Author Topic: My meeting with Shutterstock (Read 18576 times)

Ron · « **on:** November 08, 2013, 03:58 »

DISCLAIMER: This explanation is merely my own interpretation and understanding of some stuff I discussed in an unofficial chat with Shutterstock. Nothing of the following text is an official statement from Shutterstock. Also the accuracy of my explanation is based solely on how I have understood it. The choice of words is my own; please consider that I am not native English. Any conclusion you might take from this does not necessarily have to be the right conclusion as we still don’t know any other aspects that weren’t discussed.

First of all, I didn’t ask about a raise because it has been discussed before and Jon has been clear in several interviews about it, that a raise is not an option at the moment.

Second, I forgot to ask about Bigstock and the RC reward system. We only had 90 minutes, and as always afterwards, you have a slap the forehead moment when you realise you forgot to ask about something.

Right, here we go.

Search:
The algorithm is self-learning; it teaches itself by analysing the results of a search and the images that were downloaded with that search. The search is constantly being improved and they are tweaking the search to get the best results for the buyers and the contributors. For example, if on the keyword Red, loads of apples are being downloaded, then images of apples are being pushed forward. The search always tries to come up with a best mix of new and popular images. New images are not favoured per se, but they are important of what is shown to buyers. My opinion is buyers need to see new images every time they visit the site. If the search would go stale, they would lose buyers.

The search results are also based on geographical locations, if a buyer in New York is searching for architecture, he will most likely get to see images of New York or images from people in that location. So geography does play a role in which images appear at the top of certain search results, but I do not have more details on that. I will talk to Shutterstock and see if I can get more details. Related to that though, and I will address keywords later, if using a word that has two English spellings – e.g. Organized vs. Organised, it’s probably best to include both as keywords as people all over the world spell English differently.
Portfolios are not being favoured or punished; it’s all based on images, not portfolios. I asked why some portfolios stopped selling and other saw an increase. This is at least not done on purpose, from what I understand it could be related to tweaking the search. Shutterstock sees a 3-5 million searches per day. Knowing that, it’s very hard to extrapolate individual anecdotal feedback to make a general statement. Portfolio content, keywords, freshness, customer demand, etc., all vary and have an influence on portfolio performance. As a contributor, it’s more important to focus on creating a wide variety of fresh, commercially relevant content. Customer demand will take care of the rest. Shutterstock is very different than its competitors that way. Overall, quality wins, buyers vote with their downloads. I know all of you create quality content, so please don’t be offended by that, it’s a general comment, not directed at anyone specific. Believe me when I say Shutterstock wants everybody to do well and they try to get a perfect balance for everyone involved. Also Shutterstock is selling more images than ever. It’s just good advice to keep adding new images to keep your portfolio fresh and your images in front of the buyers. If you don’t add new images, your sales could slowly drop. In the search they want to achieve the best for the buyer and the contributor. The idea is that a happy contributor base is eminent for success. When they make changes, they do consider the effect it can have on the contributors.

Keywords:
I asked about keyword spam and when something is considered keyword spam. As an example I used my face flag images. I keyword them with conceptual keywords, such as freedom, liberty, independence, etc, etc. This could be considered spam, but as long as the descriptive keywords are used, conceptual keywords are not considered spam. Keywording a dog with cat is obviously still spam. The reason it’s not considered spam is because the algorithm keeps track of keywords used for a download. For example, if a buyer is looking for the keyword Freedom, images are put in front of the buyer, and if the trend is that a woman running on the beach with open arms gets downloaded more often than other images, than the search will start putting more similar images of the woman on the beach in front of the buyer. So if my images are not downloaded on the keyword freedom could be pushed back in the search. I can see a lot of questions coming from you about this, but this is all I understood from it. It could well be there is more to it, but it might explain a bit more for you than you already know.

Use more conceptual keywords, buyers are searching for concepts. I once posted an image of a sunrise and asked here which keywords to remove as I had too many. Some said to remove New Beginning, amongst other keywords. Funny enough, and purely coincidental, it was the keyword they used as an example. Buyers don’t search for Sunrise when the concept is New Beginning, but a Sunrise is a New Beginning. Also it was advised to use time of day, when was the image shot, and use different words (synonyms) i.e. Fall and Autumn for the same image of that season.

Raise:
As said, I didn’t ask for a raise, I did ask about keeping things as they are. They know about the backlash that happened over at IS. Shutterstock is well aware of the importance of having a happy contributor base. A happy contributor base brings in buyers. At Shutterstock, they love Shutterstock, they love their contributors, they love their buyer, and they want everybody to do well, and have the same positive outlook. Everyone at Shutterstock is committed to the company and shares in Jon’s passion. It’s no good to them to turn the contributors against them. So in that light, a raise might not be possible, but it also means we shouldn’t worry about a cut or something similar. Shutterstock believes that the royalties set as is generates the right balance of contributor earnings and business growth. Business growth is important for all of us.

Shutterstock control:
Jon is very much in control of Shutterstock, although he sold a chunk of shares, he is still in control. My opinion is investors don’t like one person to have too much control. It’s not healthy for a business either. When the control is balanced, it’s better for the company.

The investors, contributors, customers, basically anyone interacting or working with Shutterstock is “buying” into the vision of the company. Jon is CEO and Founder and he has a strong vision of where he wants to lead Shutterstock to and there are many people that hold this same vision and who are helping make Shutterstock a success and managing operations. That vision is exactly what got them to this point and nothing about that has changed for them. They all believe that the two sides of the marketplace (buyers and contributors) are vital pieces of what they do, and make decisions in line with that. Squeezing the contributors is not the way forward. Yes business is business, but businesses can be successful many different ways without taking it out on the contributors. The culture and structure is very much different from what happens over at G..Y

Reviews:
Not much to say, I asked if they use technology to review the images, yes they do, but a human makes the decision. What happens is that an image is automatically opened on the reviewer’s screen at 100% and where the focus is sharp. Then the reviewer checks the whole image. Also, there’s only one reviewer per batch during the initial review. Images can get escalated to a 2nd tier or senior-level review if there were specific questions and issues about a batch (think of missing releases, trademark determinations, etc.)

Communications:
They know, they read, they follow, they discuss. There are between 10-20 channels they keep an eye on, Facebook, Twitter, SS Forum, this forum (MSG), etc etc. They read everything

They respond to questions when necessary but sometimes they have said all they can say about a certain topic. Sometimes they end up going in circles, and that does no one any good. They are working on building their communications team and could only assume things will get better. They are working on more contributor guides, they are getting people in place to answer in the forums, and to answer emails. They get at least a few hundred emails per day as the contributors base now stands at 40,000, and of course they have a lot of buyers. And as mentioned before they also read all these external communication channels.

They also stressed out, that if you are ever in New York, Berlin, or wherever they have an office, you can reach out to them for a meet or a chat. They would love to talk to you and they will make an effort to meet you if possible.

DISCLAIMER: This explanation is merely my own interpretation and understanding of some stuff I discussed in an unofficial chat with Shutterstock. Nothing of the following text is an official statement from Shutterstock. Also the accuracy of my explanation is based solely on how I have understood it. The choice of words is my own; please consider that I am not native English. Any conclusion you might take from this does not necessarily have to be the right conclusion as we still don’t know any other aspects that weren’t discussed.

Maui · « **Reply #1 on:** November 08, 2013, 04:25 »

Thanks for posting. Definitely interesting.

gostwyck · « **Reply #2 on:** November 08, 2013, 04:58 »

Quote from: Maui on November 08, 2013, 04:25

Thanks for posting. Definitely interesting.

+1

jjneff · « **Reply #3 on:** November 08, 2013, 05:10 »

ShutterStock is a great company! they treat people with respect and have a great website. I have spoken to them on the phone and can vouch for all that was stated above!

pancaketom · « **Reply #4 on:** November 08, 2013, 11:50 »

Thanks for posting the info. I do wish you had gotten some insight about their plans for BS and the RC system / undercutting.

The keyword / search info is interesting. Thanks.

stockastic · « **Reply #5 on:** November 08, 2013, 11:56 »

Interesting. As a software engineer I start laughing whenever I encounter over-the-top hype like "The algorithm is self-learning; it teaches itself " (which I realize you are only passing on verbatim).

That sort of language is great for impressing investors. But believe me, there is as yet no code that "teaches itself" in any sense other than accumulating statistics that are used to weight future decisions. Of course that in itself can be useful and if someone wants to call it "learning", they're free to do so. But anytime you hear someone talking about "AI", take it with a large number of grains of salt because there most certainly is no such thing in today's world.

Ron · « **Reply #6 on:** November 08, 2013, 11:57 »

Quote from: pancaketom on November 08, 2013, 11:50

Thanks for posting the info. I do wish you had gotten some insight about their plans for BS and the RC system / undercutting.

The keyword / search info is interesting. Thanks.

I know, That was my slap on the forehead moment. Next time when I get a chance to speak to them, I will ask.

gbalex · « **Reply #7 on:** November 08, 2013, 12:00 »

Words and actions are two different things.

SS has had the benefit of true SS Ambasadors since 2004, people who spread the word regarding SS's actions year after year without a dinner, sincere communication of any kind or even a rare thank you from SS.

Those long term SS ambasadors spent countless hours on the SS forum helping other contributors without ever being thanked, in fact they have helped some the NEW SS ambassadors gain acceptance to the site.

Why is SS entertaining new contributors while ignoring the people who helped them become successful in the first place? Do you suppose that because our incomes have dropped considerably after the algorithm changes... we might not be as naive regarding the propaganda? Do you suppose we would ask tougher and more pertinent questions?

Why do you suppose we are seeing yet another very successful long term SS contributor go exclusive?

Congratulations on the meeting Ron, too bad you forgot to ask them about Bigstock.

Ron · « **Reply #8 on:** November 08, 2013, 12:04 »

I am not chosen for being new, they emailed everyone with an account within an hour from Dublin, 7 people showed up. Not one of them is on the forums (except me), and one had a 7 year old account. I just had the cheek to fire up all these questions, and they answered all of them with a smile. Even got a few beers from them. Maybe I am biased now. Beer talks.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 08, 2013, 12:24 »

Thanks for writing all this up!

cidepix · « **Reply #10 on:** November 08, 2013, 12:44 »

thanks for posting Ron!

good read..

luissantos84 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 08, 2013, 12:52 »

got my heart!

Ron · « **Reply #12 on:** November 08, 2013, 13:04 »

Quote from: stockastic on November 08, 2013, 11:56

Interesting. As a software engineer I start laughing whenever I encounter over-the-top hype like "The algorithm is self-learning; it teaches itself " (which I realize you are only passing on verbatim).

That sort of language is great for impressing investors. But believe me, there is as yet no code that "teaches itself" in any sense other than accumulating statistics that are used to weight future decisions. Of course that in itself can be useful and if someone wants to call it "learning", they're free to do so. But anytime you hear someone talking about "AI", take it with a large number of grains of salt because there most certainly is no such thing in today's world.

I understand but I am a layman, and the person that spoke to me, was not from IT either, the bold part is obviously what I meant and thats exactly how I explained it in my OP. No one ever mentioned AI.

stockastic · « **Reply #13 on:** November 08, 2013, 13:05 »

Quote from: Ron on November 08, 2013, 13:04

Quote from: stockastic on November 08, 2013, 11:56
Interesting. As a software engineer I start laughing whenever I encounter over-the-top hype like "The algorithm is self-learning; it teaches itself " (which I realize you are only passing on verbatim).

That sort of language is great for impressing investors. But believe me, there is as yet no code that "teaches itself" in any sense other than accumulating statistics that are used to weight future decisions. Of course that in itself can be useful and if someone wants to call it "learning", they're free to do so. But anytime you hear someone talking about "AI", take it with a large number of grains of salt because there most certainly is no such thing in today's world.
I understand but I am a layman, and the person that spoke to me, was not from IT either, the bold part is obviously what I meant and thats exactly how I explained it in my OP. No one ever mentioned AI.

As I said, I realize you are just passing this on.

Ron · « **Reply #14 on:** November 08, 2013, 13:09 »

I know, but SS didnt say they have AI either. No one mentioned that. I just want to have that cleared up

marthamarks · « **Reply #15 on:** November 08, 2013, 13:15 »

Amen to the thanks, Ron. This is very interesting and helpful information.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #16 on:** November 08, 2013, 13:15 »

Quote from: gbalex on November 08, 2013, 12:00

Why do you suppose we are seeing yet another very successful long term SS contributor go exclusive?

been wondering about that as well, another professional?

Ron · « **Reply #17 on:** November 08, 2013, 13:16 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on November 08, 2013, 13:15

Quote from: gbalex on November 08, 2013, 12:00
Why do you suppose we are seeing yet another very successful long term SS contributor go exclusive?

been wondering about that as well, another professional?

Who left?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #18 on:** November 08, 2013, 13:17 »

Quote from: Ron on November 08, 2013, 13:16

Quote from: luissantos84 on November 08, 2013, 13:15
Quote from: gbalex on November 08, 2013, 12:00
Why do you suppose we are seeing yet another very successful long term SS contributor go exclusive?

been wondering about that as well, another professional?
Who left?

Quote from: kelby on November 08, 2013, 09:45

there is also a new entry ANDRESR on istock exclusives

exclusive http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging
no exclusive http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr

Ron · « **Reply #19 on:** November 08, 2013, 13:22 »

Ow okay, thanks, let see how long his images stay plastered on all micros then.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #20 on:** November 08, 2013, 13:26 »

Quote from: Ron on November 08, 2013, 13:22

Ow okay, thanks, let see how long his images stay plastered on all micros then.

it looks like a new deal and a different one as well, his iStock exclusive portfolio isn't anywhere I guess, looks like he is going to build an exclusive portfolio for iStock and staying all around indie or maybe not... is that even allowed? I will stop my thought and see what will happen in fact

his latest SS picture is from October 10th to 15th, his first file at iStock is from October 7th

Ron · « **Reply #21 on:** November 08, 2013, 13:32 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on November 08, 2013, 13:26

Quote from: Ron on November 08, 2013, 13:22
Ow okay, thanks, let see how long his images stay plastered on all micros then.

it looks like a new deal and a different one as well, his iStock exclusive portfolio isn't anywhere I guess, looks like he is going to build an exclusive portfolio for iStock and staying all around indie or maybe not... is that even allowed? I will stop my thought and see what will happen in fact

I thought Idot was Photographer exclusive, so his images have to be taken down outside Idot? And If he is allowed to be indy and exclusive than they are seriously disrespecting their contributors. Favouritism towards big players.

leaf · « **Reply #22 on:** November 08, 2013, 14:58 »

Thanks for the write up Ron. Sounds like you guys had a great meet-up with Shutterstock. Nice to see they are reaching out like that.

DF_Studios · « **Reply #23 on:** November 08, 2013, 15:06 »

Thanks Ron, very informative!

sharpshot · « **Reply #24 on:** November 09, 2013, 05:20 »

Thanks Ron, interesting read. I think they have already angered many contributors by setting unreachable targets with BigStock. It also looks to me that more subs buyers are moving from SS to BigStock. SS has been relatively contributor friendly but they own a site that seems to be more like istock and FT. Why have they allowed that? If anyone gets a chance to talk to them, I hope they ask what's going on there? It looks like the long term strategy is to build up BigStock subs sales and pay us much less than lots of us currently get with SS.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #25 on:** November 09, 2013, 10:09 »

Quote from: sharpshot on November 09, 2013, 05:20

It looks like the long term strategy is to build up BigStock subs sales and pay us much less than lots of us currently get with SS.

no idea about that, both BigStock and SS seem to be growing, at least for me

loop · « **Reply #26 on:** November 09, 2013, 12:42 »

First of all, I didn’t ask about a raise because it has been discussed before and Jon has been clear in several interviews about it, that a raise is not an option at the moment.

Well, I don't think that's a reason for no asking and telling him a raise would be much appreciated. Just doing the "correct" questions won't improve things for SS contributors.

Ron · « **Reply #27 on:** November 09, 2013, 12:55 »

Quote from: loop on November 09, 2013, 12:42

First of all, I didn’t ask about a raise because it has been discussed before and Jon has been clear in several interviews about it, that a raise is not an option at the moment.

Well, I don't think that's a reason for no asking and telling him a raise would be much appreciated. Just doing the "correct" questions won't improve things for SS contributors.

You think he doesnt know? Do you think me asking for a raise is going to change things? Or that Jon says, wow, I had no idea, I will get on it? Come one, everyone asks for a raise, I didnt, I rather spent my time asking questions they can answer. They know we want a raise, its been said many times here and on the SS forum. They know we want a raise, and why we wont get one is actually in my OP. They did touch on that.

stockastic · « **Reply #28 on:** November 09, 2013, 15:50 »

Yes, an increase for contributors seems impossible, given the gloomy Q3 numbers they just released:

- Quarterly revenue increases 41% from prior year period to $59.6 million
- Adjusted EBITDA increases 24% to $12.8 million
- Quarterly image downloads increase 35% to 25.4 million
- Revenue per download increases 4% to $2.35

Hard times indeed. And they have a new family of investors to feed.

leaf · « **Reply #29 on:** November 09, 2013, 16:13 »

Here is the third quarter thread for Shutterstock

qwerty · « **Reply #30 on:** November 09, 2013, 17:59 »

Quote from: stockastic on November 09, 2013, 15:50

Yes, an increase for contributors seems impossible, given the gloomy Q3 numbers they just released:

- Quarterly revenue increases 41% from prior year period to $59.6 million
- Adjusted EBITDA increases 24% to $12.8 million
- Quarterly image downloads increase 35% to 25.4 million
- Revenue per download increases 4% to $2.35

Hard times indeed. And they have a new family of investors to feed.

Should we whip the hat around for some loose change to keep them afloat. Or get some of SJ's rich Australian friends to send over some koala fur coats to keep them warm through the winter. (see stockbo thread)

Batman · « **Reply #31 on:** November 10, 2013, 16:44 »

Good report Ron. Didn't you stop uploading and quit Shutterstock this Summer because of rejections, search, sales and being gutted. Are you back reversed there.

Ron · « **Reply #32 on:** November 10, 2013, 16:53 »

Quote from: Batman on November 10, 2013, 16:44

Good report Ron. Didn't you stop uploading and quit Shutterstock this Summer because of rejections, search, sales and being gutted. Are you back reversed there.

I quit uploading early August because of rejections and poor sales, but hit BME in August and September. While I was building my symbio site, and waited for Google to index my images, I didnt upload for 2 months. But seeing sales pick up and once Google had indexed my Symbiostock site, I started uploading again at the end of September. I am being flexible. Shutterstock counts for 50% of my earnings, so why drop them? Building in a pause is good to regroup and rethink strategy, with my Symbiostock site as a result.

bunhill · « **Reply #33 on:** November 10, 2013, 17:17 »

Quote from: Ron on November 10, 2013, 16:53

I quit uploading early August because of rejections and poor sales,

Quote from: Ron on November 10, 2013, 16:53

Shutterstock counts for 75% of my earnings

Quote from: Ron on November 01, 2013, 02:24

Shutterstock is 51% of my total earnings for 2013 to date .... As long as Shutterstock is going up, I am fine.

Ron · « **Reply #34 on:** November 10, 2013, 17:24 »

Correct, thanks for noticing. I have edited my comment.

bunhill · « **Reply #35 on:** November 10, 2013, 18:09 »

Quote from: Ron on November 10, 2013, 17:24

Correct, thanks for noticing. I have edited my comment.

k

bunhill · « **Reply #36 on:** November 11, 2013, 14:51 »

Quote from: Ron on November 08, 2013, 03:58

At Shutterstock, they love Shutterstock, they love their contributors, they love their buyer, and they want everybody to do well, and have the same positive outlook. Everyone at Shutterstock is committed to the company and shares in Jon’s passion. It’s no good to them to turn the contributors against them. So in that light, a raise might not be possible, but it also means we shouldn’t worry about a cut or something similar. Shutterstock believes that the royalties set as is generates the right balance of contributor earnings and business growth. Business growth is important for all of us.

Wouldn't you get a raise if prices increased - otherwise wouldn't that imply a gradually decreasing royalty percentage ? At some point you surely have to get a raise or else inflation will decrease the value of your %age or rising prices will diminish the rate.

I am neutral - but also fascinated by how these things play out over the years. I cannot get away from the belief that as a business SS is over-exposed to old-fashioned microstock and the subscription market specifically. It seems to me that this over exposure represents a stunning vulnerability. Obviously the stock has done very well - but in an extraordinary rising market - like the tide which rises all ships. And most of the commentary I have seen about this stock seems to have significantly missed many significant points - particularly about the realistic size of the microstock market. I think it could easily have gone either way with the IPO and they came out lucky. So far.

I do not see any evidence that the market for microstock and subscription is growing. I believe it is diminishing. Granted they can target customers at smaller microstock sites. But they also face competition from their own contributors with content at other sites which could choose to undercut them. And where are they apart from in microstock ? Their entry into mid stock has passed almost un-noticed so far.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #37 on:** November 11, 2013, 15:00 »

Quote from: bhr on November 11, 2013, 14:51

I do not see any evidence that the market for microstock and subscription is growing.

guess you have missed SS's latest report

bunhill · « **Reply #38 on:** November 11, 2013, 15:15 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on November 11, 2013, 15:00

Quote from: bhr on November 11, 2013, 14:51
I do not see any evidence that the market for microstock and subscription is growing.

guess you have missed SS's latest report

no.

I do not believe that the market for subscription microstock is growing. But I do believe that they may be able to increase their stake before their trend levels.

It's related: Also remember that the stock price commentators are only ever talking about how high the thing can go. They have no interest in the long term sustainability of the thing from the supplier perspective. When they write about the stock they are talking about 6 - 18 months max.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #39 on:** November 11, 2013, 15:19 »

Quote from: bhr on November 11, 2013, 15:15

Quote from: luissantos84 on November 11, 2013, 15:00
Quote from: bhr on November 11, 2013, 14:51
I do not see any evidence that the market for microstock and subscription is growing.

guess you have missed SS's latest report

no.

I do not believe that the market for subscription microstock is growing. But I do believe that they may be able to increase their stake before their trend levels.

It's related: Also remember that the stock price commentators are only ever talking about how high the thing can go. They have no interest in the long term sustainability of the thing from the supplier perspective. When they write about the stock they are talking about 6 - 18 months max.

guess you aren't understanding, SS is reporting growth since the first day, when are they going to decrease if I may ask?

bunhill · « **Reply #40 on:** November 11, 2013, 15:58 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on November 11, 2013, 15:19

SS is reporting growth since the first day, when are they going to decrease if I may ask?

My guess would be ... when they are no longer able to take customers from other sites - or when and if other companies start winning back customers from them - even at cost. But, of course, there are plenty of ways in which they can string it out even with diminishing customer growth.

The market for cheap microstock subscription content is not growing - the sites are trading customers with each other and the total pool of customers is not growing. The stock commentators are getting this wrong IMO. Also remember that the stock (i.e. shares) market is trading on very low volume.

SS did well in a new and growing market and then, in recent years, by taking customers from other sites. But they are basically over-exposed to microstock subscription IMO.

My guess is that things will seem great unless or until stock market prices start to change direction - and for the past few years prices have been underpinned by government liquidity. The thing you always have to remember is that there is no new or different economy. It is always the same patterns we saw with other companies, in other economies. What goes up relatively, comes down. Always.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #41 on:** November 11, 2013, 16:14 »

too bad only SS seems to go up even IF they will fail at some point

Ron · « **Reply #42 on:** November 11, 2013, 16:15 »

Why does it have to come down? Why cant it level out? Talking about shares.

There are tons of companies on the stock exchange for decades showing consistency in the long term.

bunhill · « **Reply #43 on:** November 11, 2013, 16:45 »

Quote from: Ron on November 11, 2013, 16:15

Why does it have to come down? Why cant it level out? Talking about shares.

There are tons of companies on the stock exchange for decades showing consistency in the long term.

The sustainability of their growth seems doubtful to me especially given that their business is so little diversified. The stock has risen in a rising stock market. There are only two reasons to hold stock - either an increasing price or the dividend. Do you think it likely that they will announce a dividend ? If the stock price comes under pressure that will surely affect contributors. No ?

I would be much less dubious about them if they were not a public company. I am not seeing any evidence that they have usefully re-invested in the business so far (apart from the prestigious new HQ). Offset has largely gone un-noticed. Have I missed something ?

gbalex · « **Reply #44 on:** November 11, 2013, 17:11 »

Quote from: bhr on November 11, 2013, 15:58

Quote from: luissantos84 on November 11, 2013, 15:19
SS is reporting growth since the first day, when are they going to decrease if I may ask?

My guess would be ... when they are no longer able to take customers from other sites - or when and if other companies start winning back customers from them - even at cost. But, of course, there are plenty of ways in which they can string it out even with diminishing customer growth.

The market for cheap microstock subscription content is not growing - the sites are trading customers with each other and the total pool of customers is not growing. The stock commentators are getting this wrong IMO. Also remember that the stock (i.e. shares) market is trading on very low volume.

SS did well in a new and growing market and then, in recent years, by taking customers from other sites. But they are basically over-exposed to microstock subscription IMO.

My guess is that things will seem great unless or until stock market prices start to change direction - and for the past few years prices have been underpinned by government liquidity. The thing you always have to remember is that there is no new or different economy. It is always the same patterns we saw with other companies, in other economies. What goes up relatively, comes down. Always.

You make some consistently good points. I also think you hit the nail on the head in regard to trading customers with other sites. IS just secured two contributors who pull a huge number of buyers. They also needed to fill the void that Sean left. If they go for more of SS's HCV contributors and target large business accounts the table could turn faster than most might imagine.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #45 on:** November 11, 2013, 17:18 »

Quote from: gbalex on November 11, 2013, 17:11

Quote from: bhr on November 11, 2013, 15:58
Quote from: luissantos84 on November 11, 2013, 15:19
SS is reporting growth since the first day, when are they going to decrease if I may ask?

My guess would be ... when they are no longer able to take customers from other sites - or when and if other companies start winning back customers from them - even at cost. But, of course, there are plenty of ways in which they can string it out even with diminishing customer growth.

The market for cheap microstock subscription content is not growing - the sites are trading customers with each other and the total pool of customers is not growing. The stock commentators are getting this wrong IMO. Also remember that the stock (i.e. shares) market is trading on very low volume.

SS did well in a new and growing market and then, in recent years, by taking customers from other sites. But they are basically over-exposed to microstock subscription IMO.

My guess is that things will seem great unless or until stock market prices start to change direction - and for the past few years prices have been underpinned by government liquidity. The thing you always have to remember is that there is no new or different economy. It is always the same patterns we saw with other companies, in other economies. What goes up relatively, comes down. Always.

You make some consistently good points. I also think you hit the nail on the head in regard to trading customers with other sites. IS just secured two contributors who pull a huge number of buyers. They also needed to fill the void that Sean left. If they go for more of SS's HCV contributors and target large business accounts the table could turn faster than most might imagine.

oh please, nothing happened after Yuri's disappearance (actually they sold more files and for more RPD as you know) and I am sure nothing will happen this time as well, do you think iStock will "buy" all 30 Million files / 30k contributors?

give up guys, nothing will happen beside SS growing and IS shrinking

side note: AndresR portfolio still available at SS

Ron · « **Reply #46 on:** November 11, 2013, 17:21 »

So they lose 150k images, they add that back in half a week, and there are a ton of copycats. Maybe a few buyers buy the name, but I think the majority dont give a hoohaa on who shot the image. Not for stock. Art would be different.

gostwyck · « **Reply #47 on:** November 11, 2013, 17:23 »

Quote from: bhr on November 11, 2013, 16:45

The sustainability of their growth is seems doubtful to me especially given that their business is so little diversified. The stock has risen in a rising stock market. There are only two reasons to hold stock - either an increasing price or the dividend. Do you think it likely that they will announced a dividend ? If the stock price comes under pressure that will surely affect contributors. No ?

I would be much less dubious about them if they were not a public company. I am not seeing any evidence that they have usefully re-invested in the business so far (apart from the prestigious new HQ). Offset has largely gone un-noticed. Have I missed something ?

Have you missed something? I'd say you have missed pretty much everything. You must have your eyes and ears closed.

SS have diversified. Less than 50% of revenue now comes from subscription. The rest comes from single images sales, special licensing deals and footage. The diversification continues with the launching of Offset.

You don't 'see' the investment because it's not in the form of bricks and mortar. SS invest massively in their data collection and analysis (literally $10M's per year) which is why they can offer a better service than their competitors. They also invest hugely in marketing too (again several $10M's per annum). They closely monitor the cost to gain each customer which currently stands at about $100.

Since before the IPO SS have also expressed their interest in 'a major acquisition' and they are sitting on a gigantic pile of cash for when the right opportunity comes along. Of course, for all we know, such discussions might already be at an advanced stage.

I'm still seeing growth in the sub's market anyway. IS's PP is all the proof you need of that. Thanks to all the Getty sales guys contacting IS's own customers the PP has come from nowhere to become maybe 25% the size of SS. Possibly bigger than that in subs alone.

All the information on what SS are doing is out there ... you just have to read it (you will have to register to read the full article);

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1820992-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q3-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?source=email_rt_article_readmore

luissantos84 · « **Reply #48 on:** November 11, 2013, 17:30 »

Quote from: Ron on November 11, 2013, 17:21

So they lose 150k images, they add that back in half a week, and there are a ton of copycats. Maybe a few buyers buy the name, but I think the majority dont give a hoohaa on who shot the image. Not for stock. Art would be different.

right, both around 100k, like you just said half week of approvals at SS, there are 4 or 5 big "lifestyle" contributors at SS that will take care of their downloads, BTW they must be quite excited

at this point looks like image exclusivity at iStock, if so I wonder why haven't Yuri went that way...

gostwyck · « **Reply #49 on:** November 11, 2013, 17:43 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on November 11, 2013, 17:30

Quote from: Ron on November 11, 2013, 17:21
So they lose 150k images, they add that back in half a week, and there are a ton of copycats. Maybe a few buyers buy the name, but I think the majority dont give a hoohaa on who shot the image. Not for stock. Art would be different.

right, both around 100k, like you just said half week of approvals at SS, there are 4 or 5 big "lifestyle" contributors at SS that will take care of their downloads, BTW they must be quite excited

Exactly. SS losing 100K images out of 30M will not be noticed. They'll add that many new images in about 4 days.

To be honest the 'photo factories' are pretty much going round in circles anyway. They are just shooting the same, relatively few themes, over and over. So are most of the rest of us too. There's precious little original in stock, especially nowadays, and any successful artist or image will rapidly be 'flattered' by an army of clones and similars.

I'd be a lot more concerned if we ever saw Monkeybusiness become 'exclusive' to Istock but I'm pretty sure that will never happen. Yeulet is a sharp business woman as she proved when she sold Bananastock to Jupiter for $20M. I'd trust her judgement in such matters over Yuri's all day long.

ShadySue · « **Reply #50 on:** November 11, 2013, 17:50 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on November 11, 2013, 17:30

at this point looks like image exclusivity at iStock, if so I wonder why haven't Yuri went that way...

I'm still reasonably sure Yuris pics stayed on SS for the normal SS removal time after he announced his exclusivity. But ICBW.

tickstock · « **Reply #51 on:** November 11, 2013, 17:55 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #52 on:** November 11, 2013, 18:24 »

My memory is false. Seems his port was off SS (only?) after he became otherwise faux-exclusive.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/yuri-arcurs-is-is-exclusive
Or not, as the case may have been: (11th reply on that page):
"Still his sets have his images
http://www.shutterstock.com/g/yuriarcurs/sets?page=2"
(Obviously that link no longer applies.)

pancaketom · « **Reply #53 on:** November 11, 2013, 18:35 »

I think people are mixing stock as in the stock market and stock as in stock images. The stock market stock price is mostly based on what people think other people will pay for something. Sure there is some long term investment and growth thinking, but mostly it is a sort of bubble mentality. If you think other people will be willing to pay more for it later, you buy. All it would take is one bad quarter or some other glitch in the group-think and SS stock could plummet. They already got a heap of cash out of the IPO though, so it wouldn't crush them unless they did something stupid to try to prop it up.

As far as the stock image market, I think it continues to grow, just not anywhere near as fast as the supply grows. So, the sites can continue to see growth even if individual contributors don't. A lot of the SS growth was based on buyers moving there from IS and other sites (mostly because of IS's blunders). That growth won't continue, but I don't think the market is maxed out.

If IS can poach a whole lot of top contributors with sweatheart deals (this means that the rest of us are subsidizing these heavy hitters), they might draw a few more buyers, but I think if you are looking for any type of image you will still be able to find a replacement at SS. If I was a real IS exclusive I'd be pretty pissed about the faux exclusive deals.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #54 on:** November 11, 2013, 18:39 »

yes the first one to go was indeed SS, the exact date is impossible to know but I would say in the beginning of May, on his press release (2 months after) the first lines were about that:

You might have noticed huge amounts of images being removed from micro subscription sites such as Shutterstock.com, Fotolia.com, Dreamstime.com etc.

that said, DT still up after 6 months and 8 more sites, maybe more who knows...

yes Scoopshot went huge

bunhill · « **Reply #55 on:** November 11, 2013, 18:55 »

Quote from: pancaketom on November 11, 2013, 18:35

As far as the stock image market, I think it continues to grow

The stock image market is not a single market. For a while over the past decade microstock and especially subscription has eaten into higher priced stock. I doubt that the microstock market is now growing. Certainly sites can trade microstock and subscription customers between each other. But if one company's microstock or subscription offering gains share - today that probably means that another's has lost share.

I doubt today the wisdom of sites buying each other's brands with the same content and in the same markets - especially given the headaches of integration. Probably much easier to get their customers by competing on price. The reason to buy another site would be for unique access into a different market.

gbalex · « **Reply #56 on:** November 11, 2013, 19:21 »

Re: Facebook Royalty's

Snip
Lloyd Walmsley - Deutsche Bank

Okay. And then just I guess as a follow-up given its still in testing I think you’ve guided your contributors to expect Facebook revenue per download to be at or better than subscription pricing. Wondering if you can give us a sense of a little more specifics around where the revenue per download is going to come in from deals like this?
Tim Bixby - CFO

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1820992-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q3-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

Well, we haven’t disclosed particulars on this deal and wouldn’t likely on any one deal. Our goal is to always pay our contributors kind of a stable and predictable level of royalty at the same rate relative to revenue. So as that revenue price point moves up or down depending on volumec or depending on a particular deal or purchase plan we would adjust that so that they’re always getting a comparable and fair rate which is right around that 30% rate, 28%, 29%, 30%. So I will leave it at that.

That really narrows it down, we can expect to receive 30% to 28% of X

gbalex · « **Reply #57 on:** November 11, 2013, 19:37 »

Quote from: gostwyck on November 11, 2013, 17:43

Quote from: luissantos84 on November 11, 2013, 17:30
Quote from: Ron on November 11, 2013, 17:21
So they lose 150k images, they add that back in half a week, and there are a ton of copycats. Maybe a few buyers buy the name, but I think the majority dont give a hoohaa on who shot the image. Not for stock. Art would be different.

right, both around 100k, like you just said half week of approvals at SS, there are 4 or 5 big "lifestyle" contributors at SS that will take care of their downloads, BTW they must be quite excited

Exactly. SS losing 100K images out of 30M will not be noticed. They'll add that many new images in about 4 days.

To be honest the 'photo factories' are pretty much going round in circles anyway. They are just shooting the same, relatively few themes, over and over. So are most of the rest of us too. There's precious little original in stock, especially nowadays, and any successful artist or image will rapidly be 'flattered' by an army of clones and similars.

I'd be a lot more concerned if we ever saw Monkeybusiness become 'exclusive' to Istock but I'm pretty sure that will never happen. Yeulet is a sharp business woman as she proved when she sold Bananastock to Jupiter for $20M. I'd trust her judgement in such matters over Yuri's all day long.

You guys can bash Yuri forever but you need to pay attention to who they are targeting for marketing spend. If they were not worried about contributor poaching they would not have put out an industry ban on discussing income etc. and they would not have extended the time images need to remain on the site.

I think SS intends on using marketing spend to port enterprise sales to BS, if you don't shoot business you will not notice much of an uptick at BS.

Snip

Global sales and marketing expenses were $14.9 million or 25% of revenue, an increase of $1.6 million over the prior quarter. We continued to strengthen our regional marketing efforts, increasing spend in new marketing channels around the world and reducing spend in less productive channels.

Snip

Direct sales to enterprises continues to be one of the fastest growing parts of our business, roughly doubling year-over-year across agencies, publishers, media companies, large corporations, both the number and size of deals increased. Let me give you three examples of some of the larger deals we did in Q3.

Snip

While we’ve been traditionally more U.S. focused in this channel, we’re pleased with our recent progress outside the U.S. and we continue to expand enterprise sales efforts internationally. With the addition of London and Berlin office as well as new hires in several other markets. We’re really excited about our early progress there. In summary, we’re pleased with our performance in Q3 and with the foundation we’re laying for the year ahead.

Snip

Enterprise sales continue to accelerate and grow nicely and that obviously is also a combination of both a growing market and shift of share from other players. But I would tell you that ratio is probably not radically changed from the last several quarters.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1820992-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q3-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

gostwyck · « **Reply #58 on:** November 11, 2013, 20:24 »

Quote from: gbalex on November 11, 2013, 19:37

You guys can bash Yuri forever but you need to pay attention to who they are targeting for marketing spend. If they were not worried about contributor poaching they would not have put out an industry ban on discussing income etc. and they would not have extended the time images need to remain on the site.

I think SS intends on using marketing spend to port enterprise sales to BS, if you don't shoot business you will not notice much of an uptick at BS.

Utter nonsense. SS are in robust good health. Forecasts for 2014 revenue are more than 50% up from the IPO barely more than a year ago. That's the truth. Your own sales, or apparently lack of, are a function of your own performance relative to competing portfolios __ not that of SS. No matter how many excuses or conspiracy theories you dream up, it will not change the facts.

gbalex · « **Reply #59 on:** November 11, 2013, 22:07 »

Quote from: gostwyck on November 11, 2013, 20:24

Quote from: gbalex on November 11, 2013, 19:37
You guys can bash Yuri forever but you need to pay attention to who they are targeting for marketing spend. If they were not worried about contributor poaching they would not have put out an industry ban on discussing income etc. and they would not have extended the time images need to remain on the site.

I think SS intends on using marketing spend to port enterprise sales to BS, if you don't shoot business you will not notice much of an uptick at BS.

Utter nonsense. SS are in robust good health. Forecasts for 2014 revenue are more than 50% up from the IPO barely more than a year ago. That's the truth. Your own sales, or apparently lack of, are a function of your own performance relative to competing portfolios __ not that of SS. No matter how many excuses or conspiracy theories you dream up, it will not change the facts.

When have I ever said that SS are not in robust good health. In reality I have always stated that they are in good health and are making money. They will be in even better health "IF" they port a good portion of enterprise subs over to BS where they have put things nicely in place to pay less royalties.

RE Snip

Your own sales, or apparently lack of, are a function of your own performance relative to competing portfolios __ not that of SS.

This one always kills me, you make the brilliant leap that my sales are poor because I am reporting a downturn. What makes you think your sales are better than mine? Maybe your sales have not changed much because they were mediocre to begin with. If you did not have many files on first page searches, I am sure the search changes did not impact you much. In fact you may have benefited from the changes.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #60 on:** November 13, 2013, 01:19 »

Maybe, maybe not. Or kind of...

You may remove Content from your account at any time, provided that in any ninety (90) day period, you remove no more than (i) 100 items of Content and (ii) 10% of your Content, whichever is greater.

And they promise to clear your files from the service within 90 days after you give notice.

Quote from: tickstock on November 11, 2013, 17:55

Shutterstock changed their rules after Yuri left, 90 days now isn't it?

Good notes and Review Ron.

tickstock · « **Reply #61 on:** November 17, 2013, 00:35 »

sobm · « **Reply #62 on:** November 17, 2013, 01:37 »

leaf · « **Reply #63 on:** November 17, 2013, 02:43 »

Quote from: tickstock on November 17, 2013, 00:35

Quote from: gostwyck on November 11, 2013, 17:43
I'd be a lot more concerned if we ever saw Monkeybusiness become 'exclusive' to Istock but I'm pretty sure that will never happen. Yeulet is a sharp business woman as she proved when she sold Bananastock to Jupiter for $20M. I'd trust her judgement in such matters over Yuri's all day long.
Uh oh. Time to be concerned?

Just saw this Tweet on Depositphotos.com's feed: "more pressure to go exclusive than ever" (cathy yeulet, monkeybusiness images) #mexpo #microstock"

Going exclusive at Depositphotos?

.. hardly likely. That tweet wasn't originally from deposit photos, they just retweeted what Robert had quoted
https://twitter.com/robertkneschke/statuses/401645889099661312

topol · « **Reply #64 on:** November 17, 2013, 03:47 »

Quote from: bhr on November 11, 2013, 15:58

The market for cheap microstock subscription content is not growing - the sites are trading customers with each other and the total pool of customers is not growing. The stock commentators are getting this wrong IMO.

Could you link your data-source for this?

tickstock · « **Reply #65 on:** November 17, 2013, 09:49 »

gostwyck · « **Reply #66 on:** November 17, 2013, 13:29 »

Quote from: tickstock on November 17, 2013, 00:35

Quote from: gostwyck on November 11, 2013, 17:43
I'd be a lot more concerned if we ever saw Monkeybusiness become 'exclusive' to Istock but I'm pretty sure that will never happen. Yeulet is a sharp business woman as she proved when she sold Bananastock to Jupiter for $20M. I'd trust her judgement in such matters over Yuri's all day long.
Uh oh. Time to be concerned?

Just saw this Tweet on Depositphotos.com's feed: "more pressure to go exclusive than ever" (cathy yeulet, monkeybusiness images) #mexpo #microstock"

Yes, I saw that quote on the Mexpo thread. "Pressure"? Pressure from what or where exactly?

Personally I think there has never been a worse time to even consider exclusivity with Istock. They appear to have lost tons of customers, have been shedding staff, the website appears permanently broken with no ability to fix it and the mothership is under real financial pressure struggling under a mountain of debt.

Add to that the fact that new images hardly sell at all nowadays and everything is being swamped by millions of LCV images with apparently no QC at all. The only 'good thing' about Istock is the surprising and unexplained growth in the PP earnings but of course, if you went exclusive, you wouldn't benefit from the PP. Why on earth would anyone choose to go exclusive now?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #67 on:** November 17, 2013, 13:32 »

Quote from: gostwyck on November 17, 2013, 13:29

Quote from: tickstock on November 17, 2013, 00:35
Quote from: gostwyck on November 11, 2013, 17:43
I'd be a lot more concerned if we ever saw Monkeybusiness become 'exclusive' to Istock but I'm pretty sure that will never happen. Yeulet is a sharp business woman as she proved when she sold Bananastock to Jupiter for $20M. I'd trust her judgement in such matters over Yuri's all day long.
Uh oh. Time to be concerned?

Just saw this Tweet on Depositphotos.com's feed: "more pressure to go exclusive than ever" (cathy yeulet, monkeybusiness images) #mexpo #microstock"

Yes, I saw that quote on the Mexpo thread. "Pressure"? Pressure from what or where exactly?

Personally I think there has never been a worse time to even consider exclusivity with Istock. They appear to have lost tons of customers, have been shedding staff, the website appears permanently broken with no ability to fix it and the mothership is under real financial pressure struggling under a mountain of debt.

Add to that the fact that new images hardly sell at all nowadays and everything is being swamped by millions of LCV images with apparently no QC at all. The only 'good thing' about Istock is the surprising and unexplained growth in the PP earnings but of course, if you went exclusive, you wouldn't benefit from the PP. Why on earth would anyone choose to go exclusive now?

a big fat cheque and a few cheques after also

and of course a game plan

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: My meeting with Shutterstock (Read 18576 times)

Ron

Ron

Ron

Ron

Ron

marthamarks

Ron

Ron

Ron

Ron

Batman

Ron

Ron

Ron

Ron

Uncle Pete

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors