pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock CEO Jon Oringer featured in Forbes  (Read 13646 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 14, 2013, 12:23 »
+1
Cool... in the company of Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg:-)

Shutterstock CEO Jon Oringer featured in Forbes - America's Most Powerful CEOs 40 And Under
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/02/14/americas-most-powerful-ceos-40-and-under/


« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2013, 13:32 »
0
Cool... in the company of Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg:-)

Shutterstock CEO Jon Oringer featured in Forbes - America's Most Powerful CEOs 40 And Under
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/02/14/americas-most-powerful-ceos-40-and-under/


With his recent changes to Bigstock's royalties, it looks like he is shooting for a larger Market Cap than: $835 million.

Poncke

« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2013, 15:34 »
+11
I have to say, after the introduction of the RC schedule and subs over at BS and cutting referrals, my thoughts about Jon are no longer 100% positive. I think if SS follows the rest, BS, 123, IS, etc, by squeezing contributors, it will be the end of civilization in stock.

I am still on the fence, and with great anticipation I await SS next move.

« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2013, 15:43 »
+3

With his recent changes to Bigstock's royalties, it looks like he is shooting for a larger Market Cap than: $835 million.

It looks like he's run out of creative ideas and now thinks that his gain must be our loss.

« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2013, 17:14 »
+2
I have to say, after the introduction of the RC schedule and subs over at BS and cutting referrals, my thoughts about Jon are no longer 100% positive.

What!?! I'm shocked. Jon is still your best pal from the good old days. Just like he is best buddies with the other 35000+ contributors.  ;D

Congrats to him though. That's some serious company. Maybe, he'll makes some new friends to make up for losing Poncke.

Poncke

« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2013, 17:46 »
0
I have to say, after the introduction of the RC schedule and subs over at BS and cutting referrals, my thoughts about Jon are no longer 100% positive.

What!?! I'm shocked. Jon is still your best pal from the good old days. Just like he is best buddies with the other 35000+ contributors.  ;D

Congrats to him though. That's some serious company. Maybe, he'll makes some new friends to make up for losing Poncke.

Where did I give you the idea he is my buddy or whatever that is you are misinterpreting. Can I not be a bit skeptical after everything that happened lately? Or are the SS fanboys getting upset now? Bashing IS is ok, but dont dare say something negative about SS or Oringer?

« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2013, 18:32 »
+1
Maybe, he'll makes some new friends to make up for losing Poncke.

Made me laugh:)
I am impressed with the guy.  Looks like SS is on top from technical point of view, moved in successfully into non-sub business, doing corporate licensing (taking the territory from traditional Getty grounds), and generally managed not to piss off their contributor base....

« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2013, 18:42 »
+1
I have to say, after the introduction of the RC schedule and subs over at BS and cutting referrals, my thoughts about Jon are no longer 100% positive. I think if SS follows the rest, BS, 123, IS, etc, by squeezing contributors, it will be the end of civilization in stock.

I am still on the fence, and with great anticipation I await SS next move.

If that happens, I believe it will lead to a huge drop in uploads from top contributors.  Those contributors will probably then concentrate on fair paying sites like Stockfresh and GL.  If those sites become successful and then become greedy as the others have done, it's all over. 

« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2013, 18:47 »
+5
Maybe, he'll makes some new friends to make up for losing Poncke.

Made me laugh:)
I am impressed with the guy.  Looks like SS is on top from technical point of view, moved in successfully into non-sub business, doing corporate licensing (taking the territory from traditional Getty grounds), and generally managed not to piss off their contributor base....

Istock was once on top with a cult like following from contributors.  Funny how greed changes things.

« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2013, 18:48 »
0
Where did I give you the idea he is my buddy or whatever that is you are misinterpreting. Can I not be a bit skeptical after everything that happened lately? Or are the SS fanboys getting upset now? Bashing IS is ok, but dont dare say something negative about SS or Oringer?

I was actually just being sarcastic and joking. I guess I failed. Is there a sarcasm font I can use?

« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2013, 18:52 »
-5
Maybe, he'll makes some new friends to make up for losing Poncke.

Made me laugh:)
I am impressed with the guy.  Looks like SS is on top from technical point of view, moved in successfully into non-sub business, doing corporate licensing (taking the territory from traditional Getty grounds), and generally managed not to piss off their contributor base....

Absolutely! As far as I can tell it's also the only stock agency that has provided any growth for it's contributors over the last couple of years. Admittedly that has probably been at the cost of other  agencies ... you know the ones ... those that have been cutting royalties to their contributors. That does look like a cause/effect relationship to me. Has reducing royalties helped Istock, Fotolia or Dreamstime? Can't see it myself from my data. Looks to me that they've just lost massive market share to SS. They've cut their own throats more than ours.

« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2013, 18:54 »
+9
Maybe, he'll makes some new friends to make up for losing Poncke.

Made me laugh:)
I am impressed with the guy.  Looks like SS is on top from technical point of view, moved in successfully into non-sub business, doing corporate licensing (taking the territory from traditional Getty grounds), and generally managed not to piss off their contributor base....

Absolutely! As far as I can tell it's also the only stock agency that has provided any growth for it's contributors over the last couple of years. Admittedly that has probably been at the cost of other agencies ... you know the ones ... those that have been cutting royalties to their contributors. That does look like a cause/effect relationship to me. Has reducing royalties helped Istock, Fotolia or Dreamstime? Can't see it myself from my data. Looks to me that they've just lost massive market share to SS. They've cut their own throats more than ours.
So we just ignore the unrealistic RC levels with BigStock?  I think they've made a big mistake and it makes me concerned about the future of SS.

« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2013, 19:01 »
+7
I think it's not in our best interests for any one agency to get too powerful. 123 used to treat us very well, then when their success started to grow, they reacted by instigating royalty cuts based on IS's widely hated RC program.  It's reached the point where I would prefer the hassle of uploading to 15 or even 20 small sites rather than continue to get screwed by a very successful few. I think the recent changes at BS show that even SS, with a long history of treating us fairly, can turn against us if and when they become too successful. Problem is, I don't really know what we could possibly to to make that happen...

« Reply #13 on: February 14, 2013, 20:43 »
0
So we just ignore the unrealistic RC levels with BigStock?  I think they've made a big mistake and it makes me concerned about the future of SS.

I don't know what's going on there. The 'targets' are clearly absurd and all the plan can do, as it stands, is to undermine the mothership, which serves nobody. At the moment I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt (the actual targets don't come into play for at least 6 months anyway) and assuming that common sense and statistical data will eventually prevail.

The entire BigStock statement strikes me as a half-baked idea from an under-researched junior employee, most likely an intern on 'work experience'.

I'd regard Oringer as an excellent agent over the last 8 years, especially over the last two, and so far he has never let me down. I am more than prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt until otherwise proved. Let's see what actually happens before we all get hysterical.

The 'BigStock issue' is so not a problem anyway. They're on target for just 2% of my earnings this month and have been steadily dying for the last year. I'll be dropping them them like a hot brick and closing my account if in 6 months they actually progress with their hare-brained scheme. I won't even notice the effect of doing so. I almost regard the involvement of my portfolio with BigStock as a 'charitable gift' on my behalf.  Before 'The Bridge' I hadn't uploaded to them for at least a couple of years and never would have bothered to do so again. Ridiculous.

« Reply #14 on: February 14, 2013, 21:52 »
+7
So we just ignore the unrealistic RC levels with BigStock?  I think they've made a big mistake and it makes me concerned about the future of SS.

I'd regard Oringer as an excellent agent over the last 8 years, especially over the last two, and so far he has never let me down. I am more than prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt until otherwise proved. Let's see what actually happens before we all get hysterical.


I'm a little concerned that Oringer or some other representative of SS hasn't posted any statements in this forum to reassure us that no royalty cuts are in the works for SS.  I mean if our fears are unfounded, why wouldn't they simply let us know right away and put all our worried paranoia to rest?

« Reply #15 on: February 14, 2013, 21:54 »
+6
So we just ignore the unrealistic RC levels with BigStock?  I think they've made a big mistake and it makes me concerned about the future of SS.





I'm a little concerned that Oringer or some other representative of SS hasn't posted any statements in this forum to reassure us that no royalty cuts are in the works for SS.  I mean if our fears are unfounded, why wouldn't they simply let us know right away and put all our worried paranoia to rest?

Agreed. Scott Braut usually appears when anything is being said that isn't correct. He hasn't done so on this occasion, which is a worry.

« Reply #16 on: February 14, 2013, 22:00 »
-5
So we just ignore the unrealistic RC levels with BigStock?  I think they've made a big mistake and it makes me concerned about the future of SS.





I'm a little concerned that Oringer or some other representative of SS hasn't posted any statements in this forum to reassure us that no royalty cuts are in the works for SS.  I mean if our fears are unfounded, why wouldn't they simply let us know right away and put all our worried paranoia to rest?

Agreed. Scott Braut usually appears when anything is being said that isn't correct. He hasn't done so on this occasion, which is a worry.

Worry not. Scott responds about SS, not BigStock, and usually at weekends for some reason.


Poncke

« Reply #17 on: February 15, 2013, 01:38 »
+7
The other day when BS was ffing up the reviews and sending internal messages to contributors SS did step in to sort it out. So why not this time?

« Reply #18 on: February 15, 2013, 05:41 »
+2
So we just ignore the unrealistic RC levels with BigStock?  I think they've made a big mistake and it makes me concerned about the future of SS.

I don't know what's going on there. The 'targets' are clearly absurd and all the plan can do, as it stands, is to undermine the mothership, which serves nobody. At the moment I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt (the actual targets don't come into play for at least 6 months anyway) and assuming that common sense and statistical data will eventually prevail.

The entire BigStock statement strikes me as a half-baked idea from an under-researched junior employee, most likely an intern on 'work experience'.

I'd regard Oringer as an excellent agent over the last 8 years, especially over the last two, and so far he has never let me down. I am more than prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt until otherwise proved. Let's see what actually happens before we all get hysterical.

The 'BigStock issue' is so not a problem anyway. They're on target for just 2% of my earnings this month and have been steadily dying for the last year. I'll be dropping them them like a hot brick and closing my account if in 6 months they actually progress with their hare-brained scheme. I won't even notice the effect of doing so. I almost regard the involvement of my portfolio with BigStock as a 'charitable gift' on my behalf.  Before 'The Bridge' I hadn't uploaded to them for at least a couple of years and never would have bothered to do so again. Ridiculous.
I have to disagree because SS own BigStock and therefore Oringer is like their Getty.  So either he must of approved this or he is letting them do whatever they want and having nothing to do with it.  Either way, this looks like a big mistake.  Some of us are lucky having our commissions locked for 6 months but people are already getting the low subs commissions and removing their portfolios from BigStock.

BigStock is fairly insignificant but the implications for SS are huge.  I think this is a clear indication that we can expect them to go the same way as the other big sites in the future and start cutting commissions.  It would be easy for them to reassure us that isn't in their plans but they haven't done so, unless I missed it?

rubyroo

« Reply #19 on: February 15, 2013, 05:54 »
0
I don't know about this.  Certainly it made me nervous at first, but at the same time I wonder if just a case of a Bigstock's balance sheet (as a separate accounting entity) not looking so good and a drive to address that issue.  In that sense, it may have no connection with SS at all.

Although I don't like to see any agencies taking tips from Getty on how to treat contributors - and I certainly don't like RC systems, I'm not going to worry too much about this at the moment.  BS is not a big enough slice of my pie to feel too concerned about.  I'm going to just wait and see how it unfolds from here.

 

« Reply #20 on: February 15, 2013, 14:24 »
+1

I'd regard Oringer as an excellent agent over the last 8 years, especially over the last two, and so far he has never let me down. I am more than prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt until otherwise proved. Let's see what actually happens before we all get hysterical.

Wholeheartedly agree about JO---he has managed to keep the good ship SS on an even keel for a long time. Unfortunately, the game there has changed and will continue to "evolve" as the shareholders become more and more powerful, talks of a profitable sell-off begin to happen, and Jon is gently distanced from his current position of power. Jon won't be able to hold back the steamroller that is Wall Street. It will happen as it always does in these situations, always becoming an issue of pure unadulterated greed. I give SS maybe 2 years max before the first major cracks in the dike begin and things start crumbling like IS, as far as contributors are concerned. We'd best make the most out of SS while while the sun still shines. I think DT will be the next to succumb to big business one way or the other. Sad times.

« Reply #21 on: February 15, 2013, 15:55 »
-1
Wholeheartedly agree about JO---he has managed to keep the good ship SS on an even keel for a long time. Unfortunately, the game there has changed and will continue to "evolve" as the shareholders become more and more powerful, talks of a profitable sell-off begin to happen, and Jon is gently distanced from his current position of power. Jon won't be able to hold back the steamroller that is Wall Street. It will happen as it always does in these situations, always becoming an issue of pure unadulterated greed. I give SS maybe 2 years max before the first major cracks in the dike begin and things start crumbling like IS, as far as contributors are concerned. We'd best make the most out of SS while while the sun still shines. I think DT will be the next to succumb to big business one way or the other. Sad times.

It doesn't always work like that. For a start Oringer still owns 54% of SS so the shareholders can't 'force' him to do anything at all.

If shareholders get too demanding then the management can always buy them out as Branson did with Virgin in 1988 for example and as Michael Dell is doing with Dell right now.

The fact that Oringer retained a majority holding strongly suggests that he intends retaining complete control of his business and will not be told how to run it by any shareholder.

If you want to speculate about future developments at SS then ponder what Oringer intends to do with the money raised from the IPO. He talked about needing it for 'acquisitions'. My bet is still on him buying DT.

Poncke

« Reply #22 on: February 15, 2013, 16:08 »
0
What if he doesnt have to be forced? WHo says Oringer himself is not wanting more profit? And with the majority of stock, he can do as he pleases, good or bad.

« Reply #23 on: February 15, 2013, 16:21 »
+2
http://www.nysemagazine.com/shutterstock?page=1

Jon Oringer founded Shutterstock to provide an easier, more affordable way for businesses to license images. His challenge now: to become a revenue leader.

"With more than half a million customers spanning 150 countries, and at two downloads per second generating an average $2.26 per download the company expects total revenue to increase by 37 percent in 2012, to $165 million. It expects revenue of approximately $206 million in 2013, up 25 percent more."

« Reply #24 on: February 15, 2013, 16:22 »
+6
Unfortunately, the game there has changed and will continue to "evolve" as the shareholders become more and more powerful, talks of a profitable sell-off begin to happen, and Jon is gently distanced from his current position of power. Jon won't be able to hold back the steamroller that is Wall Street. It will happen as it always does in these situations, always becoming an issue of pure unadulterated greed.

In 30 years in the technology business I never saw it turn out any other way.

Unreasonable expectations, impossible profit targets, inevitable disappointment - followed by increasingly unrealistic plans and schemes to wring more money out of the business.  Conflict ensues, turnover accellerates, identity and direction are lost.

That's what Wall Street does to a technology business.  Call me an optimist. 
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 16:26 by stockastic »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
37 Replies
9514 Views
Last post December 07, 2012, 02:56
by etienjones
11 Replies
3835 Views
Last post December 27, 2012, 18:17
by Poncke
1 Replies
2437 Views
Last post June 29, 2013, 13:22
by cathyslife
6 Replies
2618 Views
Last post October 10, 2013, 08:18
by jjneff
43 Replies
7401 Views
Last post March 10, 2020, 07:31
by Evaristo tenscadisto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle