"In lieu of salary, SSTK's CEO was granted stock options that are only exercisable if SSTK trades at or above a set target price. Incentivizing executives solely with stock price can have damaging effects, as business decisions can be made only to drive stock price appreciation with little regard to the long-term economic success of the business."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3997693-shutterstock-content-redistribution-platform-winning-strategy

by that time, it won't matter to many of us,
as we would have already , like Elvis, left the building
..to other fields to cultivate...
like pauliewalnuts
like GL
...etc

Accepting contributors with 1/10 submissions, uploading huge redundant ports, suppressing older ports in the search...it's all to show investors the huge growth of the library and the growth in revenues to drive up the stock price. But we knew that.

And if SS are aware of this problem you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be either cuts in rates or they will remain static for the foreseeable future further eating in to the contributors real profits

I quote from page 2 "At the same time, it can't afford to raise the amount paid to content providers (to attract them away from other services) without eating away at an already low margin."

There isn't a low margin...they just don't want to cut into their margin. But it's ok to cut into their suppliers' margins. 

Because they're still the biggest earner for most people. And at least you don't get 1� royalties like you do with Getty.

And if SS are aware of this problem you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be either cuts in rates or they will remain static for the foreseeable future further eating in to the contributors real profits

I quote from page 2 "At the same time, it can't afford to raise the amount paid to content providers (to attract them away from other services) without eating away at an already low margin."

true.
anytime you hear the pre-text (atst, but, also,however...) there is always something in regard
to * blood from an already dying horse

content provider = low priority
shareholders quick profit short term relationship...  which AGM have you ever heard of
this animal bleeder mentioned "in the interest of our content provider,supplier,..."

I think for Shutterstock their competitive "edge" is that their competitors are just so much worse.

"At the end of the day, neither of these options meets the current expectations embedded in the market price. Shutterstock does not own the keys (content) that are driving its high valuation, and with low margins and significant competition, it's only a matter of time before SSTK's market share is encroached upon." I would have expected Adobe to be doing this already but I have found after an initial spurt they seem back to where they were. If a rival really gets its act together by better QC of accepted images and improved searching I think they could be in trouble. The risk for contributors is cost cutting as they are sitting on a mountain of cash so they could take a hit (though of course so could adobe) and for many of us pulling out of SS would be a very costly decision.

I am finding adobe is continuing to gain ground at the expense of ss and IS

any references?

Quote from: anathaya on August 10, 2016, 04:03

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on August 10, 2016, 03:19

I am finding adobe is continuing to gain ground at the expense of ss and IS

any references?

I mean my income and sales at Fotolia/ Adobe continue to increase while continuing to stagnate or drop at SS and drop through the floor at IS/ Getty

I agree with that the Fotolia sales have been going up and up in the last 4 months, where SS was just static and then started to slide over the same period

Another article about SS spending to inflate the library. "Engagement was driven by investments in bulking up the content library and in improving the customer experience, Oringer explained."

http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/10/shutterstock-snaps-higher-second-quarter-profits.aspx

At some point investors might begin to wonder if raw number of images equates to quality and diversity and whether the amount of questionable quality images is actually driving customers away

yes, but you refer to shareholders looking for growth long term vs scavengers quick buck short
as shelma's reference below , it is more like the owner of a dump rental property
with overdued repairs hidden , bulking up the full rentee no vacancy carrot to attract
new ownership
...with intent to take the money and run istock style dejavu

Another article about SS spending to inflate the library. "Engagement was driven by investments in bulking up the content library and in improving the customer experience, Oringer explained."

http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/10/shutterstock-snaps-higher-second-quarter-profits.aspx