MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Last SS Raise - May 13, 2008 - 2013 Q1 RPI download increases 8% to $2.29  (Read 15758 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.

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #25 on: February 07, 2013, 10:39 »
+2
Quote
I'd still rather have 10x $0.38 than one $3, wouldn't you?

Yes, I agree, I think IS went wrong  by making prices too high, it's more the principle of people applauding sales at such a low price point. I'd rather have 10 x $5, as an unrealistic comparison.

« Reply #26 on: February 07, 2013, 13:30 »
+3
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 have to agree.  I think we're seriously losing perspective over time.  The bottom line is that the perceived value of imagery has been gutted.   Photographers are adapting, by concentrating on photos that are either dirt cheap to produce, or can sell zillions of times - and the former is a lot easier.  We don't see all the good photos, the niche subjects, that no one bothers to do because it can't pay off with this dumb one-size-fits-all pricing. 

Some people can make today's model work because their material is cheap and easy to shoot, yet there is some demand for it.  For others, it doesn't work and money is left on the table.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 13:32 by stockastic »


« Reply #27 on: February 07, 2013, 13:44 »
+2
and money is left on the table.

That should be typed in giant letters.

« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2013, 14:23 »
0

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.


Does this apply to all earnings including from referrals?

« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2013, 00:27 »
0


Some people can make today's model work because their material is cheap and easy to shoot, yet there is some demand for it.  For others, it doesn't work and money is left on the table.

honestly that is why I keep up with microstock. It lets me make money with almost no overhead other then camera gear that I buy, but honestly I would end up with the gear with or without microstock.
But no my goal is to keep cost as low as possible. I shoot stuff I already have, or stuff I'm already doing, or places I'm already going. If I need a model I photograph myself or my kids. If I need new subject matter it either has to be under 10 bucks or something I can justify using for day to day life.
So far this has worked and those cheap images have done alright and cost wise I'm doing great as most shots can be done for * near free.


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.

Partly why I love shutterstock so far. I make the least amount of money per image but then again I make about 50% of all my earnings on shutterstock. Though Sure it would be nice if they would increase the sales price of the images or increase the comission like Istock, Bigstock, fotolia, or one of those do... But then again I can easily see my sales going to where they do on those sites also.
Thinking of that I'm fine with make pennies on the buck compared to those other "higher paying" microstock sites.

« Reply #30 on: February 21, 2013, 18:36 »
+1
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html

Shutterstock Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2012 Financial Results
-- Fourth quarter revenue increases 42% from prior year
-- Full year revenue increases 41% from prior year
-- Adjusted EBITDA of $11.3 million in fourth quarter
-- Quarterly image downloads reach record of 21.4 million
-- Collection exceeds 23 million images and video clips
-- Number of active customer accounts surpasses 750,000

NEW YORK, Feb. 21, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Shutterstock, Inc. (SSTK) a leading global provider of commercial digital imagery, today announced financial results for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2012. 

"Our fourth quarter results capped a very strong year for Shutterstock," said Founder and CEO Jon Oringer. "We are very pleased with our progress on product innovation, global market penetration and financial performance over the course of 2012."

Tror

« Reply #31 on: February 21, 2013, 18:58 »
0
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html

Shutterstock Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2012 Financial Results
-- Fourth quarter revenue increases 42% from prior year
-- Full year revenue increases 41% from prior year
-- Adjusted EBITDA of $11.3 million in fourth quarter
-- Quarterly image downloads reach record of 21.4 million
-- Collection exceeds 23 million images and video clips
-- Number of active customer accounts surpasses 750,000

NEW YORK, Feb. 21, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Shutterstock, Inc. (SSTK) a leading global provider of commercial digital imagery, today announced financial results for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2012. 

"Our fourth quarter results capped a very strong year for Shutterstock," said Founder and CEO Jon Oringer. "We are very pleased with our progress on product innovation, global market penetration and financial performance over the course of 2012."


So, in a Ideal situation we would see a 41% increase  8) But guess what? This won`t happen. SS is now a shareholder company which means the top priority is increasing this 41% as much as possible and not decreasing it by paying more to us or asking the customers for less.

« Reply #32 on: February 21, 2013, 19:21 »
0
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html

Shutterstock Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2012 Financial Results
-- Fourth quarter revenue increases 42% from prior year
-- Full year revenue increases 41% from prior year
-- Adjusted EBITDA of $11.3 million in fourth quarter
-- Quarterly image downloads reach record of 21.4 million
-- Collection exceeds 23 million images and video clips
-- Number of active customer accounts surpasses 750,000

NEW YORK, Feb. 21, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Shutterstock, Inc. (SSTK) a leading global provider of commercial digital imagery, today announced financial results for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2012. 

"Our fourth quarter results capped a very strong year for Shutterstock," said Founder and CEO Jon Oringer. "We are very pleased with our progress on product innovation, global market penetration and financial performance over the course of 2012."


So, in a Ideal situation we would see a 41% increase  8) But guess what? This won`t happen. SS is now a shareholder company which means the top priority is increasing this 41% as much as possible and not decreasing it by paying more to us or asking the customers for less.


Yup.  But at least we can read their press releases and listen to the investors calls, and pretend we're somehow participating in the success. 

Tror

« Reply #33 on: February 21, 2013, 19:31 »
0
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html

Shutterstock Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2012 Financial Results
-- Fourth quarter revenue increases 42% from prior year
-- Full year revenue increases 41% from prior year
-- Adjusted EBITDA of $11.3 million in fourth quarter
-- Quarterly image downloads reach record of 21.4 million
-- Collection exceeds 23 million images and video clips
-- Number of active customer accounts surpasses 750,000

NEW YORK, Feb. 21, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Shutterstock, Inc. (SSTK) a leading global provider of commercial digital imagery, today announced financial results for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2012. 

"Our fourth quarter results capped a very strong year for Shutterstock," said Founder and CEO Jon Oringer. "We are very pleased with our progress on product innovation, global market penetration and financial performance over the course of 2012."


So, in a Ideal situation we would see a 41% increase  8) But guess what? This won`t happen. SS is now a shareholder company which means the top priority is increasing this 41% as much as possible and not decreasing it by paying more to us or asking the customers for less.


Yup.  But at least we can read their press releases and listen to the investors calls, and pretend we're somehow participating in the success.


...maybe they even listen. Hope is always the last thing to die....

OM

« Reply #34 on: February 21, 2013, 20:58 »
-3
Bye and large everyone is happy with Shutterstock. Contributors keep on uploading and increasing their earnings. Shareholders see increasing share price and increasing profits (discounted future cash flow) which keeps 'em buying the stock. What's not to like? After all, a contributor's increase in payments has to come from somewhere...........like the shareholders.........like not gonna happen!
 ;D

« Reply #35 on: February 21, 2013, 22:36 »
+1


can we know how many minus? ;D

(Oct 0.662$, Nov 0.567$, Dec 0.604$)
- 0.611$ / 2.30$ = 0.265 = 26.5%
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 22:46 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #36 on: February 22, 2013, 00:31 »
0
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.

True, no doubt. But I bet the ones having the biggest laugh of all are those who aim to keep 80% of the revenue and pass only 20% on to the people who do the work. They must think agencies paying 30% or more to the dupes supplying the content are off their rockers.


« Reply #37 on: February 22, 2013, 01:13 »
+11
I have never been a defitist or fatalist.  I learened long ago that we teach our business associates how we expect to be treated and they are more than happy to comply.

If we are not proactive in asking for and then expecting what we have earned and deserve,  we deserve what we get.  And that will be less and less all the time.

IS pushed it too far and SS has benifited from the results of that blatant greed over the last two years with a 36% increase in revenue in 2011 and a 42% increase in 2012.

My cost`s  have gone up across the board.  It is time for a raise and time to send BS a message with our wallets and our feet.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 01:23 by gbalex »

« Reply #38 on: February 22, 2013, 06:06 »
-4
I have never been a defitist or fatalist.  I learened long ago that we teach our business associates how we expect to be treated and they are more than happy to comply.

If we are not proactive in asking for and then expecting what we have earned and deserve,  we deserve what we get.  And that will be less and less all the time.

IS pushed it too far and SS has benifited from the results of that blatant greed over the last two years with a 36% increase in revenue in 2011 and a 42% increase in 2012.

My cost`s  have gone up across the board.  It is time for a raise and time to send BS a message with our wallets and our feet.

SS are operating for growth (very successfully) whereas IS were operating for profit (for H&F's short-term objectives). Big difference. At least with SS you can buy some stock and then voice your displeasure in person at the shareholders' meeting.

Anyway, you have had a raise at SS. Apart from the increase in sub volume you should also be enjoying the proceeeds from ODD's and SOD's which didn't exist in 2008. Personally my own income from SS has roughly doubled since 2008. I just wish other agencies had done the same.

Tror

« Reply #39 on: February 22, 2013, 06:31 »
+3
I have never been a defitist or fatalist.  I learened long ago that we teach our business associates how we expect to be treated and they are more than happy to comply.

If we are not proactive in asking for and then expecting what we have earned and deserve,  we deserve what we get.  And that will be less and less all the time.

IS pushed it too far and SS has benifited from the results of that blatant greed over the last two years with a 36% increase in revenue in 2011 and a 42% increase in 2012.

My cost`s  have gone up across the board.  It is time for a raise and time to send BS a message with our wallets and our feet.

SS are operating for growth (very successfully) whereas IS were operating for profit (for H&F's short-term objectives). Big difference. At least with SS you can buy some stock and then voice your displeasure in person at the shareholders' meeting.

Anyway, you have had a raise at SS. Apart from the increase in sub volume you should also be enjoying the proceeeds from ODD's and SOD's which didn't exist in 2008. Personally my own income from SS has roughly doubled since 2008. I just wish other agencies had done the same.

SS is a Profit oriented company like any other. It is growing with our help and material and I am glad that they do so ad congratulate them for their success. And this is what they should share with us, because ultimate we work in a _partnership_ with them.

I vote for a pay raise and think it would be more than fair.

« Reply #40 on: February 22, 2013, 06:56 »
0
Let's be clear, a pay rise for us means a price rise for the buyers.

If you vote for a pay rise then you need to be sure that increasing the subscription rate is something that the market will tolerate, without buyers heading off to TS or BS or elsewhere.

« Reply #41 on: February 22, 2013, 07:17 »
-4
SS is a Profit oriented company like any other. It is growing with our help and material and I am glad that they do so ad congratulate them for their success. And this is what they should share with us, because ultimate we work in a _partnership_ with them.

I vote for a pay raise and think it would be more than fair.

Unfortunately your 'vote' on MSG is meaningless, empty talk. If you really want to vote then buy some SSTK stock and attend the shockholders' meetings.


« Reply #42 on: February 22, 2013, 07:32 »
+1
I'm sure they'll listen if you turn up at the AGM with 10 shares and ask for a pay rise :)  Look how well that worked when Getty were a public company.

« Reply #43 on: February 22, 2013, 07:40 »
+2
Shutterstock is a corporation. A corporation knows nothing of ethics, morality or fairness. It exists for only one purpose: to make a profit.

« Reply #44 on: February 22, 2013, 09:05 »
-3
Shutterstock is a corporation. A corporation knows nothing of ethics, morality or fairness. It exists for only one purpose: to make a profit.

oh man, how expensive was your bike?

Tror

« Reply #45 on: February 22, 2013, 09:34 »
0
Let's be clear, a pay rise for us means a price rise for the buyers.

If you vote for a pay rise then you need to be sure that increasing the subscription rate is something that the market will tolerate, without buyers heading off to TS or BS or elsewhere.

Not necessarily. A pay raise would mean they make less Profit. They would only have to raise prices if they would want to keep the same or more profit numbers technically. They would only be forced to raise prices if they would make no profit.


« Reply #46 on: February 22, 2013, 09:54 »
+4
Let's be clear, a pay rise for us means a price rise for the buyers.

If you vote for a pay rise then you need to be sure that increasing the subscription rate is something that the market will tolerate, without buyers heading off to TS or BS or elsewhere.

Not necessarily. A pay raise would mean they make less Profit. They would only have to raise prices if they would want to keep the same or more profit numbers technically. They would only be forced to raise prices if they would make no profit.

Get real, how do you think the shareholders' meeting would go when they announce that profits are down because they decided to pay artists more without changing the prices?


« Reply #47 on: February 22, 2013, 10:07 »
+1
Let's be clear, a pay rise for us means a price rise for the buyers.

If you vote for a pay rise then you need to be sure that increasing the subscription rate is something that the market will tolerate, without buyers heading off to TS or BS or elsewhere.

What better way to reduce cost per sale than to funnel sales over to BS which just implemented reduced and unobtainable royalty rates.

We teach sites how to treat us, IS is learning what happens when you stiff contributors as we speak.

« Reply #48 on: February 22, 2013, 10:19 »
0
I have never been a defitist or fatalist.  I learened long ago that we teach our business associates how we expect to be treated and they are more than happy to comply.

If we are not proactive in asking for and then expecting what we have earned and deserve,  we deserve what we get.  And that will be less and less all the time.

IS pushed it too far and SS has benifited from the results of that blatant greed over the last two years with a 36% increase in revenue in 2011 and a 42% increase in 2012.

My cost`s  have gone up across the board.  It is time for a raise and time to send BS a message with our wallets and our feet.

SS are operating for growth (very successfully) whereas IS were operating for profit (for H&F's short-term objectives). Big difference. At least with SS you can buy some stock and then voice your displeasure in person at the shareholders' meeting.

Anyway, you have had a raise at SS. Apart from the increase in sub volume you should also be enjoying the proceeeds from ODD's and SOD's which didn't exist in 2008. Personally my own income from SS has roughly doubled since 2008. I just wish other agencies had done the same.

I will let you put your own money into SS, be sure to let us know how that goes.

« Reply #49 on: February 22, 2013, 10:34 »
0
Let's be clear, a pay rise for us means a price rise for the buyers.

If you vote for a pay rise then you need to be sure that increasing the subscription rate is something that the market will tolerate, without buyers heading off to TS or BS or elsewhere.

I tend to agree. When I looked at their IPO statement, it looked like they literally couldn't afford to pay us 50%. They may be able to squeeze in a little more money, but it's doubtful without raising prices.

Tror

« Reply #50 on: February 22, 2013, 10:38 »
-1
Let's be clear, a pay rise for us means a price rise for the buyers.

If you vote for a pay rise then you need to be sure that increasing the subscription rate is something that the market will tolerate, without buyers heading off to TS or BS or elsewhere.

Not necessarily. A pay raise would mean they make less Profit. They would only have to raise prices if they would want to keep the same or more profit numbers technically. They would only be forced to raise prices if they would make no profit.

Get real, how do you think the shareholders' meeting would go when they announce that profits are down because they decided to pay artists more without changing the prices?

I explained the technical situation without any implication. Off course SS won`t decrease its profit by raising our commission. That will be our misery in the future....probably you should think about the recent changes at BS

« Reply #51 on: February 22, 2013, 10:40 »
+16
From my perspective, all hope for long term good things for contributors from SS ended when they sent out the e-mail about Bigstock subscriptions and the ridiculous levels of annual sales needed to get the top level of royalties.

I think it's only a matter of when, not if, that royalty schedule is applied to sales at SS. That sort of scheme cuts SS's costs (which increases their profit) and favors the factory producers - Yuri, Monkey Business Images, etc.

There is no way, even if SS doubled their business and I stepped up production  significantly (I do this part time), I would keep my 38 cents per sub download and more importantly the higher payouts on OD and Single image sales.

So I'm glad they had a good fourth quarter, but it no longer seems to have anything to do with my prosperity there.

Tror

« Reply #52 on: February 22, 2013, 10:45 »
0
From my perspective, all hope for long term good things for contributors from SS ended when they sent out the e-mail about Bigstock subscriptions and the ridiculous levels of annual sales needed to get the top level of royalties.

I think it's only a matter of when, not if, that royalty schedule is applied to sales at SS. That sort of scheme cuts SS's costs (which increases their profit) and favors the factory producers - Yuri, Monkey Business Images, etc.

There is no way, even if SS doubled their business and I stepped up production  significantly (I do this part time), I would keep my 38 cents per sub download and more importantly the higher payouts on OD and Single image sales.

So I'm glad they had a good fourth quarter, but it no longer seems to have anything to do with my prosperity there.

I could not agree more....

« Reply #53 on: February 22, 2013, 10:55 »
-3
From my perspective, all hope for long term good things for contributors from SS ended when they sent out the e-mail about Bigstock subscriptions and the ridiculous levels of annual sales needed to get the top level of royalties.

I think it's only a matter of when, not if, that royalty schedule is applied to sales at SS. That sort of scheme cuts SS's costs (which increases their profit) and favors the factory producers - Yuri, Monkey Business Images, etc.

There is no way, even if SS doubled their business and I stepped up production  significantly (I do this part time), I would keep my 38 cents per sub download and more importantly the higher payouts on OD and Single image sales.

So I'm glad they had a good fourth quarter, but it no longer seems to have anything to do with my prosperity there.

It could be that they are the only ones they want to keep. I wouldn't be surprised if those contributors hardly need to be inspected, so smaller players are probably more expensive for them. If smaller contributors are driven out they can reduce their numbers of inspectors and save more money.
In the end, it could be that only the factories will find micro worthwhile, and the rest of us will have to find a new home.
Where's KonaHawaii? :D

« Reply #54 on: February 22, 2013, 11:03 »
+3
Let's be clear, a pay rise for us means a price rise for the buyers.

If you vote for a pay rise then you need to be sure that increasing the subscription rate is something that the market will tolerate, without buyers heading off to TS or BS or elsewhere.

Not necessarily. A pay raise would mean they make less Profit. They would only have to raise prices if they would want to keep the same or more profit numbers technically. They would only be forced to raise prices if they would make no profit.

Get real, how do you think the shareholders' meeting would go when they announce that profits are down because they decided to pay artists more without changing the prices?

At least where I work we do give raises out annually and we are also publicly traded. However, we strive to find ways to become more productive internally in ways that hit the p&l.  I am in no way connected to SS but there are always ways to conduct lean assessments of an organization to identify waste, remove it and redeploy process. Raises aren't JUST about increases for contributors=increases for buyers. There is a middle component missing in this dialog....productivity, growth strategies, etc.

« Reply #55 on: February 22, 2013, 11:19 »
+1
Let's be clear, a pay rise for us means a price rise for the buyers.

If you vote for a pay rise then you need to be sure that increasing the subscription rate is something that the market will tolerate, without buyers heading off to TS or BS or elsewhere.

Not necessarily. A pay raise would mean they make less Profit. They would only have to raise prices if they would want to keep the same or more profit numbers technically. They would only be forced to raise prices if they would make no profit.

Get real, how do you think the shareholders' meeting would go when they announce that profits are down because they decided to pay artists more without changing the prices?

At least where I work we do give raises out annually and we are also publicly traded. However, we strive to find ways to become more productive internally in ways that hit the p&l.  I am in no way connected to SS but there are always ways to conduct lean assessments of an organization to identify waste, remove it and redeploy process. Raises aren't JUST about increases for contributors=increases for buyers. There is a middle component missing in this dialog....productivity, growth strategies, etc.

Could not agree more.

« Reply #56 on: February 22, 2013, 11:32 »
-2
From my perspective, all hope for long term good things for contributors from SS ended when they sent out the e-mail about Bigstock subscriptions and the ridiculous levels of annual sales needed to get the top level of royalties.

I think it's only a matter of when, not if, that royalty schedule is applied to sales at SS. That sort of scheme cuts SS's costs (which increases their profit) and favors the factory producers - Yuri, Monkey Business Images, etc.

There is no way, even if SS doubled their business and I stepped up production  significantly (I do this part time), I would keep my 38 cents per sub download and more importantly the higher payouts on OD and Single image sales.

So I'm glad they had a good fourth quarter, but it no longer seems to have anything to do with my prosperity there.

It could be that they are the only ones they want to keep. I wouldn't be surprised if those contributors hardly need to be inspected, so smaller players are probably more expensive for them. If smaller contributors are driven out they can reduce their numbers of inspectors and save more money.
In the end, it could be that only the factories will find micro worthwhile, and the rest of us will have to find a new home.
Where's KonaHawaii? :D

Oh come on __ do the numbers. Yuri, MB and all the 'factories' have barely 200K images between them. They don't even represent 1% of the library.


« Reply #57 on: February 22, 2013, 12:01 »
+1
Let's be clear, a pay rise for us means a price rise for the buyers.

If you vote for a pay rise then you need to be sure that increasing the subscription rate is something that the market will tolerate, without buyers heading off to TS or BS or elsewhere.

Not necessarily. A pay raise would mean they make less Profit. They would only have to raise prices if they would want to keep the same or more profit numbers technically. They would only be forced to raise prices if they would make no profit.

Get real, how do you think the shareholders' meeting would go when they announce that profits are down because they decided to pay artists more without changing the prices?

At least where I work we do give raises out annually and we are also publicly traded. However, we strive to find ways to become more productive internally in ways that hit the p&l.  I am in no way connected to SS but there are always ways to conduct lean assessments of an organization to identify waste, remove it and redeploy process. Raises aren't JUST about increases for contributors=increases for buyers. There is a middle component missing in this dialog....productivity, growth strategies, etc.
Your confusing being employed with being a supplier. SS may well give its employees annual pay rises etc., but suppliers are not employees, the relationship is quite different.

Obviously, I'd like more as much as the next person but I have some doubts about it being feasible in the current economic climate (since the reality is pay rise = price rise) and I agree with jsnover's assessment that Bigstock is pointing to the shape of things to come.

Tror

« Reply #58 on: February 22, 2013, 12:06 »
+1
Let's be clear, a pay rise for us means a price rise for the buyers.

If you vote for a pay rise then you need to be sure that increasing the subscription rate is something that the market will tolerate, without buyers heading off to TS or BS or elsewhere.

Not necessarily. A pay raise would mean they make less Profit. They would only have to raise prices if they would want to keep the same or more profit numbers technically. They would only be forced to raise prices if they would make no profit.

Get real, how do you think the shareholders' meeting would go when they announce that profits are down because they decided to pay artists more without changing the prices?

At least where I work we do give raises out annually and we are also publicly traded. However, we strive to find ways to become more productive internally in ways that hit the p&l.  I am in no way connected to SS but there are always ways to conduct lean assessments of an organization to identify waste, remove it and redeploy process. Raises aren't JUST about increases for contributors=increases for buyers. There is a middle component missing in this dialog....productivity, growth strategies, etc.
Your confusing being employed with being a supplier. SS may well give its employees annual pay rises etc., but suppliers are not employees, the relationship is quite different.

Obviously, I'd like more as much as the next person but I have some doubts about it being feasible in the current economic climate (since the reality is pay rise = price rise) and I agree with jsnover's assessment that Bigstock is pointing to the shape of things to come.

The current economic climate cannot be so bad when they are able to raise profit every quarter...

« Reply #59 on: February 22, 2013, 12:20 »
+1
Why would increase contibutor payout if contributors are praising you beyond reproach and the inspection queues are humming.  I would be tempted to do the opposite.  There is a strong need to reward shareholders. 

Tror

« Reply #60 on: February 22, 2013, 12:36 »
+3
Why would increase contibutor payout if contributors are praising you beyond reproach and the inspection queues are humming.  I would be tempted to do the opposite.  There is a strong need to reward shareholders.

Exactly! I fail to understand why Contributors here defend whatever Agency against their own interests. I mean, it is not like we are able to ruin a Agency by our greed lol. But we have to take care first of our own priorities, then worry about the others....
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 12:40 by Tror »

« Reply #61 on: February 22, 2013, 12:56 »
+2
Let's be clear, a pay rise for us means a price rise for the buyers.

If you vote for a pay rise then you need to be sure that increasing the subscription rate is something that the market will tolerate, without buyers heading off to TS or BS or elsewhere.

Not necessarily. A pay raise would mean they make less Profit. They would only have to raise prices if they would want to keep the same or more profit numbers technically. They would only be forced to raise prices if they would make no profit.

Get real, how do you think the shareholders' meeting would go when they announce that profits are down because they decided to pay artists more without changing the prices?

At least where I work we do give raises out annually and we are also publicly traded. However, we strive to find ways to become more productive internally in ways that hit the p&l.  I am in no way connected to SS but there are always ways to conduct lean assessments of an organization to identify waste, remove it and redeploy process. Raises aren't JUST about increases for contributors=increases for buyers. There is a middle component missing in this dialog....productivity, growth strategies, etc.
Your confusing being employed with being a supplier. SS may well give its employees annual pay rises etc., but suppliers are not employees, the relationship is quite different.

Obviously, I'd like more as much as the next person but I have some doubts about it being feasible in the current economic climate (since the reality is pay rise = price rise) and I agree with jsnover's assessment that Bigstock is pointing to the shape of things to come.

The current economic climate cannot be so bad when they are able to raise profit every quarter...

I don't think the current overall economic climate is particularly relevant to the stock price.  I do think completion from the other micros, which limits the ability to raise price without losing market share is relevant.  When SS's current growth in market share and entry into new markets slows, raising prices (IS model) or reducing costs (BS model) are the other ways to keep earnings per share growing.

Oringer's personal net worth is up something like $85 million today alone and when the time comes, I'm sure he does not want to give that up for the sake of being nice to contributors.



« Reply #62 on: February 22, 2013, 13:28 »
+1
Why would increase contibutor payout if contributors are praising you beyond reproach and the inspection queues are humming.  I would be tempted to do the opposite.  There is a strong need to reward shareholders.

Exactly! I fail to understand why Contributors here defend whatever Agency against their own interests. I mean, it is not like we are able to ruin a Agency by our greed lol. But we have to take care first of our own priorities, then worry about the others....

Personally, I'm not defending anything, I'm just saying what I think the reality is. And it's unreal to imagine any site will punish its owners by reducing profits to reward contributors when there is no apparent need to do so.  You seem to agree with that but you also seem to think that shouting that we want more on a forum is going to make a difference, which it isn't.

« Reply #63 on: February 22, 2013, 13:41 »
+2
From my perspective, all hope for long term good things for contributors from SS ended when they sent out the e-mail about Bigstock subscriptions and the ridiculous levels of annual sales needed to get the top level of royalties.

I think it's only a matter of when, not if, that royalty schedule is applied to sales at SS. That sort of scheme cuts SS's costs (which increases their profit) and favors the factory producers - Yuri, Monkey Business Images, etc.

There is no way, even if SS doubled their business and I stepped up production  significantly (I do this part time), I would keep my 38 cents per sub download and more importantly the higher payouts on OD and Single image sales.

So I'm glad they had a good fourth quarter, but it no longer seems to have anything to do with my prosperity there.

It could be that they are the only ones they want to keep. I wouldn't be surprised if those contributors hardly need to be inspected, so smaller players are probably more expensive for them. If smaller contributors are driven out they can reduce their numbers of inspectors and save more money.
In the end, it could be that only the factories will find micro worthwhile, and the rest of us will have to find a new home.
Where's KonaHawaii? :D

Oh come on __ do the numbers. Yuri, MB and all the 'factories' have barely 200K images between them. They don't even represent 1% of the library.
What per centage of sales do they represent?

« Reply #64 on: February 22, 2013, 14:04 »
0
From my perspective, all hope for long term good things for contributors from SS ended when they sent out the e-mail about Bigstock subscriptions and the ridiculous levels of annual sales needed to get the top level of royalties.

I think it's only a matter of when, not if, that royalty schedule is applied to sales at SS. That sort of scheme cuts SS's costs (which increases their profit) and favors the factory producers - Yuri, Monkey Business Images, etc.

There is no way, even if SS doubled their business and I stepped up production  significantly (I do this part time), I would keep my 38 cents per sub download and more importantly the higher payouts on OD and Single image sales.

So I'm glad they had a good fourth quarter, but it no longer seems to have anything to do with my prosperity there.

It could be that they are the only ones they want to keep. I wouldn't be surprised if those contributors hardly need to be inspected, so smaller players are probably more expensive for them. If smaller contributors are driven out they can reduce their numbers of inspectors and save more money.
In the end, it could be that only the factories will find micro worthwhile, and the rest of us will have to find a new home.
Where's KonaHawaii? :D

Oh come on __ do the numbers. Yuri, MB and all the 'factories' have barely 200K images between them. They don't even represent 1% of the library.
What per centage of sales do they represent?

I love guessing games. I'm going to guess between .5% and 1%. What do I win if I get it right?  ;D

« Reply #65 on: February 22, 2013, 14:06 »
0
top 20 contributors at SS (by portfolio number)
- 1.563 M (6.4% of SS library)

« Reply #66 on: February 22, 2013, 14:59 »
0

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.


Does this apply to all earnings including from referrals?

Yes.


Tror

« Reply #67 on: February 22, 2013, 15:56 »
+2
Why would increase contibutor payout if contributors are praising you beyond reproach and the inspection queues are humming.  I would be tempted to do the opposite.  There is a strong need to reward shareholders.

Exactly! I fail to understand why Contributors here defend whatever Agency against their own interests. I mean, it is not like we are able to ruin a Agency by our greed lol. But we have to take care first of our own priorities, then worry about the others....

Personally, I'm not defending anything, I'm just saying what I think the reality is. And it's unreal to imagine any site will punish its owners by reducing profits to reward contributors when there is no apparent need to do so.  You seem to agree with that but you also seem to think that shouting that we want more on a forum is going to make a difference, which it isn't.

Yeah, I totally understand. I was not specifically talking towards you. However, I still have a little hope left that SS is a little more Contributor friendly than the black sheeps of the market and maybe give us a raise anyhow :D

« Reply #68 on: February 22, 2013, 16:38 »
-1
This will never happen.

« Reply #69 on: February 22, 2013, 17:06 »
+2
Let's be clear, a pay rise for us means a price rise for the buyers.

If you vote for a pay rise then you need to be sure that increasing the subscription rate is something that the market will tolerate, without buyers heading off to TS or BS or elsewhere.

Not necessarily. A pay raise would mean they make less Profit. They would only have to raise prices if they would want to keep the same or more profit numbers technically. They would only be forced to raise prices if they would make no profit.

Get real, how do you think the shareholders' meeting would go when they announce that profits are down because they decided to pay artists more without changing the prices?

At least where I work we do give raises out annually and we are also publicly traded. However, we strive to find ways to become more productive internally in ways that hit the p&l.  I am in no way connected to SS but there are always ways to conduct lean assessments of an organization to identify waste, remove it and redeploy process. Raises aren't JUST about increases for contributors=increases for buyers. There is a middle component missing in this dialog....productivity, growth strategies, etc.
Your confusing being employed with being a supplier. SS may well give its employees annual pay rises etc., but suppliers are not employees, the relationship is quite different.

Obviously, I'd like more as much as the next person but I have some doubts about it being feasible in the current economic climate (since the reality is pay rise = price rise) and I agree with jsnover's assessment that Bigstock is pointing to the shape of things to come.

My company is a supplier, a big one. And we compete with a lot of other suppliers, our competitive landscape isn't shrinking so that makes gaining more share tough.  But we still manage to make money and give raises (although not big ones ;), but it's something. And if the "future of SS" is scaled to the BS model, then it becomes pure greed at that point. I say this because of the content of their recent earnings call....they (SS) are doing quite well. Moving to the BS model means they want to do better by taking even more of our commissions.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 17:11 by Mantis »

« Reply #70 on: February 22, 2013, 18:52 »
0
It could be that they are the only ones they want to keep. I wouldn't be surprised if those contributors hardly need to be inspected, so smaller players are probably more expensive for them. If smaller contributors are driven out they can reduce their numbers of inspectors and save more money.
In the end, it could be that only the factories will find micro worthwhile, and the rest of us will have to find a new home.
Where's KonaHawaii? :D

Oh come on __ do the numbers. Yuri, MB and all the 'factories' have barely 200K images between them. They don't even represent 1% of the library.
What per centage of sales do they represent?
[/quote]

Nothing like enough to be as influential as you seem to believe. "They're the only ones they want to keep" __ yeah, right! As Getty have just demonstrated with Sean, they can dispense with even the biggest players without a thought. The agency's strength, and our weakness, is precisely because we are so numerous and none of us is particularly important to them in the greater scheme of things.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 18:55 by gostwyck »

« Reply #71 on: February 27, 2013, 18:37 »
0
wrong topic
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 19:50 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #72 on: February 27, 2013, 19:52 »
0
It could be that they are the only ones they want to keep. I wouldn't be surprised if those contributors hardly need to be inspected, so smaller players are probably more expensive for them. If smaller contributors are driven out they can reduce their numbers of inspectors and save more money.
In the end, it could be that only the factories will find micro worthwhile, and the rest of us will have to find a new home.
Where's KonaHawaii? :D

Oh come on __ do the numbers. Yuri, MB and all the 'factories' have barely 200K images between them. They don't even represent 1% of the library.
What per centage of sales do they represent?

Nothing like enough to be as influential as you seem to believe. "They're the only ones they want to keep" __ yeah, right! As Getty have just demonstrated with Sean, they can dispense with even the biggest players without a thought. The agency's strength, and our weakness, is precisely because we are so numerous and none of us is particularly important to them in the greater scheme of things.
[/quote]
Sure, but some are less unimportant than others, hence the difference in pay. The difference to me, is that I'll leave BS. You of course, with the bridge, have got the SS version of the golden handcuffs.
I doubt IS got rid of Sean without a thought.

« Reply #73 on: February 27, 2013, 20:12 »
0
I doubt IS got rid of Sean without a thought.

really? don't tell me they did it because Sean was making them less profitable ;D

iStock is a lost case, first the horrible deal for indies, now even exclusives are bailing out, do they have more contributors beside those two groups? they better find other variables or it will continue to sink

who is excited about iStock?

« Reply #74 on: May 08, 2013, 18:01 »
+4
We are still waiting for a fair increase to our per image royalties. Our cost have risen each year and our increase is long past overdue.

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

« Reply #75 on: May 08, 2013, 19:21 »
0
I suspect raises to contributors are a thing of the past (hope I'm wrong).  If you had bought shares when they first came out you would have more than doubled your money - it closed over $45 a share today, and you could have bought in at $21 or $22.  Raises to us would only lower profits and decrease the stock price.  Too bad they don't give contributors stock options...


 

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
2022 Views
Last post December 09, 2010, 03:19
by 123XXX

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results