pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Day in the Life - Jon Oringer - WSJ slideshow  (Read 15910 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: February 14, 2012, 22:50 »
0
Not at all surprised to discover that Jon is so down-to-earth.  He runs his company like a smart businessman, not an egomaniac.  Wish his attitude and work ethic were contagious.  


Or is he, we could just be falling for a nice story, fairytale or carefully planned PR presentation ;) (that being said I wrote a comment similar to yours a few hours ago)


Yes nothing for years and then a nice PR story.  Something tells me we can expect more follow.

As for being grounded how many of us enjoy the following benefits. http://www.shutterstock.com/jobs.mhtml?nl=1&jvi=o46KVfwz,Job&jvs=Indeed&jvk=Job "Among other great benefits, Shutterstock offers competitive salaries, health and dental plans, 401k, company equity, daily breakfasts, weekly massages, discounted gym memberships"

Considering how much of a cut SS is taking from our efforts, it should not be surprising that the SS office has espresso machines vs the standard coffee makers that most business's use, along with all of the extra company perks the people working at the SS office enjoy.

I would much rather see a standard office with normal benefit packages as well as a better performing site without bugs, so that instead of pennies we could also enjoy fair revenue coming back to us as submitters.

As for looking tired, parties and events until 1:00 AM, helicopters and trips to second homes in elite location like aspen tend to wear you out.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2012, 22:53 by gbalex »


« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2012, 07:11 »
0
Here's a post from 2004 by Jon.

Why going exclusive with another agency is a bad idea:

1) You will be just another exclusive among hundreds vying for the same resources from one company. You can't go to another company to complain- you are stuck with a single channel.

2) Competition is good for the industry and YOU! Let's say you don't like the way they are treating a certain rule/idea/etc. You have nowhere to go! At least you can use your vote by concentrating your efforts on another agency until the other one gets back in line. Why give up your voting power? In fact, these other agencies don't even let you talk about other stock agencies on their forums. You give up a lot to go exclusive.

3) Why sell your photos in one place for just a 10% increase at that one agency? Tons of photographers are telling me every day that they make more with ShutterStock than anywhere else! Why not make cash here, AND everywhere else?

4) Staying with ShutterStock means being part of something new and changing. We consider all of your suggestions - and implement them back into the system as quickly as we can. What happened when we weren't processing photos fast enough? We hired a night reviewer who worked on Christmas Eve! What other agency will review your photos on a major holiday?

5) I don't like exclusivity -- and i don�t plan to lock anybody into ShutterStock. I think you guys should sell your photos everywhere and make as much money as possible! Besides - the model we have here is just one model... Your photos may do well here some parts of the year, and better in other places other parts of the year.

6) Other places may try to convince you that going exclusive is a good business idea. It is exactly the opposite! If you aren't convinced of that, go back to (1) and do not proceed until you agree. ;)

7) Our traffic is increasing. Sales are increasing. If you don�t believe me, check out our Alexa Graph. If that doesn�t convince you to stay here � what will?

7) Finally, I would hate to see any of you go!

Would welcome any feedback you guys have.

Jon Oringer, Founder and CEO
ShutterStock, Inc.

Staying on track with his beliefs to this day. Really like SS.

helix7

« Reply #27 on: February 15, 2012, 07:31 »
0
...I wonder how many people would have the same level of admiration for him if next week he goes and sells SS to Getty.

I think Jon would view the istock story as a cautionary tale. StockXpert as well (or Jupiter anyway, and the resulting carnage of StockXpert). Bruce took the easy way out for a quick pay-day. I'd be willing to bet that if istock was still under Bruce's guidance and free of the investors, it would be radically different company today, and probably more valuable and still the top microstock agency. And StockXpert would still be around.

I don't think Jon would sign any deal that kills SS, and a deal with Getty would certainly kill the company. Getty doesn't need 2 subscription microstock properties. Between SS and TS, we all know which one would go. Jon would never do a deal like that.

« Reply #28 on: February 15, 2012, 07:53 »
0
...I wonder how many people would have the same level of admiration for him if next week he goes and sells SS to Getty.


I think Jon would view the istock story as a cautionary tale. StockXpert as well (or Jupiter anyway, and the resulting carnage of StockXpert). Bruce took the easy way out for a quick pay-day. I'd be willing to bet that if istock was still under Bruce's guidance and free of the investors, it would be radically different company today, and probably more valuable and still the top microstock agency. And StockXpert would still be around.

I don't think Jon would sign any deal that kills SS, and a deal with Getty would certainly kill the company. Getty doesn't need 2 subscription microstock properties. Between SS and TS, we all know which one would go. Jon would never do a deal like that.


But I don't think it's a case of Getty needing anything...it's more a case of buying up the competition to get rid of them. And everyone has their price...you don't have any clue as to how Jon Oringer spends his money. We see a lot of wealthy people ending up penniless because they squander their money on material things. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) If a person finds him/herself with a mountain of debt and just wants to be done with the headaches, selling out might be the solution. For the right price, I think 99% of the world would do it. I know if I were offered $50 million today, I'd be taking it.

Quote
Yes nothing for years and then a nice PR story.  Something tells me we can expect more follow.

As for being grounded how many of us enjoy the following benefits. http://www.shutterstock.com/jobs.mhtml?nl=1&jvi=o46KVfwz,Job&jvs=Indeed&jvk=Job "Among other great benefits, Shutterstock offers competitive salaries, health and dental plans, 401k, company equity, daily breakfasts, weekly massages, discounted gym memberships"

Considering how much of a cut SS is taking from our efforts, it should not be surprising that the SS office has espresso machines vs the standard coffee makers that most business's use, along with all of the extra company perks the people working at the SS office enjoy.

I would much rather see a standard office with normal benefit packages as well as a better performing site without bugs, so that instead of pennies we could also enjoy fair revenue coming back to us as submitters.

As for looking tired, parties and events until 1:00 AM, helicopters and trips to second homes in elite location like aspen tend to wear you out.


I tend to agree with you. It's nice that SS treats their employees so well, but I should think they would take better care of the people who provide all those nice things for them. But then again, with hundreds of thousands of microstockers willing to submit at such low returns, I guess SS feels that we knew the terms of the deal when we signed up, and if we don't like it, we don't have to take it.

And yeah, I feel about as bad for Jon Oringer as I do for Mark Zuckerberg. Poor babies, working their fingers to the bone.  ::)

lagereek

« Reply #29 on: February 15, 2012, 07:57 »
0
Regardless, I'm not ready to nominate him for sainthood.

+1 - Lets get things into perspective, he's not running a 'not for profit' charity he's the CEO of a successful business that takes a large chunk of our commission, I wonder how many people would have the same level of admiration for him if next week he goes and sells SS to Getty.


Quote:  sell SS to Getty?  you know somehow I think that nowdays the shoe is on the other foot. There isnt a bank in the world that would foot that bill, lack of creditworthiness, however Im pretty sure SS would be creitworthy enough for funds to buy Getty.

helix7

« Reply #30 on: February 15, 2012, 10:15 »
0
But I don't think it's a case of Getty needing anything...it's more a case of buying up the competition to get rid of them. And everyone has their price...you don't have any clue as to how Jon Oringer spends his money. We see a lot of wealthy people ending up penniless because they squander their money on material things. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) If a person finds him/herself with a mountain of debt and just wants to be done with the headaches, selling out might be the solution. For the right price, I think 99% of the world would do it. I know if I were offered $50 million today, I'd be taking it.

That's pretty much what I was saying. Getty doesn't need 2 subscription site, but given the opportunity to do to SS what they did with StockXpert, they'd jump at the chance. I believe Jon knows that, and if he has faith in the company to continue to grow, it's in his best long-term interest to keep the company going. He'd probably do better financially over the next 10 years keeping SS the top microstock agency than he would with a short-term sell. And of course I don't know his situation, or what his number would be. But it's hard to imagine a scenario where a fairly humble guy like Jon is in enough debt to entertain a quick sale just to get out from under it. I imagine the guy's financial situation is pretty stable at this point in time.

Besides, I'm even more inclined to believe that he's heard from Getty already. They probably made him an offer years ago. He didn't sell then, and I doubt he's likely to sell now that he's on top of the industry.

« Reply #31 on: February 15, 2012, 11:14 »
0
Oh come fellas, why be so dead serious about it?  its a funny and nice thing, isnt it, no one is a saint, not even the saints themselves. Jon, is giving us a bit of insight, sharing and regardless, its more then anybody else have done. isnt it. How can you not admire him.

I respect the guy and think he built a great site. I just don't get all the SS cheerleading sometimes on this site.

RT


« Reply #32 on: February 15, 2012, 11:16 »
0
Just to clarify something, when I said - "I wonder how many people would have the same level of admiration for him if next week he goes and sells SS to Getty." - it was hypothetical and wasn't intended to spark a debate on whether it would actually happen,  I was trying to point out to those that think the sun shines out of Jon Oringers rear that he is just a businessman albeit a successful one (something Bruce Livingstone wasn't) and that I have no doubt whatsoever that as a businessman he would, if given the right offer, dump SS to the highest bidder, and if I was in his position so would I, but if this happened some people might not feel he is the idol they make him out to be.

Yes he's a nice bloke, and yes I could sit next to him in a pizza palour and not know, but to be honest I wouldn't care even if I did know.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #33 on: February 15, 2012, 11:35 »
0
I hope he's got the releases for those pix!  ;D


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204883304577221273401669372.html#slide/1



Not a particularly great "day in the life" profile, but still a few interesting images. Jon is an interesting guy. Definitely not your typical CEO. You could be sitting next to him at that pizza joint and never guess that you're sitting next the chief executive of one of the top stock image agencies in the world.

« Reply #34 on: February 15, 2012, 12:47 »
0
Funny thing, though.  Whenever I read these interviews and see pictures of these guys who are running multi-million/billion dollar microstock companies, I am amazed at how young they are!  Makes me feel like an old lady ;)

You should have seen all the young, good looking, supersmart people at the microstock expo. I felt like a dinosaur between all the young talent.

Funny how those smart people don't actually own the product they hock.

That's what's so smart :)

« Reply #35 on: February 15, 2012, 16:41 »
0
Funny thing, though.  Whenever I read these interviews and see pictures of these guys who are running multi-million/billion dollar microstock companies, I am amazed at how young they are!  Makes me feel like an old lady ;)

You should have seen all the young, good looking, supersmart people at the microstock expo. I felt like a dinosaur between all the young talent.

Funny how those smart people don't actually own the product they hock.

I was talking about the contributors at the expo....and of course all those yuri mini mes own their content...

But it is true that the agencies make more money than us. Although their job is a lot more complex than ours IMO.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2012, 16:54 by cobalt »

wut

« Reply #36 on: February 15, 2012, 17:18 »
0
But it is true that the agencies make more money than us. Although their job is a lot more complex than ours IMO.

Why?!? ??? :o

« Reply #37 on: February 15, 2012, 17:40 »
0
Ever tried running a business with several hundred or thousands of employees? Keeping it competitive and innovative?

The more layers of hierarchy/management/owners the more difficult moving the ship is.

Small companies are fast and flexible, large companies often slow down.

The contributors run small businesses, they are flexibel and fast and can move their content easily around (plus selling directly themselves). Corporations dont just have to manage their position in the market but also their ever increasing teams of people.

So I believe the contributors can focus much more easily on their business (producing content), while the agencies have to deal with international sales, legal problems, hiring staff, staff leaving, customer complaints etc...

« Reply #38 on: February 15, 2012, 17:59 »
0
Ever tried running a business with several hundred or thousands of employees? Keeping it competitive and innovative?

The more layers of hierarchy/management/owners the more difficult moving the ship is.

Small companies are fast and flexible, large companies often slow down.

The contributors run small businesses, they are flexibel and fast and can move their content easily around (plus selling directly themselves). Corporations dont just have to manage their position in the market but also their ever increasing teams of people.

So I believe the contributors can focus much more easily on their business (producing content), while the agencies have to deal with international sales, legal problems, hiring staff, staff leaving, customer complaints etc...

My business is making money with my art (residuals), and not just producing it.

wut

« Reply #39 on: February 15, 2012, 18:12 »
0
Ever tried running a business with several hundred or thousands of employees? Keeping it competitive and innovative?

The more layers of hierarchy/management/owners the more difficult moving the ship is.

Small companies are fast and flexible, large companies often slow down.

The contributors run small businesses, they are flexibel and fast and can move their content easily around (plus selling directly themselves). Corporations dont just have to manage their position in the market but also their ever increasing teams of people.

So I believe the contributors can focus much more easily on their business (producing content), while the agencies have to deal with international sales, legal problems, hiring staff, staff leaving, customer complaints etc...

I really don't see much innovation etc, they're just doing what they were for the past 8 years or so (the big agencies). Like a well oiled machine, changes were subtle if we forget about the cuts or even RCs. They're just the middleman and I really doubt any agency has thousands of employees. Hundreds yes, but just a handful of them. So they mostly are mid sized businesses

« Reply #40 on: February 15, 2012, 18:45 »
0
Very nice and refreshing to see that. Down to earth and working.
It's probably the quintessence of what I like most at Shutterstock: consistency. For everybody SS dwarfs all the other agencies in terms of revenue, therefore they are getting the most attention from us everyday and yet we very rarely see "downloads at SS stopped! help!!!" topics, which means exactly this: consistency. More like consistent improvement in earnings, in fact. Even for the old timers who reached the so-called plateau income is not dropping, but staying on the same level (at least).


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
4707 Views
Last post February 13, 2011, 15:28
by cthoman
15 Replies
5130 Views
Last post April 19, 2012, 21:23
by RacePhoto
190 Replies
39807 Views
Last post October 20, 2012, 09:46
by ClaridgeJ
37 Replies
12759 Views
Last post December 07, 2012, 02:56
by etienjones
1 Replies
2380 Views
Last post March 07, 2016, 02:09
by ChrisGardinerPhotography

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors