lets just say that the top contributors receive the average .89 number of downloads per image in their ports as detailed above. The 100 top contributors have 3,768,907 files on SS http://www.microstocktime.ru/tool/stats/ss/Top 100 Contributors have 3,768,907 files on SS x .89 Average Paid Downloads Per Image On SS = 3,354,327 downloads. Or $7,815,582.44 of SS's Q2 Revenue For All Top 100 Contributor Downloads 3,354,327 SS's Q2 100 Top Contributor downloads is 13.8% of 24,300,000 SS' Q2 Total Number of Paid Downloads
879
« on: August 23, 2013, 23:45 »
Re: Snip
That is interesting, since I (and all other contributors) do still retain the ability to destroy some of iStock's assets by removing their images, hopefully before iStock drives their value into the ground.
Sadly iStock (and its corporate culture) does not seem to have to have appreciated the value of 'intangible assets' (such as goodwill, which is inextricably linked to their tangible assets).
Stellar Post
I am a buyer as well as a submitter, about time we wake up to the fact that we fund, produce, deliver and keyword those "assets" to all sites involved. Istock & Fotilia burned their goodwill with me and may other buyer/contributors and we will not forget being thrown under the bus.
SS is in the process of burning bridges that once burned are a done deal!
IS is a perfect example of what happens when you throw enough of us under the bus! I have one file on IS and I will never buy a single image from them again!
880
« on: August 23, 2013, 12:16 »
...
If your job is to get the best image for your clients/buyers as quick as possible with no bias to a files past performance, wouldnt you showcase these images where the clients can see them? Lets say you get an massive influx of new quality proven images (ex istock exclusive images whose files have been proven sellers among a tougher competition) It would make sense to tweak your search to favor these new files so they have a chance to be seen and bought instead of getting buried. The search would seem to favor newer files, but i believe it affects all newer files and not certain contributors.
I have some files that have sold well on istock that havent even been bought on SS so i think it is a fairly non biased search on SS. I am pretty objective in comparing my competition to my own works and can clearly see that the competition made much better files than mine which prevents me from making more of those same type of files.
If there is a tweaking where the newer files get a boost, and these newer files aren't as good as whats available in the library, i believe they will sink further back in searches eventually.
If your experiencing severe drops in your downloads and your newer files aren't selling, the most plausible explaining that comes to me is that the quality of the current library is superior what you have experienced in the past. You and others probably enjoyed the weighting of the search algorithm to favor the amount of past downloads as this current search doesn't rely heavily take that into account anymore. That's what i think is happening but who knows?
I am a buyer and submitter and would be fine with the scenario you detailed. Competition is fine by me and that in my opinion is what made SS a cut above for buyers until the new ranking algorithm was implemented. Now I will ask you a question, if my files do not even show up in searches after I have searched thru 50 pages to find them. How can I ever expect buyers to be able to make the choice between my image and your files? I can not compete if buyers never see my files.New submitters have always had a boost for a small time period on SS and I think that is fair. The migration from IS has been a win win for SS. They get good files on first page searches and they pay less. The fact that my files are buried so that no buyer will ever see them in search results is not fair. Lets talk after you hit the .38 tier.
881
« on: August 23, 2013, 11:47 »
Seems to be good news, it will be interesting to see how many come in and what royalty will actually be. It is no different than having a designer buy an image to display in a banner add. The thumbnail size displayed is very small.
Lets hope that after waiting for the final results, we can congratulate SS for pushing this new idea.
882
« on: August 22, 2013, 13:13 »
"I think it is 'naive' to explain one's own lack of sales with a variety of complex conspiracy theories with no evidence to support them."
But that won't stop them from posting these theories over and over. LOL
I have submitter to SS since 2004, my sales have been steady and consistent every month up until the time SS implemented the new search algorithm. After its implementation my sales dropped over 50% in one day and have never recovered. My new files which sold just fine for 9 years and often ended up on first page searches are no longer selling. It does not take rocket science to determine those sales have been pushed somewhere else and you only have to read what new submitters are conveying in regard to increased sales to determine where those sales have been pushed after the new search was implemented. You would have to be in utter denial not to understand what has occurred, unfortunately I am not alone. http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-down-again-!/msg322717/#msg322717 Here is a quote on their testing on live portfolios
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130239&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=anthony&start=135
Posted: Sun May 12, 2013 2:33 pm
Hello all,
At Shutterstock, we perform regular tests of small modifications to search. Those tests are typically released to limited segments of the overall customer population. If a test wins over time which typically means that the changes have demonstrably increased the total number of customer downloads then the resulting improvements are accepted and deployed.
Search testing and analysis is a continuous process of small improvements that generally wont result in dramatic swings in search. Changes are carefully tested and evaluated to make sure that the overall effect on customer downloads and/or purchases is a positive one.
Customer demand, content differentiation, keyword quantity and quality, global holidays, seasonality and other factors can affect an individual contributor's day-to-day earnings. We recommend allowing a little time before evaluating the effect on your personal portfolio.
Sincerely,
Anthony Correia
Director, Contributor Success
Shutterstock|Bigstock
I have noticed a significant boost in the amount of downloads i have been getting since starting last week. I would say anywhere from 10-25%. So this explains why as they have tweaked the search for newer files to have a slightly better exposure. Since im fairly new on SS, all my files are new I guess. Im sorry for the older portfolios that is taking a hit from this but this is probably going to be an on going thing where they will be tweaking the search constantly.
...You can not use EITHER ~ OR thinking when talking about search "ranking" algorithms. Are they steering all sales to new submitters? I would say no. Are they steering more sales to new submitters? Based on the collective feedback I have been getting from many long term submitters, I would say it is very likely.
Do you think its a possibility that these newer contributors have better/commercial images than the library that they are replacing?
As a former istock exclusive, I have a pretty good idea about image quality on both sites. I can safely say that a lot more of my images are appearing on the first pages of search on shutterstock than it did on istock because the quality of the library on most instances is still better on istock IMO.
I think its just increased competition.
883
« on: August 22, 2013, 12:40 »
They should restaff. Really, I hate to make the suggestion knowing that if it ever happens it will mean a lot of people lose their jobs, but let's face it, the current istock staff aren't capable of keeping the company competitive. They react to things long after they should, following other companies and trends instead of innovating and trying to stay ahead of the curve. Their IT staff is purely reactionary at this point, not improving anything and just sluggishly responding to problems as they arise.
I really don't think their staff are the problem. Staff can only carry out whatever plans the folks at the top tell them to...
Then they should replace management. If the top folks in Calgary can't get the job done, can't innovate, can't adequately compete with other companies that are getting way ahead of the former #1 microstock company, Getty should be bringing in folks who can.
Even CEOs can be replaced. If they don't perform, in most companies they're out. Seems like repeated failures and missteps at istock aren't fireable offenses.
I thought Istock's biggest problem for buyers was that their prices were too high, innovation doesn't seem like the solution to that, lowered prices is what buyers wanted and what they've got in this change.
They got lower prices, but its the way it is handled, the placement of image, the changing of collections, moving images to different price categories, pushing certain contributors up the search and accepting utter crapstock, that gets in the way of the lower pricing to be successful.
Contributors who are also buyers are infinitely aware of the above and do not forget how the company has stuck it to them over time. That goes for any company.
884
« on: August 22, 2013, 10:41 »
My guess is that those figures are fetched from a database and just shows up in the wrong place because of a layout change. Which would mean that the programmers have to change a little code somewhere. But it's still a tiny problem, though... probably just a few minutes work.
Just like you I'm also surprised by how slow many of the issues are fixed at iStock. They must be very understaffed or have a very messy and inefficient organisation at the moment.
I still haven't quit exlusivity though... I have a tiny little bit of hope left...
Those numbers would come out of a database field. It would take seconds to change them. I agree with Cobalt and Shady Sue. There must be a reason they are not changing them.
885
« on: August 21, 2013, 13:21 »
istock is in full retreat mode, slashing prices, unlimited uploads, what's next?...
They should restaff. Really, I hate to make the suggestion knowing that if it ever happens it will mean a lot of people lose their jobs, but let's face it, the current istock staff aren't capable of keeping the company competitive. They react to things long after they should, following other companies and trends instead of innovating and trying to stay ahead of the curve. Their IT staff is purely reactionary at this point, not improving anything and just sluggishly responding to problems as they arise.
The istock staff has been this way for years. They said for so long that they'd never allow EPS10 files, or they'd never allow text in files. Meanwhile other companies expanded into these areas and beat istock to the punch. Then years later, istock finally gets on board with these things that buyers clearly want (the top-selling image at SS last year was a vector file that contained lots of text, something that istock would have rejected).
They need new people, folks who are forward-thinkers and can get ahead of their problems, and not just react to them. They need people who can predict what new product buyers will want and delivering those products before (or at least along with) the rest of the market.
They can start on the vector side of things by mandating that files with text include an editable version (no outlined text). Buyers want this. SS doesn't allow it, even though I just got another email Monday from an annoyed buyer who wanted an easily editable file with the fonts/text intact. istock could get ahead of SS with a policy about these files, but they don't have people at HQ right now who can think of this stuff.
That tip is free, istock. Want more, you can hire me as a consultant. 
In most cases those decisions are made by management. I have been a site developer, I can't tell you how many times our team recommended needed upgrades and improvements only to have management shoot those down. You can have a company full of innovators and forward thinkers but if management will not act on their suggestions those resources are wasted. If that is the case should developers and employees lose their jobs because management is too greedy and short sighted to implement their suggestions? Bruce said in a interview not long ago that the IS site needed to be rebuilt long ago, that it was never meant to handle so many images. IS management does not rebuild the infrastructure because they do not want to spend the money.We have constant site bugs at SS for the same reason. They are willing to spend money on a ranking algorithms that will bring in $$,$$$,$$$, but they are not willing to spend money to make the site scalable and stable for submitters. That is why we have images that go missing day after day year after year and more.
886
« on: August 20, 2013, 10:36 »
It is naive to think that they are not steering a percentage of sales to lower tier contributors when it makes sense for the long term and benefits the sites bottom line.
I think it is 'naive' to explain one's own lack of sales with a variety of complex conspiracy theories with no evidence to support them.
SS's success, relative to their competitors, is precisely because they don't configure the search algorithm to promote/demote individual contributors or 'more profitable' images. If SS really wanted to pay out less than 38c, or whatever ... they why wouldn't they just amend the royalties accordingly? Much simpler than messing about with the search algorithm. When they wanted to amend the referral programme they just went ahead and did it without any notice, negotiation or discussion.
SS have always had to walk the tightrope between rewarding their contributors enough to incentivise them (and to dissuade them from going exclusive at IS) whilst spending enough on marketing/R&D and also remaining profitable.
Right my success and the success of many more was never in question until SS put search ranking algorithms in place. And suddenly it is a game changer. You guys are ignoring what is happening to long term submitters around you. How can our files be popular and selling well one day and the very next day disappear off the map? Some long term submitters I have talked to with large ports of HCV images have seen 70% drops in income and their new images which used to sell well are not selling. How do you explain that? Can it all be attributed to site bugs?
Based on your comments I take it you have never developed search ranking algorithms to serve content. We are talking about pulling info out of one or two database fields.
Anthony has already said they are constantly tweaking the search and the article on the SS blog about AB testing confirmed it as well. I dont know why people constantly ignore those facts.
They don't want to see the facts and it is easier to overlook them if you have a nitch that is not impacted as heavily via the new AB ranking results. I do not think it could be any clearer than the example in the blog "How we use A/B test results to make business decisions" but that went right over most peoples heads because it is out of their scope of experience and is not great news. Snip How we use A/B test results to make business decisions. Instead of statistical significance, lets make decisions based on expected value, i.e. $benefit probability − $cost.Snip Now suppose you are so diligent that you keep rolling out A/B tests, this time testing a fancy search ranking algorithm. Two weeks later you see that there is a $0.10 increase in dollar spent per visitor for the test variant compared to the control (i.e. existing search ranking algorithm) variant. If the increase is real, with 100K visitors each day, thats $0.10 100,000 = $10,000 dollars extra revenue each day. Now, lets add a twist: you need five extra servers to support that fancy algorithm in production, and the servers cost $10,000 each to buy, and another $10,000 to run per year. You want to make sure its worth the investment. Your stats tell you that you currently have a p-value of 0.3, which most people would interpret as a nonsignificant result. But a p-value of 0.3 means that with the new ranking algorithm the net gain in extra-money-making probability is 0.7 − 0.3 = 0.4. With the expected size of the gain being $0.10 per visitor, the expected extra revenue per year is $0.10 100,000 0.4 365 = $1.46M dollars. The rational thing to do is of course release it.http://bits.shutterstock.com/
887
« on: August 20, 2013, 10:04 »
...
You can not use EITHER ~ OR thinking when talking about search "ranking" algorithms. Are they steering all sales to new submitters? I would say no. Are they steering more sales to new submitters? Based on the collective feedback I have been getting from many long term submitters, I would say it is very likely.
Do you think its a possibility that these newer contributors have better/commercial images than the library that they are replacing?
As a former istock exclusive, I have a pretty good idea about image quality on both sites. I can safely say that a lot more of my images are appearing on the first pages of search on shutterstock than it did on istock because the quality of the library on most instances is still better on istock IMO.
I think its just increased competition.
In some cases yes I do and you make a good point. In other cases I would say they are picking the newer submitters over ports that have equal or better images. I could point to a few ports I know who have had large drops but that would not be fair they should have the option to show or not show those results themselves.
888
« on: August 20, 2013, 09:37 »
It is naive to think that they are not steering a percentage of sales to lower tier contributors when it makes sense for the long term and benefits the sites bottom line.
I think it is 'naive' to explain one's own lack of sales with a variety of complex conspiracy theories with no evidence to support them.
SS's success, relative to their competitors, is precisely because they don't configure the search algorithm to promote/demote individual contributors or 'more profitable' images. If SS really wanted to pay out less than 38c, or whatever ... they why wouldn't they just amend the royalties accordingly? Much simpler than messing about with the search algorithm. When they wanted to amend the referral programme they just went ahead and did it without any notice, negotiation or discussion.
SS have always had to walk the tightrope between rewarding their contributors enough to incentivise them (and to dissuade them from going exclusive at IS) whilst spending enough on marketing/R&D and also remaining profitable.
Right my success and the success of many more was never in question until SS put search ranking algorithms in place. And suddenly it is a game changer. You guys are ignoring what is happening to long term submitters around you. How can our files be popular and selling well one day and the very next day disappear off the map? Some long term submitters I have talked to with large ports of HCV images have seen 70% drops in income and their new images which used to sell well are not selling. How do you explain that? Can it all be attributed to site bugs? Based on your comments I take it you have never developed search ranking algorithms to serve content. We are talking about pulling info out of one or two database fields.
889
« on: August 20, 2013, 08:52 »
Ron is an active stock contributor.
On the other hand, the theory that Shutterstock adjusted the search to benefit lower level contributors is just not true. I had a photo jump to No. 4 in popularity under "pets" (4 out of 427,724). It was submitted in mid May after the search change. I'm on the 38 cent tier. It would not have jumped that fast that far before the search change. The change helped new images, not new contributors.
That's as it should be. Old images should be less "popular." It's better for buyers, and it's better for contributors, unless you don't bother doing new work.
You can not use EITHER ~ OR thinking when talking about search "ranking" algorithms. Are they steering all sales to new submitters? I would say no. Are they steering more sales to new submitters? Based on the collective feedback I have been getting from many long term submitters, I would say it is very likely. You can also not judge what is happening with the search by example of what is happening with your own port and with one type of file. Especially when your port consists of images that most contributors are hesitant to submit. Children images sell well on SS because many submitters do not want to expose their children to miss use issues. Therefore what you are experiencing in regard to sales is not the general experience of most submitters. In your case the pet image that went to a first page search most likely also included a child which also helped give it a boost. You have to look at the global picture and talk to a large number of older contributors to see what they are experiencing. I can tell you that in general new files are not selling, our older files sell well but they have killed off our best selling images. Does that mean that I never have images that hit first page searches? No I do, but in general that is happening less and less often since the search change and I am getting the same feed back from friends with large quality ports. It is naive to think that now that SS has put ranking capabilities in place that they are not steering a percentage of sales to lower tier contributors when it makes sense for the long term and benefits the sites bottom line. Especially since a large portion of IS submitters who jumped ship have high quality files.
890
« on: August 18, 2013, 06:49 »
Yesterday typical - a reasonable number of downloads early in the morning - but NOTHING after that. Nothing yet this morning either. Weird, even for a weekend when things usually trundle along, albeit slowly.
I saw the same thing, saturday morning I had more Dls then I would expect, and then for 24 hours nothing.
+3 Nothing yesterday, last night or this morning. With essentially no communication from SS (nothing new), we are left to guess why we are experiencing these strange sales patterns. 1. They are making more changes to the site and they do not respect contributors enough to let us know our images have been left out of the sales loop. 2. There is something seriously wrong with the site and they do not respect contributors enough to let us know our images have been left out of the sales loop. 3. There is something seriously wrong, they have no problem with contributors losing money on their hard work and investments and they never plan on addressing these issues. 4. They have made all of these changes on purpose and there are no bugs therefore some contributors can expect regular periods of time where they can expect to receive no sales. Some contributors report daily poor sales during US business hours. These bugs happen far too often at SS. I used to respect them as a company, but this has been going on for far too long with no resolution.
891
« on: August 15, 2013, 10:39 »
Down -49% over August of 2012.
How can you be down over a year in the future?
2012
892
« on: August 15, 2013, 10:14 »
Here's something weird I've noticed...
I used to consider 11:00 am EST my sort of "mid day" in microstock. By 11am, I had a pretty good idea of where the day was headed for me and could predict to a reasonable degree of accuracy the dollar amount I should expect to be at by the end of the day by simply doubling where I was at by 11 o'clock.
Lately that hasn't been the case. My mid-day is more like 9 or 10am, and I think because I'm not getting the kind of sales volume I used to get from the western world. Just before the start of the business day in the US, my numbers look pretty good. But things slow down from there.
Maybe it's summer slowdown, and the US is being particularly liberal with vacation time this year. I've never been a big believer in summer slowdown but it's kind of hard to ignore when the numbers are pretty convincing.
I call it the new SS download governor
893
« on: August 15, 2013, 10:11 »
Down -49% over August of 2012
Last three months have been an eye opener for me, down over previous years across the board. For years SS did not mess with the search. Once they decided to go public they shifted into first gear to add new search rank capabilities, the results of that new effort have spoken volumes.
Time to look at other options.
894
« on: August 14, 2013, 19:04 »
Take pictures of things that don't have a lot of search results.
OKAY!!! Problem Solved. Now we can move on to something more important. 
What are you looking for? There is no secret way to get your images placed first in the search results.
I'm trying to agree with you. Placement is something over which we have no control.
The constant rants are pointless.
I don't know about you but I like to know where I stand when making business choices. That is why I take an interest in SS SEC filings. While you are right we have limited control over search placement. We do have control over where we park our images. It is no wonder Symbiostock is taking up more and more of the conversation on this board.
895
« on: August 14, 2013, 18:00 »
I'm not arguing whether or not they profited. You said Shutterstock's higher revenue per download showed that they were messing with the search and putting lower level ex-exclusives first in the search, at least that seemed like the implication. I'm just saying revenue isn't changed depending which files are bought (low level vs. higher level), even Shutterstock said the higher RPD is from selling more single image sales.
Yes I should have used net income instead of RPD I posted SS own blog regarding search changes and mentioned inquiring about anecdotal feedback from long term submitters regarding huge drops in sales. Those that I know who have taken huge hits had many images on first page searches and the more competitive those slots were the more their ports were impacted. I will leave it to you to visit a relevant number of first page searches to determine the tier which is now occupying those hard earned spots. I do know what I found in the slots which replace my previous long term best selling images on fist page searches.
896
« on: August 14, 2013, 17:23 »
SS received a huge influx of new files from new contributors. Some of them former IS exclusives who will for a time receive lower royalty rates. Now who do you suppose receives a higher ranking in the new ranking algorithm? It also explains why the RPD is higher and why they are asking contributors to make video's that contain carrots to attract new low pay tier producers.
They've been getting a huge influx of files for a long time now, the amount of exclusives moving to Shutterstock is probably a small portion of that. They have always had lower level contributors, from the very beginning, and it would have been more profitable for the last 10 years to promote them. Maybe that's happening now but you haven't given any proof. The other thing is that RPD (you use Revenue per download) doesn't go up if lower level contributors files are bought, profit goes up costs go down and revenue stays the same. The files cost the same for the buyer no matter what level they are.
Check the link I provided. SS uses Revenue Per Download in their SEC filings. They are describing an increase in revenue per file downloaded. And yes profits do go up if they sell lower tier royalty files.
We have never seen influxes of files as large as we did during the last quarter.
Right but revenue doesn't change depending on which level the contributor whose files are bought is. Pushing different contributors files up or down the search shouldn't affect revenue in itself.
Profits or net income generally imply total revenue minus total expenses in a given period, Net income for the second quarter of 2013 increased 13% to $6.9 million as compared to $6.1 million in the second quarter of 2012. http://seekingalpha.com/article/1616602-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q2-2013-results-earnings-call-transcriptSnip Expenses included Capital expenditures for non-recurring leasehold improvements related to headquarters office relocation of approximately $10 million. Snip Our cash balance strengthened in June 30 with $113 million. We generated $4 million of cash from operations in the quarter and capital expenditures was $1.9 million. We continue to expect total capital expenditures for the full year with approximately $15 million, and this total CapEx is made up of two types, $5 million of which is related to ongoing computer server and network infrastructure cost to sort of run the business and expand the operations. And the remainder or about $10 million is related to a non-recurring combination of expenses related to leasehold improvements, furniture and related cost as we relocate and expand our primary headquarters office in New York City in the second half of the year.Snip Furthermore, we expect adjusted EBITDA to be between $11 million and $12 million in the third quarter. We are also increasing our revenue and adjusted EBITDA expectations for the full year of 2013. For the full year, we expect revenue to be between $227 million and $229 million, and we expect adjusted EBITDA between $48 million and $50 million.
897
« on: August 14, 2013, 13:17 »
SS received a huge influx of new files from new contributors. Some of them former IS exclusives who will for a time receive lower royalty rates. Now who do you suppose receives a higher ranking in the new ranking algorithm? It also explains why the RPD is higher and why they are asking contributors to make video's that contain carrots to attract new low pay tier producers.
They've been getting a huge influx of files for a long time now, the amount of exclusives moving to Shutterstock is probably a small portion of that. They have always had lower level contributors, from the very beginning, and it would have been more profitable for the last 10 years to promote them. Maybe that's happening now but you haven't given any proof. The other thing is that RPD (you use Revenue per download) doesn't go up if lower level contributors files are bought, profit goes up costs go down and revenue stays the same. The files cost the same for the buyer no matter what level they are.
Check the link I provided. SS uses Revenue Per Download in their SEC filings. They are describing an increase in revenue per file downloaded. And yes profits do go up if they sell lower tier royalty files. We have never seen influxes of files as large as we did during the last quarter.
898
« on: August 14, 2013, 13:11 »
Enough to successfully implement fancy new search ranking algorithms. SS received a huge influx of new files from new contributors. Some of them former IS exclusives who will for a time receive lower royalty rates. Now who do you suppose receives a higher ranking in the new ranking algorithm? It also explains why the RPD is higher and why they are asking contributors to make video's that contain carrots to attract new low pay tier producers...
That's a very short-term gain, though, at least per new contributor. And especially if we're talking about migrating istock exclusives. Any new contributor with an existing portfolio of good images is going to quickly surpass the lower tiers. It only takes $3,000 in earnings to get to $0.36, just 2 cents shy of the maximum.
If the goal is to simply make the next few quarterly reports look a little nicer, then maybe this strategy works. But I don't think SS is in the business of looking to short-term strategies for small, temporary gains. Just my opinion, and it's certainly not impossible that this is in fact what they're trying to do. Just doesn't seem like the kind of play they'd make.
Talk to contributors who have seen huge drops in the last few months and ask their viewpoint. Ask them what happened to their files which were on fist page searches. And yes it will be short term and that is why they are asking us to help produce videos that they can use as advertising collateral to attract new contributors. How much of the advertising budget listed in SEC filings do you suppose goes toward attracting new contributors?
899
« on: August 14, 2013, 11:51 »
"adding fresh content"
Good lord, how much fresh content do you need?
Enough to successfully implement fancy new search ranking algorithms. SS received a huge influx of new files from new contributors. Some of them former IS exclusives who will for a time receive lower royalty rates. Now who do you suppose receives a higher ranking in the new ranking algorithm? It also explains why the RPD is higher and why they are asking contributors to make video's that contain carrots to attract new low pay tier producers. Revenue per download Three Months Ended June 2013 2.33 vs Revenue per download Three Months Ended June 2012 2.222013 Number of paid downloads 2013 46,700,000 / Images in collection (end of 6 month period) 2013 27,300,000 = 1.7 Paid Downloads Per Image in SS collection 2012 Number of paid downloads 2012 35,900,000 / Images in collection (end of 6 month period) 2012 20,200,000 = 1.7 Paid Downloads Per Image in SS collection http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1845768http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/entries-open-shutterstock-stories-$75k-artistic-grant-program/msg337904 Snip which "unique stories of how creating and licensing visual content has affected people's lives - ranging from building a new business, to traveling, to quitting an unfulfilling job to be a full-time "creative," to learning new artistic methods, to helping families, etc... http://bits.shutterstock.com/Snip from SS tech blog Now suppose you are so diligent that you keep rolling out A/B tests, this time testing a fancy search ranking algorithm. Two weeks later you see that there is a $0.10 increase in dollar spent per visitor for the test variant compared to the control (i.e. existing search ranking algorithm) variant. If the increase is real, with 100K visitors each day, thats $0.10 100,000 = $10,000 dollars extra revenue each day. Now, lets add a twist: you need five extra servers to support that fancy algorithm in production, and the servers cost $10,000 each to buy, and another $10,000 to run per year. You want to make sure its worth the investment. Your stats tell you that you currently have a p-value of 0.3, which most people would interpret as a nonsignificant result. But a p-value of 0.3 means that with the new ranking algorithm the net gain in extra-money-making probability is 0.7 − 0.3 = 0.4. With the expected size of the gain being $0.10 per visitor, the expected extra revenue per year is $0.10 100,000 0.4 365 = $1.46M dollars. The rational thing to do is of course release it.
900
« on: August 14, 2013, 10:29 »
Last Edit: Today at 10:15 by scottbraut
Was wondering why the entire text above contained a hyperlink to become a new contributor. The first draft before your revision removed any doubt that our videos will be used as advertisements to attract new contributors for SS.
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
