MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Last SS Raise - May 13, 2008 - 2013 Q1 RPI download increases 8% to $2.29  (Read 15765 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 06, 2013, 17:32 »
+52
How about a raise Jon, your company, it's investors and employees are prospering.

It is about time you spread the wealth to those of us who helped you become successful. After all you could not have done it without us.

"Among other great benefits, Shutterstock offers competitive salaries, health and dental plans, 401k, company equity, daily breakfasts, weekly massages, discounted gym memberships"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-first-quarter-2013-200500835.html

Shutterstock Reports First Quarter 2013 Financial Results
- Quarterly revenue increases 36% from prior year period to $51.1 million
- Adjusted EBITDA increases 136% to $11.8 million
- Quarterly image downloads increase 27% to 22.3 million
- Revenue per image download increases 8% to $2.29

http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1759499&highlight=
"Shutterstock Reports Third Quarter 2012 Financial Results

Snip "Revenue for the third quarter was $42.3 million, a 36% increase from the third quarter of 2011.  The Company experienced growth in all product lines and in all major global territories.

Financial Outlook

The Company's current financial and operating expectations for the fourth quarter of 2012, full year 2012 and full year 2013 are as follows:

Fourth Quarter 2012
    Revenue of $44 - $45 million

Full Year 2012
    Revenue of $164 - $166 million

Cash as Percent of Total Assets (%) (MRQ) 73.73"

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=SSTK
"Year over year, Shutterstock, Inc. has been able to grow revenues from $83.0M USD to $120.3M USD. Most impressively, the company has been able to reduce the percentage of sales devoted to cost of goods sold from 38.99% to 37.83%. This was a driver that led to a bottom line growth from $18.9M USD to $21.9M USD"

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37831

"Posted: Tue May 13, 2008

Dear Shutterstock Submitter,

Looking back on the first four months of 2008, we are happy to confirm that demand remains strong for all of our products. As a result, our submitter payouts continue to increase each month, proving again that Shutterstock has become the go-to resource for high quality royalty-free visual content. We thank you for helping us develop one of the strongest libraries in the industry.

We remain committed to providing a strong financial incentive for you to continue to submit your best work, and we are delighted to announce changes in your payout rates. These changes will become effective over the next 12 hours. Heres how they work:

If you have earned $500 in lifetime earnings from Shutterstock, we will increase your payment per Standard License download to 33 per download. This is a raise of 3 (10%) per download over the current applicable rate of 30.

If you have earned $3,000 in lifetime earnings, we will increase your payment per Standard License download to 36 per download. This is a raise of 6 (20%) per download over the current applicable rate of 30.

If you have earned $10,000 in lifetime earnings, we will increase your payment per Standard License download to 38 per download. This is a raise of 8 (27%) per download over the current applicable rate of 30.

If you have not yet reached these earnings levels, the current payout of 25 per download will remain in force. At midnight on the day your earnings hit these levels, you will automatically be upgraded in our system to the higher payout rate, and that rate will apply going forward.

The royalty for Enhanced License downloads will increase to $28 per download for all submitters. This is a raise of $8 (40%) per download over the current rate of $20.

All Referral, Footage, and CD-a-Month payout rates remain unchanged.

Of course, the fastest way to qualify for the higher payout rates is to submit more high-quality content. These earnings levels are not hard to reach as long as you submit your newest and best work to us.

In return, you can expect us to continue our marketing efforts, product development, and the heavy investment necessary to improve our technology. Our new footage subscription products are a great example of how all these things come together successfully, and there are many others in the pipeline. We continue to hire aggressively to improve our already excellent customer support, and we now offer full time support and site translations in eight foreign languages and counting. We will soon be launching beta versions of our French, German, and Spanish translated Submit sites, which will provide an even better experience for our submitters who are native speakers of these languages.

It is our pleasure to offer you this increase -- it is our way of thanking you again for your support, loyalty and, above all, your fantastic content.

Best Regards,
Shutterstock"
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 18:17 by gbalex »


« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2013, 18:25 »
+1
over 4 years since a raise? Thats like 4 decades in internet years  ;)

lisafx

« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2013, 18:28 »
+2
You deserve more than a +1 for that.  Take a bow Gbalex :)

« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2013, 18:52 »
-6
Sorry mate, but you're not looking at the big picture here __ and I know that probably won't be a popular view.

You quote the increases in revenue for SS. Haven't you experienced the same? I know I have. My own earnings from SS have grown hugely in the last 2-3 years. It's called 'organic growth' when you increase revenue by increasing sales rather than via price increases or opening more outlets.

What would you have SS do? Follow Istock/Fotolia/Dreamstime in their insane greed with multiple price increases followed by reductions in royalty percentages. That's helped our revenue a lot hasn't it? Not.

SS have a proven, highly successful formula of all images priced the same and a search facility that not only works for their customers but also for the contributors as well. Your best selling images, provided they continue to sell, remain favourably placed in the default sort-order. That's excellent for stability of earnings which is my main concern.

If you really want to grow your earnings then work harder and work better. That's how things happen in the real world. Factory workers, office workers or self-employed people don't expect their earnings to grow every year by massive price increases for their goods or their services __ so why should you?

Don't just tell SS to 'give us a raise'. Give us a business plan on how you propose that that should be achieved. Should prices be increased? By how much and why? Should SS cut back on marketing or R&D to pay more out to contributors? Would that work? How would that play out with SS's competitors? If you really knew all the answers to those questions then you'd probably be a very successful businessman __ like Oringer.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 20:01 by gostwyck »

« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2013, 18:56 »
+1
I remember a lot of us weren't that happy with the last SS raise.  A free +1 for anyone who can find that thread from almost 5 years ago.

« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2013, 19:08 »
+1
4
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 22:38 by tickstock »

« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2013, 20:02 »
0
over 4 years since a raise? Thats like 4 decades in internet years  ;)

In May 2013 it will be 5 years

« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2013, 20:29 »
+8
Following the IPO they will be talking about increasing profits, not rewarding contributors.   They are probably currently discussing reductions, not raises.   
« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 20:32 by stockastic »

« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2013, 20:32 »
+2
How many agencies have given us a raise in the past years? Hmm, not too many come to mind. So why single out SS? Personally I think 0.38 for subs is already a lot better than most sites. These days it is already good news when royalties are not reduced.

« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2013, 20:34 »
0
Following the IPO they will be talking about increasing profits, not rewarding contributors.   They are probably currently discussing reductions, not raises.

They are cutting our income on Feb 28th. Look at the new referral program.

« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2013, 20:35 »
+1
Following the IPO they will be talking about increasing profits, not rewarding contributors.   They are probably currently discussing reductions, not raises.

Which is exactly why I let Jon know what I expect in lew of the unacceptable alternative.

How many millions in pure profit will it take to make them happy?

« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2013, 20:38 »
+7
I think there are a couple of things SS could reasonably do without upending their business model.

I don't think they should raise prices for subscriptions.

I to think we're probably underpaid for some ELs - Buy a 2 pack and buyer pays $199 or a 5 pack and buyer pays $449. We get a flat $28 which is 28% or 31% leaving SS with a tidy pile.

They have three tiers of prices for the on-demand stuff too - we get a flat rate. That might have room for them to share more of the gross on the more expensive sales

They could consider another tier at $20K where the subs price goes up to 39 or 40 cents - it's something everyone can shoot for but the increase will be limited to a subset of total subscription sales.

They're getting 21MP images for a subs program which wasn't typical in 2008. The growing percentage of non-subs sales has made that something most of us have decided to live with. I've always thought that EL royalty rates should be much much higher than for standard license sales - they can afford to share the gravy a bit more generously, IMO

I don't expect they'll do anything as I don't think they feel pressured to. They are the big earner for most people.

I have never done referral links and I don't like them. At this point, with an established agency, it's a kickback to someone who has done nothing for the business. I'd rather see those pennies spread around rather than used up in the completely wasted compensation of people who have "found" contributors for the leading subscription agency.

« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2013, 20:56 »
0
Following the IPO they will be talking about increasing profits, not rewarding contributors.   They are probably currently discussing reductions, not raises.

Which is exactly why I let Jon know what I expect in lew of the unacceptable alternative.

How many millions in pure profit will it take to make them happy?

Fair enough.   You're letting them know that contributors feel like they're not participating in the success of the company.  That might become at least a tiny factor in their discussions.   

SS is ending up with a dominant position in microstock.  The temptation to take advantage of that may be irresistible to first-round investors anxious to cash out at a nice profit.  But the new investors aren't running the company.  Yet.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 21:03 by stockastic »

« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2013, 21:13 »
-3
Following the IPO they will be talking about increasing profits, not rewarding contributors.   They are probably currently discussing reductions, not raises.

Which is exactly why I let Jon know what I expect in lew of the unacceptable alternative.

It's 'in lieu' btw.

I'm getting annoyed about the level of ignorance and plain stupidity being expressed on this forum. Not to mention the pathetic, hand-wringing pessimism about the IPO. There is, as yet, absolutely no justification to such concerns. It's actually far more likely that SS will use the money raised to grow the business and with it, hopefully, our incomes.

If you really think the share holders will be taking too much of the profit ... then buy some shares and join them. Easy really. Stop whinging about it and put your money where your mouth is. If you'd have bought some stock when they first became available (in October 2012) you'd already be up 50% __ and that's without any dividends or increases in prices.

I've been discussing the issue of image pricing and sales volume with the great and the good of this forum privately for several years. For most of us, on most agencies, volume actually peaked around 2006 whilst income peaked around 2009. We all knew that the growth in income was being fuelled entirely by increases in prices because volume was steadily falling as more and more images came on-line. It was inevitable that at some point in the future it couldn't be maintained. The only question was 'when?'. Welcome to that point. This is how things are now. Deal with it.

« Reply #14 on: February 06, 2013, 22:29 »
0
I don't see them handing out a raise by increasing the current commission rates but I think there is room for increasing our income by adding more options like the SOD downloads that were recently added and are bringing in some big dollars for some contributors.

I'd like to see:

An Opt-Out option for individual images in the SOD (sensitive use) program.  I think a lot of people are holding off from the Opt-In option because they don't want to include images of certain family members, children, etc.  Let us choose to Opt-In to the program but Opt-Out on select images.

Exclusive Image collection with a higher DL payout, exclusive for one year, then it goes back to the regular collection and you can upload to other sites.  This gives SS the benefit of exclusive images without having exclusive contributors.  Limit it to a percentage of one's portfolio to avoid someone opting in all their images which in effect would make them an exclusive contributor.

An "upload bonus" in the form of higher commission on new images for the first year, then drop back to the regular schedule. This would encourage new content but only reward if it's on-target and sells.

From a business viewpoint it's not good to increase the current commission levels.  What's needed is more creative thinking like the SOD sensitive use program that brings in more money for everyone.

« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2013, 22:41 »
-1
Following the IPO they will be talking about increasing profits, not rewarding contributors.   They are probably currently discussing reductions, not raises.

Which is exactly why I let Jon know what I expect in lew of the unacceptable alternative.

It's 'in lieu' btw.

I'm getting annoyed about the level of ignorance and plain stupidity being expressed on this forum. Not to mention the pathetic, hand-wringing pessimism about the IPO. There is, as yet, absolutely no justification to such concerns. It's actually far more likely that SS will use the money raised to grow the business and with it, hopefully, our incomes.

If you really think the share holders will be taking too much of the profit ... then buy some shares and join them. Easy really. Stop whinging about it and put your money where your mouth is. If you'd have bought some stock when they first became available (in October 2012) you'd already be up 50% __ and that's without any dividends or increases in prices.

I've been discussing the issue of image pricing and sales volume with the great and the good of this forum privately for several years. For most of us, on most agencies, volume actually peaked around 2006 whilst income peaked around 2009. We all knew that the growth in income was being fuelled entirely by increases in prices because volume was steadily falling as more and more images came on-line. It was inevitable that at some point in the future it couldn't be maintained. The only question was 'when?'. Welcome to that point. This is how things are now. Deal with it.

Do you belive everything you are told or read?

« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2013, 22:43 »
-1
I don't see them handing out a raise by increasing the current commission rates but I think there is room for increasing our income by adding more options like the SOD downloads that were recently added and are bringing in some big dollars for some contributors.

I'd like to see:

An Opt-Out option for individual images in the SOD (sensitive use) program.  I think a lot of people are holding off from the Opt-In option because they don't want to include images of certain family members, children, etc.  Let us choose to Opt-In to the program but Opt-Out on select images.

Exclusive Image collection with a higher DL payout, exclusive for one year, then it goes back to the regular collection and you can upload to other sites.  This gives SS the benefit of exclusive images without having exclusive contributors.  Limit it to a percentage of one's portfolio to avoid someone opting in all their images which in effect would make them an exclusive contributor.

An "upload bonus" in the form of higher commission on new images for the first year, then drop back to the regular schedule. This would encourage new content but only reward if it's on-target and sells.

From a business viewpoint it's not good to increase the current commission levels.  What's needed is more creative thinking like the SOD sensitive use program that brings in more money for everyone.

Why. do you think they are going to go bancrupt if they pay out 2-3cents more a dl?


« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2013, 22:59 »
+6
So which is it mate????

A. "You quote the increases in revenue for SS. Haven't you experienced the same? I know I have. My own earnings from SS have grown hugely in the last 2-3 years. It's called 'organic growth' when you increase revenue by increasing sales"

B. "Or We all knew that the growth in income was being fuelled entirely by increases in prices because volume was steadily falling as more and more images came on-line. It was inevitable that at some point in the future it couldn't be maintained."

I know my own revenue has been going up over the last five years because of increased sales.  In fact my RPI has improved significantly because my image quality/ commercial value also rose.

That being said I think SS has room to spread a bit of that wealth to it's image producers and it can easily do that because it reduced the percentage of sales devoted to cost of goods sold from 38.99% to 37.83% while also increasing its Revenue for the third quarter to $42.3 million which is a 36% increase from the third quarter of 2011. 

In addition SS experienced growth in all product lines and in all major global territories without raising prices and it should share a bit of that wealth with the people who actually bore the costs to produced those images. I know my production cost's have risen across the board over the last five years.

Sorry mate, but you're not looking at the big picture here __ and I know that probably won't be a popular view.

You quote the increases in revenue for SS. Haven't you experienced the same? I know I have. My own earnings from SS have grown hugely in the last 2-3 years. It's called 'organic growth' when you increase revenue by increasing sales rather than via price increases or opening more outlets.

If you really want to grow your earnings then work harder and work better.

Following the IPO they will be talking about increasing profits, not rewarding contributors.   They are probably currently discussing reductions, not raises.

Which is exactly why I let Jon know what I expect in lew of the unacceptable alternative.

It's 'in lieu' btw.

I'm getting annoyed about the level of ignorance and plain stupidity being expressed on this forum.

I've been discussing the issue of image pricing and sales volume with the great and the good of this forum privately for several years. For most of us, on most agencies, volume actually peaked around 2006 whilst income peaked around 2009. We all knew that the growth in income was being fuelled entirely by increases in prices because volume was steadily falling as more and more images came on-line. It was inevitable that at some point in the future it couldn't be maintained. The only question was 'when?'. Welcome to that point. This is how things are now. Deal with it.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 23:05 by gbalex »

tab62

« Reply #18 on: February 07, 2013, 00:05 »
0
this way there will never be a co-op company! Nobody can agree on any single point.

If there was any chance of Shutter jumping in and making a payout change it is history now.  You had a good idea - sure there a flaws but the concept was good. Just needed some additional support. There are good merits on not giving to much to the artists since the company needs to keep up the Marketing but a little more wouldn't kill them since the number 2 is like miles behind them now!


« Reply #19 on: February 07, 2013, 01:34 »
+9
A good point was made above (Joanne I think) that said we weren't shooting with 21mpx cameras when the subscription scheme came into effect.  I wouldn't mind seeing that only perhaps 6megapixels go under the basic plan.  It just seems so outrageous to give away these huge photos for so little.  I bet in most cases they only need a blogger size.

« Reply #20 on: February 07, 2013, 01:42 »
+1
I believe is near impossible to rise the subscription commissions.... BUT... the OD, EL,footage and SOD can be raised. say between 28-36%.

Who knows... maybe the referrals cuts will end up in a commission raise... I douthit but possible  ::)
« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 01:44 by nicku »

RacePhoto

« Reply #21 on: February 07, 2013, 02:56 »
+1

If you really think the share holders will be taking too much of the profit ... then buy some shares and join them. Easy really. Stop whinging about it and put your money where your mouth is. If you'd have bought some stock when they first became available (in October 2012) you'd already be up 50% __ and that's without any dividends or increases in prices.


Well I have been kicking the buying shares idea around for a few months and I'd say, you have a point there. If I buy 100 shares @$25 for example and SSTK reaches the 1 year goal, I'd make $500 profit by next year. That's much better than having it sitting in a bank account doing almost nothing.

But I do have a math question. I hope this isn't something tricky to figure or explain, but how does going from $21 a share, on the market, not the impossible IPO shares, to $25 a share which it is right now, $4 increase = equal a 50% increase? And you know very well that the IPO very likely wasn't available to anyone on these forums.

50% really? Why do I see that as a 16% increase?


vlad_the_imp

« Reply #22 on: February 07, 2013, 04:07 »
+7
Quote
Personally I think 0.38 for subs is already a lot better than most sites

 Where else would someone, producing a unique creative product, think that being paid 38 cents for it was something to celebrate. People running agencies and their backers and shareholders, must have a really good laugh in private.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 05:37 by vlad_the_imp »

« Reply #23 on: February 07, 2013, 04:33 »
+3
I removed a few posts where members were taking "ridiculous cheap" shots at each other.  let's keep this conversation somewhat civilized.

« Reply #24 on: February 07, 2013, 09:58 »
+2
Quote
Personally I think 0.38 for subs is already a lot better than most sites

 Where else would someone, producing a unique creative product, think that being paid 38 cents for it was something to celebrate. People running agencies and their backers and shareholders, must have a really good laugh in private.
I'd still rather have 10x $0.38 than one $3, wouldn't you?  I prefer making more money overall than the amount I make per image download.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
7218 Views
Last post October 17, 2007, 12:01
by ALTPhotoImages
8 Replies
2630 Views
Last post May 29, 2008, 08:42
by toneteam
26 Replies
7672 Views
Last post June 16, 2008, 13:12
by Mormegil
11 Replies
3073 Views
Last post June 01, 2009, 10:46
by azurelaroux
4 Replies
2023 Views
Last post December 09, 2010, 03:19
by 123XXX

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results