|
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 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... 64
976
« on: July 10, 2013, 11:44 »
In my opinion, it seemed that people were pretty happy until they found out that the owner of the company is now a billionaire. It sounds like a simple case of envy to me. I've always felt that shutterstock has been fair to its contributors, and I've seen nothing but an increase in revenues for myself since I started in 2005. I currently pay my mortgage with my stock earnings, most of which comes from shutterstock. This is part time work for me. If I can make a decent earning from it, and the owner of the company can be successful, then that's great for both of us, and people should stop whining.
Well said Sir. The politics of envy always rules supreme. The truth is that SS have invariably treated their contributors better than any other agency ... and now they are being criticised for being incredibly successful whilst doing so. You couldn't make it up.
we can say that 47 times but some independent contributors can't accept the fact SS got them a big chunk of their income and it grows every month, looks like they would have lived better without SS
Lets put this into perspective. Submitters have not had a royalty raise since 2008 while their production expenses have gone up across the board for 6 years. The world has been struggling under a global recession and many submitters have been struggling just to put food on the table and pay their mortgages/rent, utility, gas and medical expenses. Many submitters felt guilty about asking for a raise when they felt the SS was struggling also. Little did they know that while the majority suffered SS was quietly lining its pockets with 90.5 million plus and a potential billion dollar stock bonus using the assets we produced with our own funds under challenging conditions. Add the new search into the equation and the fact that many who worked very hard to provide the assets that made SS successful are now finding that they need to find new jobs. The new search changes will help SS's bottom line but are harming those who made them successful and wealthy. Then there is the screw job on the Referral program, submitters feel more than betrayed. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=128547&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=108Maybe you are beginning to get the picture. To add insult to injury gostwyck and his stock toting buddies are talking nouveau riche smack and encouraging the company to gouge us further so that their freshly bought stock will go up in price.
977
« on: July 09, 2013, 13:36 »
93.1% has the same volume or down. Only 6.9% see an improvement. I think the picture is starting to form.
So the only thing that changed for independents was that the price was reduced, why would that cause less sales? I'm a little skeptical that buyers are buying less files now that they cost less.
The lowering of pricing didnt cause a massive increase of sales. Buyers havent come back in drones yet. If the pricing is lowered but the volume is not making up for it, everybody loses money.
Yes as usual they are willing to shaft submitters to gain market share. The question is will lowering prices be enough to gain the market share they are seeking. IS has read the financial reports and can see that even at low sub prices "our supposedly low worth assets" provided monthly cash distributions to members of Shutterstock Images LLC with respect to their membership interests totaling $90.5 million in less than 3 years. To my knowledge there is no public information for cash distributions for the years prior to those reported via the SEC. IS can see that SS paid down $12.0 million of the $12 million term loan term loan facility that it entered into on September 21, 2012 to fund working capital needs following the corps final $36.0 million cash distribution to the members of Shutterstock Images LLC prior to the pre IPO Reorganization. $90.5 million cash in less than three years is not bad when you also consider current revenue as well stock prices. IS has no problem driving the value of our assets down to participate in the race to gain market share. Shutterstock Images LLC Cash Distributions prior to the IPO Reorganization For the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, distributions to the members of Shutterstock Images LLC were $28.6 million and $25.9 million, respectively. Additionally, between January 1, 2012 and October 4, 2012, we distributed $36.0 million to the members of Shutterstock Images LLC. 10Q 3/31/2013 http://www.secinfo.com/d11MXs.x17an.htm#1stPageLiquidity and Capital Resources As of March 31, 2013, we had cash and cash equivalents of $107.0 million, which primarily consisted of money market mutual funds and checking accounts. Since inception, we have financed our operations primarily through cash flow generated from operations. Historically, our principal uses of cash have been funding our operations, capital expenditures and distributions to members. On October 4, 2012, we made a final distribution to the LLC members constituting approximately all of the cash generated from the operations of the LLC, since the last distribution to members and any other cash and cash equivalents on hand at the time of the distribution, other than any amounts received under the term loan facility, as described below. Following this final distribution, no additional distributions were made to members of the LLC prior to the Reorganization. Additionally, following the Reorganization, our tax rate and related tax payments have increased significantly as we became subject to federal, state and additional city income tax. We entered into a term loan facility in September of 2012 that provided for a $12 million term loan. Following the final distribution to members described above, the borrowings from the term loan facility were used to fund the short-term capital needs of our operations following the final distribution to members described above and our IPO. On December 24, 2012, we paid down $6.0 million of the term loan and on March 25, 2013, we paid off the remaining outstanding balance of $6 million. As of March 31, 2013, we have no outstanding debt. Additionally, we believe our existing cash and cash equivalents and cash flow generated from operations will be sufficient to meet our working capital and capital expenditure for at least the next twelve months. We plan to finance our operations and capital expenses largely through our operations. Since our results of operations are sensitive to the level of competition we face, increased competition could adversely affect our liquidity and capital resources, both by reducing our revenues and our net income, as a result of reduced sales, reduced prices and increased promotional activities, among other factors, as well as by requiring us to spend cash on advertising and marketing in an effort to maintain or increase market share in the face of such competition. In addition, the advertising and marketing expenses used to maintain market share and support future revenues will be funded from current capital resources or from borrowings or equity financings. As a result, our ability to grow our business relying largely on funds from our operations is sensitive to competitive pressures and other risks relating to our liquidity or capital resources. On October 16, 2012, we completed our IPO of 5,175,000 shares of common stock, including 675,000 shares sold as a result of the underwriters exercise of their overallotment option, at a price of $17.00 per share. The IPO resulted in net proceeds to the Company from the offering of approximately $81.8 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions, and before deducting total estimated expenses in connection with the offering of $4.9 million. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings for use in the operation of our business and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. Any future determination relating to our dividend policy will be made at the discretion of our board of directors, based on our financial condition, results of operations, contractual restrictions, capital requirements, business prospects and other factors our board of directors may deem relevant.
978
« on: July 08, 2013, 08:32 »
Can't vote because I deleted all of my images.
979
« on: July 07, 2013, 16:14 »
do reviewers get paid the same weither they accept or reject an image?
The people who could accurately answer this question have signed non disclosure agreements. Each site is different.
980
« on: July 06, 2013, 23:45 »
I think the reason this thread popped up, is because the divide between us and them has become untenable. It is very likely the majority of outlook's would change, if everyone took the time to actually read SS's Annual Report word for word. It details the overhead that is actually needed to market, store and sell our images as well as other interesting information. The facts and figures are there for all of to see, if you have the discipline to view them in depth. Shouldn't we know exactly what our business partners and doing with the share we grant them? What are these sites giving us in return for 70+  Is it really worth what they seem to feel entitled to take out of our hides? A billion is not a billion until the stock is cashed out and the money is in the bank, but there were hefty annual cash distributions to the members of Shutterstock Images LLC in the years prior to the Reorganization. In fact they borrowed money to fund the last cash distribution and used money generated from the IPO to pay off that loan.
981
« on: July 05, 2013, 19:02 »
I think it has to do more with a dated system then incompetent staff. All the recent changes and ingestion may be too much for their system. For some reason when I think of their servers I see a bunch of band-aids all over it...hmm that might make for a good stock image 
Incompetent staff at the top who didn't know when to call for a complete rewrite.
That never happens because management will never accept the cost. It's always "just one more" patch, temporary change, bug fix, and a promise to clean it all up later. With everything that's happened at IS lately, the site code probably looks like the plumbing under Manhattan.
This typically continues until the software people just burn out and leave, and then things get even worse because the new guys don't know the history and don't fully understand the implications of changes they're told to make.
Been there, done that.
Their unwillingness to update the system is a telling sign. Why invest money in a company with no future?
I don't think IS is alone when it comes to an aging infrastructure and most of the sites were never designed to contain a database filled with 25 million images. I would bet that most of the bugs we see today are a result of limited scalability. I do think that their unwillingness to spend the money required to update their infrastructure is telling. SS is running on Apache which reached end of life several years ago as well as old out dated Perl. Think of that in terms of security alone. It is no wonder we see constant bugs and it is also telling what giving them the huge lions share of revenue is netting us in terms of their willingness to maintain and upgrade their sales platforms . The sites get richer by the moment and we get the shaft on so many levels. How much longer do you suppose we will be dim enough to put up with it?
982
« on: July 04, 2013, 13:25 »
The only things that prevent any of us from being another Jon Oringer are ability and willingness.
Now that really IS the best quote for ages.
I do wonder how much people think SS has "pocketed", what its actual percentage profit on turnover is ... and how that compares with Balex's dad's company.
Check the annual report C62 http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTgyODczfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1Historically, we made monthly cash distributions to members of Shutterstock Images LLC with respect to their membership interests. For the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, distributions to the members of Shutterstock Images LLC were $28.6 million and $25.9 million, respectively. Additionally, between January 1, 2012 and October 4, 2012, we distributed $36.0 million to the members of Shutterstock Images LLC. Following the Reorganization on October 5, 2012, no further distributions to members were made. For additional information regarding the Reorganization, see Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part II, Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
983
« on: July 03, 2013, 11:01 »
If you want 'a raise' then get off your arse, do some more work and thereby earn it. Your success or otherwise is entirely down to you and the effort you are prepared to put in.
While I agree SS has not cut our royalties (other than the referral bonus), the above statement is patently and demonstrably false regarding microstock as a whole.
Innumerable people have seen their royalties cut repeatedly over the past couple of years, regardless of their hard work.
I posted in the earnings thread for June that my DLs are actually UP on most sites from last year, but my earnings are way down.
Microstock stopped being a meritocracy several years ago and it is ridiculous to argue otherwise.
This is pretty much why I stopped uploading to SS 3 years ago. Being a good little worker bee was no longer enough for continued growth.
That said, I think there is something to be said for the power still being in the contributors' hands. I just wish that power was being leveraged better (or at all).
Well said. Working like crazy just to give the shareholders a nice return is frustrating on the long run.
You could always use your SS earnings to become one of those shareholders.
No thanks, I don't need that kind of money, who needs to be a nouveau smagol hovering over his precious SS stock investment. All the while hoping that SS will not give his fellows a fair annual raise in royalty, because that would negatively affect the price of his stock and dividends. Nope, I don't need money badly enough to help any company accelerate the race to the bottom.
984
« on: July 02, 2013, 09:47 »
Some do some don't. I do business with one corp that want's to see receipts to make sure that all images used in marketing material have been legitimately purchased or produced.
On the other hand I do contract work with one of the largest companies in the world and their marketing department condones and even encourages its own marketing employees to find images for corp marketing material through google images. The good news is that last I heard they were being sued. Lets hope that news is going to be spread through all of the global offices and the practice will change.
It starts with us, everything trickles down.
985
« on: July 01, 2013, 18:52 »
That link to wiki proves nothing. Clutching at straws.
Here listen to this. Maybe it calms you down http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9135BDEFC471E083
From USATODAY...
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2003-01-28-walmartnation_x.htm
"History has shown that suppliers suffer if they run afoul of Wal-Mart. Rubbermaid raised the prices it charged Wal-Mart in the mid-1990s because of an 80% jump in the cost of a key ingredient in its plastic containers. The retailer responded by giving more shelf space to lower-priced competitors, helping drive Rubbermaid into a 1999 merger with rival Newell, says John Mariotti, a former Rubbermaid executive. "Rubbermaid earned Wal-Mart's wrath by not giving it the best deal," he says."
Now that is an exploitative company to admire.
987
« on: June 30, 2013, 12:59 »
The shareholder concept is almost always destructive for the general economy while only few have profits.
Of course it isn't. It has provided the capital over the last couple of centuries to allow the world to industrialise and raise the standards of living for all. Most infrastructure (railways, telephone systems, etc) were originally funded privately with cash raised from the stock markets. Whenever someone invests their money in stock they are taking a risk. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose but their investment is necessary and it is beneficial to society. By far the biggest investors are pension funds and hopefully you will, in time, also benefit directly from that.
That is a good one, let's not talk about what the Wallstreet crowd did to pension funds recently!
988
« on: June 30, 2013, 12:19 »
PS: I'd love to know if Balex's dad thinks that achieving a 10% profit on turnover constitutes grinding the workers' faces in the mud and, if so, what the correct profit level is.
You are forgetting that SS paid down dept, had one time IPO and relocation expenses at a expensive location in that time period. As for the corp they run at 3% annual profit on recent annual revenues of 3 billion. In the early years % of profit was less than 3% and he gave key people and supervisors stock in the corp. He would be the first to tell you he did not do it alone and it did not happen over night. If you drove by the offices or visited you would never know the corp is so successful. So the answer would be yes in practice he does. The company core culture understands that it's success rest on the success of the people within it. If you put that concept into action you don't need to raise money for growth by putting the people who made you successful in the first place out to dry. Happy cows produce better milk and they don't enjoy the maxim he who dies with the most toys wins.
989
« on: June 30, 2013, 00:25 »
SS gained market share by offering low cost images & they increased revenue by driving cost per sale down. Over the last 3 years revenue per download is up. @SS A one year subscription will net buyers 25 images a day, every day for $2,388.00 or slightly over $.26 cents per image. @BS A one year subscription will net buyers 50 images a day, every day for $2,879.00 or $.16 cents per image. BS Royalty rates  http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1817283 http://www.stockmarketstudy.org/wordpress/tag/sstk/page/2/Ross Sandler Deutsche Bank And are the unit economics for the kind of core Subscription versus the On Demand or la carte versus the direct business? Those are kind of the three different things going on here. Are they roughly the same? Can you talk about like with that differential in growth rates whats that going to mean in terms of a contribution margin for you? Tim Bixby Yes, they are quite similar and weve structured it that way in the pieces where we have really have tight control, so for example royalties that we pay contributors is the primary cost of revenue for the company. So our gross margin is about 60%, cost of goods about 40%. Of that 40%, 30% is essentially going to contributors for the images that we provide. So thats the same across all the pricing plans. The payout structure is slightly different but weve structured it so the net effective rate is roughly the same. Below the line below the gross margin line youve got some shifts between sales costs in a direct sales structure or marketing costs if were driving people to the website to convert on their own, but those are roughly in line as well and so which is an overall contribution line thats pretty comparable across almost every unit, almost every different pricing plan. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htmCost of RevenueThe Company's cost of revenue includes contributor royalties, credit card processing fees, image and video reviewer expenses, hosting and bandwidth expenses, amortization of content intangible assets, and depreciation of network equipment, which are the direct costs related to providing content to customers. Additionally, the Company includes an allocation of overhead costs primarily related to payroll, insurance, and facilities expenses based on headcount. http://seekingalpha.com/article/1417071-shutterstock-s-ceo-discusses-q1-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=5&p=qanda&l=lastLloyd - Deutsche Bank Hey guys, its Lloyd in for Ross. I had a few if I may. Just first i t looks like sales and marketing expense on a year-over-year growth basis actually declined, so seeing tremendous efficiency gains it looks like. Should we expect you to kind of reinvest some of those efficiency gains and see the growth in sales and marketing expense start to grow again? Tim Bixby So Ill take the first one first this is Tim on the sales and marketing spend rate. I think a good thing to look at, while the improvements year-on-year were you know, I think fairly dramatic I think if you look at Q3, Q4, Q1 you can see a more consistent pattern and a tighter range of spend versus revenue. And I think thats really the range that you should expect to see going forward so its sort of the low 20%s as a percent of total revenues.http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1817283&highlight=RevenueRevenue for the first quarter was $51.1 million, a 36% increase from the first quarter of 2012. Net IncomeNet income for the first quarter of 2013 increased by 50% to $5.6 million as compared to $3.7 million in the first quarter of 2012. Net income available to common stockholders/members for the first quarter of 2013 was $5.5 million or $0.16 per share on a fully diluted basis as compared to $2.8 million or $0.13 per share on a fully diluted basis in the first quarter of 2012. CashThe Company's cash balance was $107.0 million as of March 31, 2013 as compared to $102.1 million as of December 31, 2012. The Company had no bank debt as of March 31, 2013. The Company generated $13.8 million of cash from operations in the first quarter of 2013 and paid down short-term debt of $6.0 million during the quarter. http://www.stockmarketstudy.org/wordpress/tag/sstk/page/2/So our strategy is really volume leadershipRoss Sandler Deutsche Bank Would you talk about that for a sec, the landscape because weve taken a lot of questions about it, as the IPO was happening in the sense, but you guys are now officially that the largest online royalty free inventory business out there. How would you characterize the competitive landscape today versus maybe a year ago, between a few of those bigger guys that you just mentioned and some of the smaller? Which are you more focused on if at all? Thilo Semmelbauer So our strategy is really volume leadership and Ross, youre quite right that in volume terms, we delivered more downloads, paid downloads last year than all of Getty combined. And Getty is certainly continues to be the revenue leader in this space. If Getty is sort of in the $800 million to $1 billion revenue range, we think the market is somewhere in the $4 billion to $6 billion range, just for stock imagery. And given our size, $170 million last year were really still a very small player in a large and growing market, and we see opportunity for several big players continuing to dominate in the market. So and obviously we want to be one of them. In terms of changes in competitive dynamics, Id say in the last year, not significant changes. Getty continues to be a big player. Numbers of years ago they bought iStockPhoto. From everything we can tell, Getty is not growing but they continue to generate lot of cash. Its a strong business. There are always new players popping up and disappearing because as Tim mentioned barriers to entry are very low in this space but barriers to scale are high and were not really seeing were not seeing anybody else anywhere close to where we are.
990
« on: June 29, 2013, 10:55 »
Asking a company to pay a fair royalty and maintain their site so that we are able to bring reasonable returns on our investments does not equal hate.
Why is it unreasonable to expect a fair and functional marketplace from a successful company?
991
« on: June 29, 2013, 10:35 »
992
« on: June 29, 2013, 10:20 »
" But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
- George Orwell: "1984"
Yep never ending newspeak and doublethink. One thing not mentioned in that article is the millions Jon made every year before going public. He must have a nice stash besides the new billion.
The enforced wisdom of the thought police from the "SS thought crime enforcement brigade" is entertaining.
No one is ever going to brainwash me into thinking that .38 cents is sufficent return on investment for the type of images the micros asks us to produce to remain competative. The return on investment is not sufficent, no matter how many copies they sell or the new markets they may break into.
Take a good look at the economies SS is entertaining and moving into. It is no coincidence that Jon is hosting dinners in Brazil and talking about Turkey in interviews. How low do you suppose submitters in the dark green zones would be willing to go?
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/gmaps.jsp
Why do you see success as a vice?
I don't see success as a vice, my father has a very large company of his own. He did not build it by exploiting suppliers or employees. The corp pay's fair $$$$$ to those who helped it succeed. While the company brings in more revenue than SS they have not pocketed as much, they return a larger % to those who helped them get there. He could have gone public to pocket more money, but he chose not to because he knew what it would do to the people who helped him get there. How much money does any one person need to be secure, happy, content?
993
« on: June 29, 2013, 00:49 »
" But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
- George Orwell: "1984"
Yep never ending newspeak and doublethink. One thing not mentioned in that article is the millions Jon made every year before going public. He must have a nice stash besides the new billion. The enforced wisdom of the thought police from the "SS thought crime enforcement brigade" is entertaining. No one is ever going to brainwash me into thinking that .38 cents is sufficent return on investment for the type of images the micros asks us to produce to remain competative. The return on investment is not sufficent, no matter how many copies they sell or the new markets they may break into. Take a good look at the economies SS is entertaining and moving into. It is no coincidence that Jon is hosting dinners in Brazil and talking about Turkey in interviews. How low do you suppose submitters in the dark green zones would be willing to go? http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/gmaps.jsp
994
« on: June 28, 2013, 12:27 »
The inequity is stunning.
A raise is long past overdue!
I am sure he/they could spare a dime or two to restore the site to good working order.
995
« on: June 28, 2013, 03:02 »
iStock
1) now pays independents some of the lowest commissions in the industry, both in dollars and percentage.
2) give contributors images away for free to the world without their consent (google drive).
3) forces independents images to be sold on the lowest paying of all major subscription sites (thinkstock).
4) has the the most time consuming uploading process.
5) is heavily favoring exclusive content
etc..
Do they really expect independents will keep uploading?
It hasn't stopped most of them so far. They're too frightened to lose a few $$ in the short term, not considering that tolerating all these detrimental changes is going to lose all of us lots of $$ in the long term. Istock know that and now the other big sites do too. So I expect the long period we've had of getting our commissions slashed isn't over yet. The only way to make a difference is for the vast majority of non-exclusives to do something about this and as istock has the lowest percentage commission and now has low volume as well, they're the obvious first place to start.
I stopped uploading, removed 500 of my best images and left them with the LCV stuff, what is everyone else doing?
Stopped uploading and removed all but my very worst file. I lost all respect and faith in the company when they started giving away files in mass. I have one file on IS and that is there so that I can keep track of files still floating around from stockexpert which I also deleted but still have money still coming in from somewhere. Some partner site is my guess.
996
« on: June 27, 2013, 18:08 »
I don't even see how exclusives could be happy about this, since it makes exclusive content seem even more overpriced by comparison. 
That was my first thought. People have just recovered, that their royalties will not be slashed, now they will see that their files will have to compete bitterly with bestselling independent content.
I like the new design of the site though. Glad those flames are gone and it all looks much cleaner.
Machiavellian games Hit them with bad news and hint at future plans. When people are reeling from the threatened hit in income, distract them from today's bad news by withdrawing one stage of your vile long term business plan. If they increase the heat little by little, they are hoping we will not notice that they are slow cooking us alive in our juices. Glad I am out of this game with IS and staying out.
997
« on: June 27, 2013, 16:12 »
Shifting gears toward SS
998
« on: June 27, 2013, 16:08 »
Why give up a $60K day job for something completely unsustainable?
Exactly I thought about it in the past and I am fortunate I did not take that fork in the road. I do not want my main income coming from corrupt and unstable sites that are willing to throw us under the bus for a dime.
999
« on: June 27, 2013, 10:35 »
I really hope it is a mistake. And like Paul has said it is incredible that they cant wake somebody up to confirm this. 30 000 people are affected by these rates, it is not the kind of thing you let the intern post on the website. Cant believe those stats can be changed and published without top level approval and oversight.
It MUST be a mistake. Who would stay exclusive for a 7% difference?
Almost like they are pushing them to go independent. Now the question is, if it is a mistake where did those numbers come from. At the very least they are thinking of making this move or they want us to think they are.
1000
« on: June 26, 2013, 17:30 »
OP must be getting all my ODD and SOD.
Nearly all my sales are 25/day. Maybe that too is a part of the rotating priorities in search algorithm?
Also, my sales seem restricted to Asia and Europe. USA sales are sad. 
I have been wondering this as well, I went two weeks without any OD sales and it seemed to coincide with my down weeks. On the weeks I receive above average sales I have significantly more OD's over subs. Quite a few people are reporting poor USA sales on SS.
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
