Author Topic: A closer look at Shutterstock headquarters (Read 9457 times)

skyfish · « **Reply #25 on:** March 03, 2015, 18:25 »

gbalex: opinion of this anonymous employee exactly corresponds to what i thought about latest version of SS as a company. What we see on contributor side are the consequences. The company aged but in not good manner and very very quickly

cthoman · « **Reply #26 on:** March 03, 2015, 18:41 »

Quote from: gbalex on March 03, 2015, 15:38

Despite the frivolous vanity spending at shutterstock headquarters, moral seems to be in the dumpster.

It looked like most of the companies on there were in the 3 star range. I assume most employees have complaints about their company because working kind of sucks.

jcpjr · « **Reply #27 on:** March 03, 2015, 18:58 »

For what it's worth, it's not about you and I anymore, it's about the shareholders... The company I work for is a multimillion dollar business and has roughly 3000 employees, and the owner refuses to go public for which I'm glad. He believes our product will and has allowed us to expand across the country without public funding. We even got raises when the economy was in the dumper. Wasn't much but was greatly appreciated. The bottom line is, if the product is good (as contributors we know our product is good) people will buy it. Just sayin'...

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #28 on:** March 03, 2015, 19:01 »

Quote from: qwerty on March 03, 2015, 17:40

I'd like to see the Istock office in comparison.

I did see the iStock Calgary office - in 2009 - no idea about Getty's Seattle offices though.

The owner of the LocalMotive building (iStock rented space there) had all sorts of rules about not taking pictures, so I didn't, but here's one from the glass company that worked on it:

It was a funky-chic open plan space. Nothing luxurious.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #29 on:** March 03, 2015, 19:20 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on March 03, 2015, 16:53

Quote from: Striving on March 03, 2015, 13:44
Pisses me off to watch that video. They need to share the wealth a little more with us. Let's all send messages to support to protest the unfair wages. Better yet, all those contributors that live in NYC can do a picket line—maybe not so easy since they pay us so little.

I can't help but think about this forum post: http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/i-think-we-need-a-well-deserved-raise-this-year/msg409569/?topicseen#new

that's just it!!! we do not make enough this year to catch a bus to the next city in the boonies; never mind to NYC to join the picket line.
who was it that queen who when told the people are starving while she sits in her ivory tower said, "let em eat cake!!!"
i imagine them all at ss HQ saying the same thing when reading this thread.

Marie Antoinette. Later beheaded by a guillotine during the French Revolution. Perhaps time for stock producers to storm the Bastille. Or maybe SS new offices compare better to Versailles.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #30 on:** March 04, 2015, 12:07 »

Getty Images, Chicago
55 E Monroe Street
17th fl, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60603
USA

Getty Images, Los Angeles
6300 Wilshire Blvd, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA
90048

Getty Images, New York
75 Varick Street
New York, NY 10013
USA

Getty Images, Seattle
605 5th Ave South, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
USA

Pick one?

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/dubiousquotes/a/antoinette.htm

The Myth
Upon being informed that the citizens of France had no bread to eat, Marie Antoinette , Queen-consort of Louis XVI of France, exclaimed "let them eat cake", or "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche".

The Truth
She almost certainly didn't utter the words; critics of the Queen claimed she had in order to make her look insensitive and undermine her position.

(not unlike the re-use here?)

I don't know why a company needs an entire floor of the Empire State Building, fancy design elements, massages, whatever else, to function. A gym, after hours health club, nice lunch room, I can see fringe benefits for better work environment. I'll stick with the rest who say, we paid for this...

Quote from: Striving on March 03, 2015, 16:15

Quote from: Mantis on March 03, 2015, 14:27
This is simply frustrating to watch.

Well stated. Could be nauseating too.

KnowYourOnions · « **Reply #31 on:** March 04, 2015, 12:52 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 04, 2015, 12:07

I don't know why a company needs an entire floor of the Empire State Building, fancy design elements, massages, whatever else, to function. A gym, after hours health club, nice lunch room, I can see fringe benefits for better work environment. I'll stick with the rest who say, we paid for this...

It's all PR and probably a way to attract super young millennial generation to work for peanuts, while offering candies, massage and ping-pong.

EmberMike · « **Reply #32 on:** March 04, 2015, 14:12 »

I'm not one to usually shy away from pointing out some of the excesses of the corporate world, but just to play devil's advocate for a second here...

When it comes to salaries, I don't know that any of us can say that $121k is excessive. We don't know that job, what it really entails, how much time that person puts in at the office. I would be willing to bet, however, that they put in more hours each week than 99% of the people on this forum do in the stock business, myself included.

Also keep in mind that some of these perks at SS HQ are designed to keep people in the office more and get more work out of them. Sure they're nice, but no company really provides this stuff out of the kindness of their hearts. Not saying that there isn't any good will intended by SS in providing perks, just that if you really think about each of them, you can easily see what the company has to gain by providing them.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, right? So that "free" lunch pretty much guarantees that you're taking a much shorter lunch break than if you left the building. So you're back at your desk sooner (or eating lunch right at your desk since you never left the office) and the company gets more time out of you.

Just saying...

kmlPhoto · « **Reply #33 on:** March 05, 2015, 10:05 »

Up until its recent price dip, I have made more on SS as an investor than as a contributor. We work in a free market economy. If we want to work with SS our only control over what we make is volume and quality of submissions. They have a right to make money and spend it any way they like. they can pay as much or a little to us as the market will bear. There may come a time when it just doesn't work to be a stock contributor with SS or any other agency there are other options for making a living in the imaging space, we are all creative people, we will find them. I don't see any agency owing us anything. Just a thought from someone who has spent way too much time in the business world and not enough time behind a camera.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #34 on:** March 05, 2015, 11:04 »

Quote from: kmlPhoto on March 05, 2015, 10:05

... I don't see any agency owing us anything. ...

I don't think anyone claimed contributors were "owed" or entitled, but partnerships - especially those that last over time - are built on mutual interests, equity, honesty and transparency.

The notion of what the market will bear is rather empty unless you talk about over what period of time. You can temporarily hose your buyers, your workers or your suppliers, and that will often work for a while, especially when economic conditions aren't good for those putting up with the poor treatment.

Many successful businesses are the equivalent of the music industry's one hit wonder. A few last over the long haul and even fewer make profits, treat their employees well and are reasonable with their suppliers. I do not subscribe to the "if it's not illegal, it's just fine to do" or the "it's just business" schools of thought. We can do better than that.

There's no law that prevents Shutterstock from spending lavishly on their headquarters and spending the money they earned from selling licenses to our content as freely as the law allows. But over time, they may run into problems if the stories of contributors doing really well - which has driven contributors who hated subscriptions to send their work to Shutterstock anyway - start to dry up.

In the "it's only business world" there is no loyalty, and that works both ways.

ScottishPhotographer · « **Reply #35 on:** March 05, 2015, 13:07 »

Good to see shutterstock are making the most of the proceeds of photographers' work in what must be the most prime and exclusive office space in the world.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #36 on:** March 05, 2015, 14:12 »

Kind of on topic, kind of off. But the workspace and buildings for tech upstarts, aren't something moderate or conservative.

They might eat natural foods off compostable plates, but really Read to the end. Link is to the full article.

Etsy IPO

1) It hasn’t turned a profit in the past three years… and doesn’t promise one anytime soon.

Etsy has incurred net losses in the past three years and doesn’t offer investors any reason to expect a profit in the near-term. The company said it expects operating expenses to “increase substantially” because of new hires, an increase in marketing, investments in its platform, and new services.

Those expenses are already on the rise. Etsy’s reported a net loss of $15.2 million in 2014, up from $796,000 in 2013 and $2.4 million in 2012. The wider loss came as the firm more than doubled its spending on marketing to $40 million last year.

(clipped a bunch from the middle)

7) Etsy’s digs might get really nice.

The company disclosed plans to spend $50 million to build out its new Brooklyn headquarters.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/03/05/eight-takeaways-from-etsys-ipo-filing/

$40 million in marketing, $50 million to build out. Net loss of $15 million. Yeah, they need the IPO to make the people who created this wealthy and share the rewards with investors. That is if you think a loss of $15 Million in 2014 was something positive?

Back to the shell game and buildings for the corporation. I must be caught in some kind of time warp or haze, because I'd want a stock, Shutterstock or Etsy or anyone else, to show values and respect for their money. Building the business and long term stability. Not spending it on prestigious offices and frivolous Bling.

At least SS keeps showing a profit. That I can respect.

kmlPhoto · « **Reply #37 on:** March 05, 2015, 15:19 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 05, 2015, 11:04

Quote from: kmlPhoto on March 05, 2015, 10:05
... I don't see any agency owing us anything. ...

I don't think anyone claimed contributors were "owed" or entitled, but partnerships - especially those that last over time - are built on mutual interests, equity, honesty and transparency.

The notion of what the market will bear is rather empty unless you talk about over what period of time. You can temporarily hose your buyers, your workers or your suppliers, and that will often work for a while, especially when economic conditions aren't good for those putting up with the poor treatment.

I cant really disagree with anything you said. That is why I mentioned that it may not make sense to continue in microstock. The only thing I would point out is that this industry has converted to a full on commodity model. I am not happy about this, but don't have any doubt that this has happened. As in any commodity based business relationships and loyalty become less important as it is basically a race to the bottom on price because there are so many suppliers providing nearly identical content. This can be somewhat mitigated by staying ahead on the quality and creative side, but it is an uphill battle.

Rv-Voyager · « **Reply #38 on:** March 06, 2015, 16:15 »

Quote from: kmlPhoto on March 05, 2015, 10:05

Up until its recent price dip, I have made more on SS as an investor than as a contributor. We work in a free market economy. If we want to work with SS our only control over what we make is volume and quality of submissions. They have a right to make money and spend it any way they like. they can pay as much or a little to us as the market will bear. There may come a time when it just doesn't work to be a stock contributor with SS or any other agency there are other options for making a living in the imaging space, we are all creative people, we will find them. I don't see any agency owing us anything. Just a thought from someone who has spent way too much time in the business world and not enough time behind a camera.

They have that right, the question is it ethical?

Rinderart · « **Reply #39 on:** March 06, 2015, 23:40 »

I want a raise to buy my own Darn pizza and coffee, thank you very much.

KnowYourOnions · « **Reply #40 on:** March 07, 2015, 03:01 »

Quote from: Rv-Voyager on March 06, 2015, 16:15

Quote from: kmlPhoto on March 05, 2015, 10:05
Up until its recent price dip, I have made more on SS as an investor than as a contributor. We work in a free market economy. If we want to work with SS our only control over what we make is volume and quality of submissions. They have a right to make money and spend it any way they like. they can pay as much or a little to us as the market will bear. There may come a time when it just doesn't work to be a stock contributor with SS or any other agency there are other options for making a living in the imaging space, we are all creative people, we will find them. I don't see any agency owing us anything. Just a thought from someone who has spent way too much time in the business world and not enough time behind a camera.

They have that right, the question is it ethical?

The answer is NO.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: A closer look at Shutterstock headquarters (Read 9457 times)

skyfish

cthoman

jcpjr

Jo Ann Snover

PixelBytes

Uncle Pete

KnowYourOnions

EmberMike

kmlPhoto

Jo Ann Snover

ScottishPhotographer

Uncle Pete

kmlPhoto

Rv-Voyager

Rinderart

KnowYourOnions

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors