Author Topic: PeopleImages.com - 3mth Considerations. (Read 38819 times)

vonkara · « **Reply #100 on:** August 13, 2012, 15:43 »

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on August 13, 2012, 14:34

Sean pays Federal, State, and local taxes. The U.S. government is the largest charity ever to exist. So anyone who pays taxes in the U.S. has no reason to "give back".

Hahaha hilarious quote! Typical "American discovering the world through the internet" reply actually. What do you think about someone paying taxes in Denmark? Do you believe it is all spent for the sweet buns world production?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #101 on:** August 13, 2012, 16:19 »

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on August 13, 2012, 14:34

Sean pays Federal, State, and local taxes. The U.S. government is the largest charity ever to exist. So anyone who pays taxes in the U.S. has no reason to "give back".

Ha ha, true, 'dat. My effective tax rate was about %30 last year, iirc.

Anyways, I didn't bring up the "charity" thing. Just responded.

Suljo · « **Reply #102 on:** August 13, 2012, 20:33 »

I dont see what is wrong if anyone says I give to any kind charity or community xx,yy $
Isnt it similar like threads/posts about KIWA or other plundering PawnShop wannabe charity organisations which are crawling at this forum from time to time.

Quote from: Joeboy on August 09, 2012, 09:10

....
How do you feel you have the right to question if Sean gives to charity or not? That is personal information, and most people that give to charity don't feel the need to tell others as they are doing it for themselves and there own piece of mind, not to show off to the world...

Why not? Its just question.
Isnt the one fag site in they soul I mean eg IS put on they front page 2 or 3 years in row something like:
Wew donate xxxxxxx$ to some noname charity while we plunder you contributors with 5% or more royalty down and rise you never desired RC targets which are fine tuned at the end of the year to see how much we can grab from you.

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on August 09, 2012, 07:58

Sometimes people bite back,

Eh Yuri
I am biting to much at any kind of injustice and I am toothless now

Last week Leaf kick me from this forum for 7 days

Quote from: StockBottom on August 09, 2012, 11:02

... however, i can't understand this diatribe about charity and giving back.
istock is giving us NOTHING back, nor are the cheap as-s buyers who only choose micros to cut costs to the bone.

Its all about that, that non exlusives there gives nothing back, only PITA. "Lost or forbidden credits are payments for they reviewers and forum pacifiers.

Quote from: sjlocke on August 09, 2012, 18:05

Quote from: Perry on August 09, 2012, 17:56
Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on August 09, 2012, 07:58
Factories like mine feed the mouths of more than 100 people and have internships and educational programs with the purpose of giving back to the community

What amount of the 100+ people are in position of creating work they are able to own their copyright to?
I would rather see 100+ individual entrepreneurs than a 100+ person corporation.

That's a good way to put it.

Soo
in you opinion yuri will must tell whole his story about his success to all this 100 persons and when they all learn all knowlege from him than both of you will bee satisfied?!?

Cmoan

StockBottom · « **Reply #103 on:** August 13, 2012, 22:06 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 13, 2012, 16:19

Ha ha, true, 'dat. My effective tax rate was about %30 last year, iirc.

Anyways, I didn't bring up the "charity" thing. Just responded.

30% is very good, in europe it would be 35% at the very least, with peaks of 40-45% in some countries.
in plus, the cost of life in europe is among the most expensive in the world, especially Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia.

i can't see many incentives to be based in europe nowadays apart the availability of local models and the fast
internet connections.

by opposite, last time i went to the HongKong Chamber of Commerce they prospected me a 15% to 25% tax rate,
permanent residence (HK-ID), everything was quick and easy to setup and you can make it all in just one week,
foreigners can open bank accounts in half an hour, no BS as in europe, that's the way it should be, too bad now
in HK the living costs are skyrocketing and it's ain't cheap anymore, i mean it's maybe cheaper now to go
in Berlin actually despite germany having 35-40% tax rates.

StockBottom · « **Reply #104 on:** August 13, 2012, 22:13 »

Quote from: Vonkara on August 13, 2012, 15:43

Hahaha hilarious quote! Typical "American discovering the world through the internet" reply actually. What do you think about someone paying taxes in Denmark? Do you believe it is all spent for the sweet buns world production?

is Denmark too expensive or the rest of the world too cheap ?

the gap is mainly about labor costs actually from what i can see, i can't blame Yuri for moving to
greener pastures, not at all.

StockBottom · « **Reply #105 on:** August 13, 2012, 22:14 »

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on August 13, 2012, 14:34

So anyone who pays taxes in the U.S. has no reason to "give back".

there's no need to ever "give back".
it's a business, and to stay in business you need to make profits.

maybe Yuri is so successful he has even spare time and money for these things.
good for him, but not all of us could afford it.

StockBottom · « **Reply #106 on:** August 13, 2012, 22:39 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on August 13, 2012, 12:50

It's not a free market.... no system of banking controlled by government instituted central banks is free.

As for undervaluing, it's true, China does, but it's only hurting them in the long run, eventually they will see they don't need to sell to countries like the US. They can sell to their own domestic market and do just fine.

they're already selling inside china, go in any chinese house and you wil hardly spot one single foreign-made item !
just about everything is made in china .. their car, their microwave, gas cooker, dishes, forks, spoons, furnitures, tv, dvd, hi-fi, computers, mobile phones, cigarettes, food, beers, clothes, eyeglasses, watches ... it's unbelievable .. if they've some money they will eventually buy some korean and japanese stuff as it's perceived to be high quality but that's all, no european or american stuff AT ALL .. zero .. only cars eventually if they're rich and want to show off their brand new BMW or Mercedes or Ferrari ... and then the eventual french wine or champagne, italian designer clothes, but not much .. the average chinese can easily live 100% on chinese items all his life, they're the only ones who can do it.

ShadySue · « **Reply #107 on:** August 14, 2012, 05:27 »

Quote from: StockBottom on August 13, 2012, 22:06

Quote from: sjlocke on August 13, 2012, 16:19
Ha ha, true, 'dat. My effective tax rate was about %30 last year, iirc.

30% is very good, in europe it would be 35% at the very least, with peaks of 40-45% in some countries.
in plus, the cost of life in europe is among the most expensive in the world, especially Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia.
To my extreme surprise, I see that UK base rate income tax is currently 20%: I thought it was more.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/basics.htm#6
(I paid 40% in my old day job, so hey - something else to cheer about, as well as feeling smug because term starts tomorrow!)

StockBottom · « **Reply #108 on:** August 14, 2012, 07:18 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 14, 2012, 05:27

To my extreme surprise, I see that UK base rate income tax is currently 20%: I thought it was more.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/basics.htm#6
(I paid 40% in my old day job, so hey - something else to cheer about, as well as feeling smug because term starts tomorrow!)

yes, low taxation in UK and low overhead to setup a business.
said that. the cost of life is still way too high, how much they ask for a shabby office in London for instance, crazy prices ... and what about food ... UK is no match with asia and never will.

if i had to setup a digital business in europe, Berlin is probably the place to be at the moment.

sharpshot · « **Reply #109 on:** August 14, 2012, 14:45 »

UK tax is much higher than it seems because we also have to pay national insurance. I always used to think that national insurance was for the health service but it all goes in to the same pot. For some reason, governments have found it easier to raise national insurance than income tax, probably because most people have no idea it's all the same thing. Then there's local council tax that shot up while services were cut. And VAT that's now gone to an all time high 20%. And there's stamp duty on house purchases and inheritance tax. I'm sure I've missed a few out

Poncke · « **Reply #110 on:** August 14, 2012, 16:55 »

The envy, jealousy and trash talking in this thread is unnecessary. My 2c

scottbraut · « **Reply #111 on:** August 21, 2012, 07:53 »

Dear Community,

While we don't typically reply to forum posts, from time to time we believe it is important to correct misleading or incorrect information that may be meaningful to our contributors and customers. For the record, the effective royalty rate we pay our contributors varies based on product type, customer usage, currency exchange rates and other factors. In aggregate, it is generally in the range of 25%-30% of net revenue, not the 20% rate that was previously suggested.

As always, we appreciate your contributions and we're excited to provide value to such a great community of artists.

Best Regards,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

aeonf · « **Reply #112 on:** August 21, 2012, 10:23 »

Scott, can you please explain the term "net revenue" and is it any different then "gross revenue" ?
When you say "generally in the range of 25%-30%" does this mean that it does go down to sub 20% ?

velocicarpo · « **Reply #113 on:** August 21, 2012, 10:45 »

Quote from: scottbraut on August 21, 2012, 07:53

Dear Community,

While we don't typically reply to forum posts, from time to time we believe it is important to correct misleading or incorrect information that may be meaningful to our contributors and customers. For the record, the effective royalty rate we pay our contributors varies based on product type, customer usage, currency exchange rates and other factors. In aggregate, it is generally in the range of 25%-30% of net revenue, not the 20% rate that was previously suggested.

As always, we appreciate your contributions and we're excited to provide value to such a great community of artists.

Best Regards,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Thanks for clearing this up, Scott. Hard facts are always welcome ...

ShadySue · « **Reply #114 on:** August 21, 2012, 11:26 »

Quote from: aeonf on August 21, 2012, 10:23

Scott, can you please explain the term "net revenue" and is it any different then "gross revenue" ?
When you say "generally in the range of 25%-30%" does this mean that it does go down to sub 20% ?

I don't know what he meant by the term 'in aggregate'. Is that an average, or a mean or a median or ... ? "Aggregate = ' data combined from several measurements'," which is a bit meaningless in this context.
I'm guessing that those on the bottom rung get <20%.

HerMajesty · « **Reply #115 on:** August 22, 2012, 03:54 »

Quote from: aeonf on August 21, 2012, 10:23

Scott, can you please explain the term "net revenue" and is it any different then "gross revenue" ?
When you say "generally in the range of 25%-30%" does this mean that it does go down to sub 20% ?

My guess is that every transaction has it's own costs (credit card processing etc) so I'm assuming that's what makes the difference (couple of percent probably).

My guess is that the 25-30% number doesn't take into account the unused credits Yuri mentioned. I'm pretty sure Shutterstock thinks it's 100% their money, but you could argue we all contributed to it.
Maybe every year a small Christmas bonus for all users .. even 10% of the unused credits distributed proportionally to the number of downloads in a given year? It would help to go through the Christmas/New year sales slump.

aeonf · « **Reply #116 on:** August 22, 2012, 04:08 »

^^ the whole idea of the subscription model is based on the fact that everyone (on average) has "unused credit" and lots of it!
if everybody used their credit SS would be out of bussiness whitin a few months.

Credit card transaction fees for a bussiness this size could be well below 0.5%

there is no such term as "net revenue". there is revenue and expenses.

(total payout to contributors)/(gross revenue) would give you the average payout percentage
do the same but include ONLY subscription revenue and payout and you will get a figure that can be considerd a "minimum" and in my opinion is much less then 20%

gostwyck · « **Reply #117 on:** August 22, 2012, 06:31 »

Quote from: aeonf on August 22, 2012, 04:08

^^ the whole idea of the subscription model is based on the fact that everyone (on average) has "unused credit" and lots of it!
if everybody used their credit SS would be out of bussiness whitin a few months.

Credit card transaction fees for a bussiness this size could be well below 0.5%
there is no such term as "net revenue". there is revenue and expenses.

(total payout to contributors)/(gross revenue) would give you the average payout percentage
do the same but include ONLY subscription revenue and payout and you will get a figure that can be considerd a "minimum" and in my opinion is much less then 20%

Don't be ridiculous. Credit card fees were about $5.5M out of sales of $120M. You don't have to ask, guess or make absurd assumptions about SS's financials. It's all detailed in the IPO document published several weeks ago (and linked to here in previous discussions).

aeonf · « **Reply #118 on:** August 22, 2012, 09:11 »

5.5M out of 120M sounds EXTREMLY high, can you point me in the right direction ?
Not that it matters though, since credit card fees is in EXPENSE just like any other expense, and has nothing to do with actual percentage paid to the contributors.
The %% you get at IS comes from the GROSS income, not the "net income" so if one wants to comapre percentage rates one must first level the playing field!
Also, add to the fact that if that if that is what SS pays, one can only assume that SS's competition pays more or less the same ammounts.

gostwyck · « **Reply #119 on:** August 23, 2012, 13:30 »

Quote from: aeonf on August 22, 2012, 09:11

5.5M out of 120M sounds EXTREMLY high, can you point me in the right direction ?
Not that it matters though, since credit card fees is in EXPENSE just like any other expense, and has nothing to do with actual percentage paid to the contributors.
The %% you get at IS comes from the GROSS income, not the "net income" so if one wants to comapre percentage rates one must first level the playing field!
Also, add to the fact that if that if that is what SS pays, one can only assume that SS's competition pays more or less the same ammounts.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm

P56. Credit card charges were $5.1M

leaf · « **Reply #120 on:** August 23, 2012, 15:13 »

What Scott says (between 25-30% royalties) also agrees with the IPO paper. I did some math and started a new thread discussing Shutterstock's commission
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/what-does-shutterstock-actually-pay-out-i've-figured-it-out!/

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: PeopleImages.com - 3mth Considerations. (Read 38819 times)

vonkara

Sean Locke Photography

Suljo

StockBottom

StockBottom

StockBottom

StockBottom

ShadySue

StockBottom

sharpshot

Poncke

scottbraut

aeonf

velocicarpo

ShadySue

HerMajesty

aeonf

gostwyck

aeonf

gostwyck

leaf

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors