pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock CEO Jon Oringer featured in Forbes  (Read 13560 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 »

« Reply #25 on: February 15, 2013, 16:22 »
-1
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.

His actions over the last 8 years say so.

Why are so many of you miserable, pessimistic doom-merchants? SS is growing, our incomes are going up and we have a trustworthy man at the helm. You can even buy stock in the business if you want to and attend shareholder meetings. What's not to like?

Poncke

« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2013, 16:25 »
-1
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.

His actions over the last 8 years say so.

Why are so many of you miserable, pessimistic doom-merchants? SS is growing, our incomes are going up and we have a trustworthy man at the helm. You can even buy stock in the business if you want to and attend shareholder meetings. What's not to like?

You can stick a 1000 minusses on my comment, but I am not making any statement, just asking a question and I am sure no one knows the answer. Not even the SS fanboys.  ;D

You just cant stand anyone saying anything for the sake of argument concerning SS. Its not always meant negative as you say it to be.  ;)
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 16:34 by Poncke »


Poncke

« Reply #27 on: February 15, 2013, 16:33 »
0
.

« Reply #28 on: February 15, 2013, 16:58 »
+3
SS is growing, our incomes are going up...

You keep saying that, but it is not true for everyone. Mine has been on a steady decline for years. It would probably look worse, but royalty bumps, on demand, and single sales have masked the trajectory by raising revenues.

My bet is still on him buying DT.

That's a scary thought. I'm not sure a lot of good would come out of that for us. I think BS has gotten worse since SS bought them.

« Reply #29 on: February 15, 2013, 17:49 »
0
Quote
Agreed. Scott Braut usually appears....

Hello All,

My apologies for the delay in replying. 

With regards to Bigstock...

Subscriptions are a new product for Bigstock. As everyone knows, subscriptions are a popular way for customers to buy images and a proven way to increase the overall number and variety of downloads of your images. As evidence of that popularity, Shutterstock recently hit a milestone of 250 million downloads. Customers like subscriptions because they both fulfill their needs and provide them with some flexibility and creative freedom. Almost every "top tier" stock image provider in our space now supports subscriptions for that reason.     

We're proud of the fact that the Shutterstock royalty structure has fundamentally remained the same for many years, though we have added new products.  In fact, a little over a year ago, we made price increases that brought up video royalties.  We also introduced new image licensing products that are now generating royalties of up to $120 per download.  In parallel, the team has launched numerous new features for contributors, such as a contributor profile pages, keywording tools, a "contributor success guide," the "Viewfinder Challenge" contest, a new signup process, "featured contributor" newsletters, new search interfaces to find your images, mobile apps and more. We are highly dedicated to maintaining a healthy and positive relationship with our contributors. We hope that our continued commitment to contributors comes through in everything we do. 

The Bigstock team has two goals.  The first is to continue to grow the business by providing customer-friendly purchase options.  The second -- the goal for the new royalty model -- is to stay competitive and fair while avoiding royalty adjustments in the future.  This product is targeted at Bigstock customers and this is the first time subscriptions will appear on the Bigstock site.  The team is going to be monitoring how customers respond to subscriptions and they'll be sensitive to contributor earnings at the same time. 

We appreciate the feedback and take it seriously. Everyone is looking forward to growing Bigstock into one of your best earners and the plan is to keep you informed and consider your feedback along the way.

Best,

Scott
VP Content
Shutterstock

« Reply #30 on: February 15, 2013, 18:03 »
+2
SS and BigStock as we know are both stock agencies, they have very similar collections and more important the "bridge program" helped the top sellers to be mirrored at BigStock too, how can you keep/increase buyers at SS and still making them to buy at BigStock? I am really having a hard time to understand why they will keep purchasing plans at SS while they have the same collection at BigStock for less money (not to mention our share)

Poncke

« Reply #31 on: February 15, 2013, 18:04 »
0
Thanks a lot Scott. It seems there is no need to worry  for the future of SS then, for now. It is very much appreciated the way you communicate and indeed take away concerns at early stages. Keep up the good work. Thanks again.

« Reply #32 on: February 15, 2013, 18:11 »
0
Thanks Scott.  I'll see if BigStock revises the subs commission levels targets in 6 months time.  I'd rather have an incentive to reach an achievable target, like we have with SS.  Hopefully SS and BigStock will stay interested in keeping us motivated to produce new microstock images.  Some of the other sites have made it unsustainable for me and I'm now producing far less microstock images than I used to.

« Reply #33 on: February 15, 2013, 18:32 »
+4
SS and BigStock as we know are both stock agencies, they have very similar collections and more important the "bridge program" helped the top sellers to be mirrored at BigStock too, how can you keep/increase buyers at SS and still making them to buy at BigStock? I am really having a hard time to understand why they will keep purchasing plans at SS while they have the same collection at BigStock for less money (not to mention our share)

I think it is key to mention that the SS bridge to BS program will make it easier to find quality images at BS because SS has hand picked quality ports with quality images to participate in the bridge program.

Scott, as a buyer why would I continue to buy images at SS when I can find them more quickly and efficiently at BS and because they are cheaper on BS why would I buy them at SS instead?  Most buyers that I know are aware of all the sites and we routinely compare pricing between those sites.

« Reply #34 on: February 15, 2013, 18:36 »
+3
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.

I was never really part of the Oringer cult of personality.  I respect what he's done, but share your skepticism about what direction things at SS and BigStock are headed in now. 

« Reply #35 on: February 15, 2013, 18:42 »
+2

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


Yeah, that's what a lot of us thought about the Getty Google thing too, when it first surfaced.  We were wrong.

« Reply #36 on: February 15, 2013, 19:02 »
+16
The Bigstock team has two goals.  The first is to continue to grow the business by providing customer-friendly purchase options.  The second -- the goal for the new royalty model -- is to stay competitive and fair while avoiding royalty adjustments in the future.  This product is targeted at Bigstock customers and this is the first time subscriptions will appear on the Bigstock site.  The team is going to be monitoring how customers respond to subscriptions and they'll be sensitive to contributor earnings at the same time. 

Hello Scott,
For the life of me I cannot understand why you didn't turn Bigstock into something innovative, for example a site with premium images (like iStock's Vetta collection). Instead you chose to play only in the lower-end segment of the market, compete with yourselves for the same type of customers, set up a hamster wheel for contributors, etc. Boring! To my mind Bigstock is a weird site, I don't think it offers anything significant that Shutterstock doesn't, it is just some kind of (distorting) mirror. I don't think anybody would have a problem if it suddenly ceased to exist, that's why if I were in your shoes I would try to turn BS into something completely different from SS and attract a different kind of customers.

If you do a similar thing with royalties on SS I will quit microstock or if the stocksy site goes online and accepts me I will move my images there (they would be exclusive). At the moment I must say I am disappointed with Shutterstock. It seems like you have run out of creative ideas.
Setting up a hamster wheel for contributors is not innovative at all. Istock was the first to come up with this and look where it got them.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 19:17 by Snufkin »


« Reply #37 on: February 15, 2013, 19:08 »
+2

The second -- the goal for the new royalty model -- is to stay competitive and fair while avoiding royalty adjustments in the future. 

How can your goal be avoiding royalty adjustments in the future if you are going to adjust them every year?

« Reply #38 on: February 15, 2013, 19:26 »
+8
The Bigstock team has two goals.  The first is to continue to grow the business by providing customer-friendly purchase options.  The second -- the goal for the new royalty model -- is to stay competitive and fair while avoiding royalty adjustments in the future.  This product is targeted at Bigstock customers and this is the first time subscriptions will appear on the Bigstock site.  The team is going to be monitoring how customers respond to subscriptions and they'll be sensitive to contributor earnings at the same time. 

Hello Scott,
For the life of me I cannot understand why you didn't turn Bigstock into something innovative, for example a site with premium images (like iStock's Vetta collection). Instead you chose to play only in the lower-end segment of the market, compete with yourselves for the same type of customers, set up a hamster wheel for contributors, etc. Boring! To my mind Bigstock is a weird site, I don't think it offers anything significant that Shutterstock doesn't, it is just some kind of (distorting) mirror. I don't think anybody would have a problem if it suddenly ceased to exist, that's why if I were in your shoes I would try to turn BS into something completely different from SS and attract a different kind of customers.

If you do a similar thing with royalties on SS I will quit microstock or if the stocksy site goes online and accepts me I will move my images there (they would be exclusive). At the moment I must say I am disappointed with Shutterstock. It seems like you have run out of creative ideas.
Setting up a hamster wheel for contributors is not innovative at all. Istock was the first to come up with this and look where it got them.
I agree. If BS had done something like this, I would have uploaded some of my better images. As it is, I will remove all my images. I hope this doesn't sound arrogant, but I'm confident I would make more money the premium way, than I would the cheap way.

« Reply #39 on: February 15, 2013, 19:55 »
0

I agree. If BS had done something like this, I would have uploaded some of my better images. As it is, I will remove all my images. I hope this doesn't sound arrogant, but I'm confident I would make more money the premium way, than I would the cheap way.

Yeah, I just wish there were more sites like that out there as options. Nobody wants to abandon the old micro ways though. It's a shame.

EmberMike

« Reply #40 on: February 15, 2013, 23:30 »
+1
Scott, thanks for chiming in on this.

My ongoing concern with the Bigstock subscription program is the royalty rate schedule being used. It's extremely ambitious. Even on Shutterstock today, achieving those kinds of numbers to get the corresponding rates would be impressive. And the idea that these rates will be achievable can only mean one of two things: That the Bigstock team really does believe that they will be rivaling Shutterstock in sales volume in the near future, or that they know these numbers aren't going to be achievable and set the milestones as they are with the intention of never having to pay out $0.38 royalties.

Obviously we all hope it's the former, but you can understand my skepticism here.

Quick question: Is there a timeframe in mind for when certain subscription volume goals need to be met and when those milestone numbers might be reviewed? Could we be looking at, say, 6 months or more before the Bigstock team can take a look at where they are and decide whether to modify the numbers?


« Reply #42 on: February 16, 2013, 12:57 »
0
Hello Mike,

Thanks.  The team will be monitoring subscription volume and usage on an ongoing basis.  Bridge to Bigstock contributors are guaranteed the highest subscription download royalty of 38 cents per download for six months.  Changes can't be guaranteed, but the team is sensitive to contributor royalties. If any changes are expected based on how Bigstock customers are responding to subscriptions, they would be communicated in advance during that time period or at the end of the six months.  The goal is to have both fair and competitive rates while also minimizing the possibility of having to adjust rates in the future.

Best,

Scott 
VP Content
Shutterstock


Based on SS growth and it's revenue the rates it is paying contributors leave it in the position to be more than competitive.  Therefor why would you set numbers for us @ BS that we all know aren't going to be fair or achievable?

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 #43 on: February 16, 2013, 18:42 »
+3
Hello Mike,

Thanks.  The team will be monitoring subscription volume and usage on an ongoing basis.  Bridge to Bigstock contributors are guaranteed the highest subscription download royalty of 38 cents per download for six months.  Changes can't be guaranteed, but the team is sensitive to contributor royalties. If any changes are expected based on how Bigstock customers are responding to subscriptions, they would be communicated in advance during that time period or at the end of the six months. The goal is to have both fair and competitive rates while also minimizing the possibility of having to adjust rates in the future.

Best,

Scott 
VP Content
Shutterstock

If you want to have fair and competitive royalty rates, there is a very easy way to achieve this: Give everyone at least the rate they receive on SS.
If you for whatever reason want to implement a scheme that is based on recent sales numbers (e.g. number of licenses sold in the last year), than take the current SS rates as the floor for everyone. That would give everyone the chance to earn more without the possibility to drop to a lower rate.

Setting completely unrealistic goals (that will lead to lower rates than on SS for everyone) is neither competitive nor fair.

« Reply #44 on: February 16, 2013, 19:00 »
+2
The goal is to have both fair and competitive rates while also minimizing the possibility of having to adjust rates in the future.

I think I get this.   "Competitive" means paying the same as or less than the other agencies.  A "competitive" rate is, by definition, "fair".  There's a chance it might not go lower, at least not right away. 

Heckuva pep talk.  I'm stoked!


« Last Edit: February 16, 2013, 19:27 by stockastic »

« Reply #45 on: February 26, 2013, 17:31 »
0
Hello Mike,

Thanks.  The team will be monitoring subscription volume and usage on an ongoing basis.  Bridge to Bigstock contributors are guaranteed the highest subscription download royalty of 38 cents per download for six months.  Changes can't be guaranteed, but the team is sensitive to contributor royalties. If any changes are expected based on how Bigstock customers are responding to subscriptions, they would be communicated in advance during that time period or at the end of the six months.  The goal is to have both fair and competitive rates while also minimizing the possibility of having to adjust rates in the future.

Best,

Scott 
VP Content
Shutterstock

Please address the obvious referral program update issues.

« Reply #46 on: February 26, 2013, 18:26 »
0
Thanks for responding to the questions here Scott.  It's always appreciated.


« Reply #47 on: February 26, 2013, 19:00 »
+9
The fact that Scott came to post a response here is much appreciated.

The content of his message is the worst kind of PR spin and didn't address a number of key issues. Some mumble speak about sensitivity to contributor issues and "monitoring subscription volume" neatly sidesteps the utter fantasy of any more than one or two contributors ever (i.e. lifetime) making 50K downloads on Bigstock.

I didn't fall off the turnip truck - I've been around all these sites for a number of years. They are lowballing the subscription prices - undercutting Shutterstock - and even more heavily lowballing contributors.

The responses from Bigstock support to the "happy shiny" notice announcing all of this were very polite but content free.

There are a number of us who are not part of the Bridge to Bigstock program for whom the only possibility of an upside in this fiasco is that it will not succeed and they'll withdraw subscriptions as fast as they withdrew cash pricing.

If it does succeed and subscriptions migrate from SS to Bigstock, by the time the 6 months are up, those of you feeling all happy about the absence of any threat from this move (because it's only Bigstock and they're such a low-income player) are going to see your 38 cents get cut significantly.

This seems like a replay of the struggle when iStock/Getty introduced the Partner Program - all the talk about separate markets and separate customers. It's the same pool of customers - as far as I can see no one is bringing in a new set of buyers, just trying to swipe buyers from other agencies. Or, in the case of Shutterstock, migrate buyers to the lower-cost subscriptions at Bigstock.

I guess I'm resigned to the reality that the "agencies" are just indifferent to the relentless lowering of royalty rates - and I know SS's income per month for many of us has been very healthy, but if I were paid there based on the Bigstock rate chart, that would all come to a screeching halt.

Once upon a time, you didn't have to be a factory to be able to be successful. You didn't have to be full time. These types of annual hamster wheel royalty schemes change all of that - and in the process transfer a nice chunk of the income total from the contributors to the agency.

I acknowledge the list of nice little contributor features that have been added, but (a) it's not even close to the stats I'd like to see and (b) these things aren't a substitute for royalties (and introducing them in a discussion about royalty payments suggests the sort of distraction one does with toddlers - ooh, shiny).

Shutterstock has refused to say that the Bigstock royalty scheme will not be implemented at Shutterstock. Talking of "minimizing the possibility of having to adjust rates in the future" can be translated to avoiding having to decrease rates - no one would be worried about SS adjusting rates upward! That's something they used to do and I don't remember anyone being upset about it.

For me, even if it means the end of being a microstock contributor, if my rates at Shutterstock are cut, I'm pulling my port and closing my account - #248. Without an opt-out for subscriptions, I'm pulling by Bigstock port March 15th.

I know Shutterstock doesn't care, but I've had enough of being effed about by agency after agency.

« Reply #48 on: February 26, 2013, 19:47 »
0

If it does succeed and subscriptions migrate from SS to Bigstock, by the time the 6 months are up, those of you feeling all happy about the absence of any threat from this move (because it's only Bigstock and they're such a low-income player) are going to see your 38 cents get cut significantly.

I guess I see something like this being the eventual outcome anyway. Whether it happens this year, in 5 year, this way or another way... I can't really say, but I'm preparing for it. I guess if it happens sooner rather than later it will just speed up those plans.

« Reply #49 on: February 26, 2013, 20:05 »
+6
SS sees itself as being in the image search business - Oringer has said as much.  The plan is to drive the price of an image as low as possible - basically by finding the point where photographers start to pull major portfolios - and instead make money from 'fees' for 'services'.  They have to pay a commission on the sale price of an image - but not on whatever they charge a customer to help him find that image. 

This is basically what subscriptions - and other new pricing schemes - accomplish: they break the commission model and replace it with arbitrary, token payments to photographers.   Increasingly the agencies will make their profits from upfront charges to "use their search tools" while reducing the so-called purchase price to a small piece of the transaction.   

I think we photographers are losing track of how the big agencies simply see us as an obstacle to their growth in profitablity, and intend to route around us by changing the game from "product" to "service".




« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 20:22 by stockastic »

« Reply #50 on: February 26, 2013, 21:19 »
0
I think we photographers are losing track of how the big agencies simply see us as an obstacle to their growth in profitablity, and intend to route around us by changing the game from "product" to "service".

I don't agree with all your 3 paragraphs but I would love to hear more about the last one, what is your suggestion? ;)

« Reply #51 on: February 26, 2013, 21:25 »
0
I think we photographers are losing track of how the big agencies simply see us as an obstacle to their growth in profitablity, and intend to route around us by changing the game from "product" to "service".

I don't agree with all your 3 paragraphs but I would love to hear more about the last one, what is your suggestion? ;)

My only suggestion is to accept the fact that microstock is a declining business, that the rate of decline will only increase, and we should find ways to redirect our efforts.  The only thing that will stop the decline in commissions will be big players pulling their portfolios.

Now tell me what I said that you disagree with, and why.  I'm not saying this will be the only outcome, or that it will happen overnight - just that it will be the dominant trend.  And that Oringer has basically already stated this, if perhaps not as directly.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 21:30 by stockastic »

« Reply #52 on: February 26, 2013, 21:44 »
-1
1 - SS is not trying to lower the prices as much possible (2.3$ revenue per download in last 4 months of 2012 like they reported a few days ago, it have increased from 2.16$, have you got less royalties? they haven't changed and prices stayed the same too) OTOH they have the same pricing for years, it is working for me and I am sure a few more also
2 - Jon is still respecting us, sure I haven't enjoyed the referral cut (but I have zero referrals), the BigStock deal doesn't look good but will see how it goes (its soon to tell but my SS sales weren't hurt)
3 - we aren't obstacles, we are the ones feeding buyers everyday, sure they can get rid of us but so far I haven't seen them kicking out without a strong reason

« Reply #53 on: February 26, 2013, 21:49 »
0
1.  Yes they've held the line for quite a while.  In fact I'm making more over time.  But I predict this won't continue forever.

2.  Agreed - so far.

3.  The people now running the big agencies are starting to feel like they already have enough images to satisfy the great majority of buyers for a long time.  And they really want to cut reviewing costs.  They aren't worried about a decline in submissions.


The transition from "product" to "service" is already a major trend in the software industry.  MS Office is now a subscription, not a DVD.

« Reply #54 on: February 26, 2013, 22:22 »
0
They have gone from thinking to scheming.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 22:27 by MisterElements »

« Reply #55 on: February 26, 2013, 22:35 »
-9
SS sees itself as being in the image search business - Oringer has said as much.  The plan is to drive the price of an image as low as possible - basically by finding the point where photographers start to pull major portfolios - and instead make money from 'fees' for 'services'.  They have to pay a commission on the sale price of an image - but not on whatever they charge a customer to help him find that image. 

This is basically what subscriptions - and other new pricing schemes - accomplish: they break the commission model and replace it with arbitrary, token payments to photographers.   Increasingly the agencies will make their profits from upfront charges to "use their search tools" while reducing the so-called purchase price to a small piece of the transaction.   

I think we photographers are losing track of how the big agencies simply see us as an obstacle to their growth in profitablity, and intend to route around us by changing the game from "product" to "service".


Have you bought shares in Dignitas recently? Your posts are all so pessimistic and depressing it seems like you are trying to drive us all to suicide. Let's see what Jon has actually said recently;

"Lets begin with our key operating metrics download volume and revenue per download. Every download is a business licensing an image on our platform. When businesses choose Shutterstock to license images and video, contributors earn money and receive feedback on whats selling. This motivates contributors to upload more content which increases the breadth of our library and in turn helps us to attract new customers and to foster their loyalty. This is a virtuous cycle that drives our business and ultimately our financial results."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1214061-shutterstock-s-ceo-discusses-q4-2012-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

Jon appears to value contributors and has an 8 year history of doing so. Your miserable, hand-wringing and pathetically defeatist attitude is painfully repetitive, uninformed and inaccurate to the facts.

My income from SS has been consistently increasing over the last 8 years. They've never lied to me, reduced my royalties or f**ked me about with dodgy currency exchange rate deals. Give the guy some credit for never having let contributors down and always having delivered on his promises.

« Reply #56 on: February 26, 2013, 22:48 »
+4
I appreciate the pessimism.  ;D


« Reply #57 on: February 26, 2013, 23:13 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 15:38 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #58 on: February 26, 2013, 23:15 »
+8

Have you bought shares in Dignitas recently? Your posts are all so pessimistic and depressing it seems like you are trying to drive us all to suicide....

My income from SS has been consistently increasing over the last 8 years. They've never lied to me, reduced my royalties or f**ked me about with dodgy currency exchange rate deals. Give the guy some credit for never having let contributors down and always having delivered on his promises.

That's even saltier than your usual - one person's realism might seem like pessimism to you, but I don't agree with you about the future of Shutterstock. I wouldn't argue at all about the past.

The dividing line for me was that memo about the royalties at Bigstock.

The minute Jon started down that road - albeit with a subsidiary - he shot a big hole in the goodwill bucket that up until then had been pretty close to full from my point of view.

I don't have a crystal ball any more than you do, but in terms of future behavior, I'm not seeing things continue in a positive vein at Shutterstock - at least not for contributors like me.

And the quote about the virtuous cycle was one I included in the e-mail to the Bigstock manager who announced the new RC scheme for Bigstock subs royalties as it seemed especially ironic in light of what they were planning to to.

Now, those words in the IPO filing and earnings call seem more like spin for public consumption than the reality for contributors behind the scenes.

« Reply #59 on: February 26, 2013, 23:18 »
+1

Have you bought shares in Dignitas recently? Your posts are all so pessimistic and depressing it seems like you are trying to drive us all to suicide....

My income from SS has been consistently increasing over the last 8 years. They've never lied to me, reduced my royalties or f**ked me about with dodgy currency exchange rate deals. Give the guy some credit for never having let contributors down and always having delivered on his promises.

That's even saltier than your usual - one person's realism might seem like pessimism to you, but I don't agree with you about the future of Shutterstock. I wouldn't argue at all about the past.

The dividing line for me was that memo about the royalties at Bigstock.

The minute Jon started down that road - albeit with a subsidiary - he shot a big hole in the goodwill bucket that up until then had been pretty close to full from my point of view.

I don't have a crystal ball any more than you do, but in terms of future behavior, I'm not seeing things continue in a positive vein at Shutterstock - at least not for contributors like me.

And the quote about the virtuous cycle was one I included in the e-mail to the Bigstock manager who announced the new RC scheme for Bigstock subs royalties as it seemed especially ironic in light of what they were planning to to.

Now, those words in the IPO filing and earnings call seem more like spin for public consumption than the reality for contributors behind the scenes.

I 100% agree!

"The minute Jon started down that road - albeit with a subsidiary - he shot a big hole in the goodwill bucket that up until then had been pretty close to full from my point of view."

Now the question is why did he do it........is he testing the RC system before moving it over to SS?
« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 23:20 by MisterElements »

« Reply #60 on: February 26, 2013, 23:24 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 15:38 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #61 on: February 26, 2013, 23:43 »
+1
No matter how cheap the subscriptions at BS I'm not entirely worried that BS will have an impact on anything else.  They simply don't have a powerful library.   It is evident in my own sales, and also I had to shop for a few images 3 times this calendar year and BS fell short each time.   I know there's a lot of MSG'ers who claim that they have also suspended uploads.  I have not uploaded since their announcement and it would be very easy to walk away from them.

« Reply #62 on: February 27, 2013, 12:40 »
+6
A lot of this discussion could be reduced to faith in Jon Oringer - whether you take his pro-contributor statements seriously or regard them as typical CEO spin and hype - and whether you believe he's going to remain in control of the company.   

If, for the sake of argument, you remove Oringer from the equation - it seems to me that you're left with a newly-public company and strong pressure to increase profits in the short term.  And 2 obvious ways to do that are 1) push subscription models, so that future price increases to buyers don't require paying more to contributors;   2) reduce inspection costs, by discouraging submissions that seem (statistically) unlikely to pay off, and by introducing automated inspections for technical quality.


Only time will tell.

« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 13:13 by stockastic »

« Reply #63 on: February 27, 2013, 15:29 »
-2
A lot of this discussion could be reduced to faith in Jon Oringer - whether you take his pro-contributor statements seriously or regard them as typical CEO spin and hype - and whether you believe he's going to remain in control of the company.   

If, for the sake of argument, you remove Oringer from the equation - it seems to me that you're left with a newly-public company and strong pressure to increase profits in the short term.  And 2 obvious ways to do that are 1) push subscription models, so that future price increases to buyers don't require paying more to contributors;   2) reduce inspection costs, by discouraging submissions that seem (statistically) unlikely to pay off, and by introducing automated inspections for technical quality.


Only time will tell.

How can you 'remove Oringer from the equation' when he owns 54% of the business? It might be a publically quoted company but, strictly speaking, it is neither publically owned or controlled.

It seems to me that every agency that has gone down the route of reducing contributor royalties, in a bid to boost profits, has experienced the opposite effect. I have no doubt that if SS tries it then the result will be the same. The most effective strategy to grow a microstock enterprise is loyalty to content providers.

« Reply #64 on: February 27, 2013, 16:31 »
0
A lot of this discussion could be reduced to faith in Jon Oringer - whether you take his pro-contributor statements seriously or regard them as typical CEO spin and hype - and whether you believe he's going to remain in control of the company.   

If, for the sake of argument, you remove Oringer from the equation - it seems to me that you're left with a newly-public company and strong pressure to increase profits in the short term.  And 2 obvious ways to do that are 1) push subscription models, so that future price increases to buyers don't require paying more to contributors;   2) reduce inspection costs, by discouraging submissions that seem (statistically) unlikely to pay off, and by introducing automated inspections for technical quality.


Only time will tell.

How can you 'remove Oringer from the equation' when he owns 54% of the business? It might be a publically quoted company but, strictly speaking, it is neither publically owned or controlled.

It seems to me that every agency that has gone down the route of reducing contributor royalties, in a bid to boost profits, has experienced the opposite effect. I have no doubt that if SS tries it then the result will be the same. The most effective strategy to grow a microstock enterprise is loyalty to content providers.

Really are you pathologically naive.  If you plan on cashing out at the peak.  You push the stock prices up by bleeding your contributors until you reach the point of no return and they begin to revolt.  Then just before the scheme goes south you cash out!

Your first clue will be on the first page of BS.  They have begun to push corporate clients to BS by dropping prices and cost per image.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 16:42 by gbalex »

Poncke

« Reply #65 on: February 27, 2013, 16:53 »
+2
What if we move SS from the equation? You end up with just a dude.

« Reply #66 on: February 27, 2013, 17:05 »
+3
It seems to me that every agency that has gone down the route of reducing contributor royalties, in a bid to boost profits, has experienced the opposite effect. I have no doubt that if SS tries it then the result will be the same. The most effective strategy to grow a microstock enterprise is loyalty to content providers.

How loyal can they really be to 35000+ contributors? I think SS does a good job at selling files and communicating with its contributors, but I'd be fooling myself to think that they are loyal to me or represent my best interests.


« Reply #67 on: February 27, 2013, 17:55 »
-3
I feel like I'm the only person here upset about the referral issue.

« Reply #68 on: February 27, 2013, 18:15 »
0
A lot of this discussion could be reduced to faith in Jon Oringer - whether you take his pro-contributor statements seriously or regard them as typical CEO spin and hype - and whether you believe he's going to remain in control of the company.   

If, for the sake of argument, you remove Oringer from the equation - it seems to me that you're left with a newly-public company and strong pressure to increase profits in the short term.  And 2 obvious ways to do that are 1) push subscription models, so that future price increases to buyers don't require paying more to contributors;   2) reduce inspection costs, by discouraging submissions that seem (statistically) unlikely to pay off, and by introducing automated inspections for technical quality.


Only time will tell.

How can you 'remove Oringer from the equation' when he owns 54% of the business? It might be a publically quoted company but, strictly speaking, it is neither publically owned or controlled.

It seems to me that every agency that has gone down the route of reducing contributor royalties, in a bid to boost profits, has experienced the opposite effect. I have no doubt that if SS tries it then the result will be the same. The most effective strategy to grow a microstock enterprise is loyalty to content providers.

Really are you pathologically naive.  If you plan on cashing out at the peak.  You push the stock prices up by bleeding your contributors until you reach the point of no return and they begin to revolt.  Then just before the scheme goes south you cash out!

Your first clue will be on the first page of BS.  They have begun to push corporate clients to BS by dropping prices and cost per image.

You're well off the mark. In your simple world every situation is the same but the real world is far more complex. Oringer has no plans to 'cash out' so your theory does not apply. If he had he would already have done so. He already has more money than he can reasonably spend. This is now a game to him and he's in it to win it. His objective is become the biggest stock content provider, in all formats, and he still has a very long way to go. He's certainly not going to blow it with a quick 'pump and dump' any time soon __ if ever.

The IPO was simply a means of gaining 'free money' with which to invest in furthering his empire, when the opportunity arises, and also reducing his own risk at the same time. It's also a handy means of measuring exactly where you are in 'the game'. Oringer has retained full control of the business and he only has to keep doing what he's already been doing for the last 8 years to keep the business growing and satisfy the existing shareholders. If they should ever kick up a stink then he has the money to buy them out anyway ( as Branson did with Virgin and as Michael Dell is doing now).

Poncke

« Reply #69 on: February 27, 2013, 18:40 »
+1
A lot of this discussion could be reduced to faith in Jon Oringer - whether you take his pro-contributor statements seriously or regard them as typical CEO spin and hype - and whether you believe he's going to remain in control of the company.   

If, for the sake of argument, you remove Oringer from the equation - it seems to me that you're left with a newly-public company and strong pressure to increase profits in the short term.  And 2 obvious ways to do that are 1) push subscription models, so that future price increases to buyers don't require paying more to contributors;   2) reduce inspection costs, by discouraging submissions that seem (statistically) unlikely to pay off, and by introducing automated inspections for technical quality.


Only time will tell.

How can you 'remove Oringer from the equation' when he owns 54% of the business? It might be a publically quoted company but, strictly speaking, it is neither publically owned or controlled.

It seems to me that every agency that has gone down the route of reducing contributor royalties, in a bid to boost profits, has experienced the opposite effect. I have no doubt that if SS tries it then the result will be the same. The most effective strategy to grow a microstock enterprise is loyalty to content providers.

Really are you pathologically naive.  If you plan on cashing out at the peak.  You push the stock prices up by bleeding your contributors until you reach the point of no return and they begin to revolt.  Then just before the scheme goes south you cash out!

Your first clue will be on the first page of BS.  They have begun to push corporate clients to BS by dropping prices and cost per image.

You're well off the mark. In your simple world every situation is the same but the real world is far more complex. Oringer has no plans to 'cash out' so your theory does not apply. If he had he would already have done so. He already has more money than he can reasonably spend. This is now a game to him and he's in it to win it. His objective is become the biggest stock content provider, in all formats, and he still has a very long way to go. He's certainly not going to blow it with a quick 'pump and dump' any time soon __ if ever.

The IPO was simply a means of gaining 'free money' with which to invest in furthering his empire, when the opportunity arises, and also reducing his own risk at the same time. It's also a handy means of measuring exactly where you are in 'the game'. Oringer has retained full control of the business and he only has to keep doing what he's already been doing for the last 8 years to keep the business growing and satisfy the existing shareholders. If they should ever kick up a stink then he has the money to buy them out anyway ( as Branson did with Virgin and as Michael Dell is doing now).
I am sorry, but it seems you know more then Jon himself. Nobody knows what he is up too.

No matter how fanatic the SS fanboys are, just because they say something doesnt make it true.

« Reply #70 on: February 27, 2013, 19:47 »
+2
I am sorry, but it seems you know more then Jon himself. Nobody knows what he is up too.

No matter how fanatic the SS fanboys are, just because they say something doesnt make it true.

I completely agree that none of us know exactly what SS's plans are. However we do have clues as to the direction they are headed based on recent actions, such as changing BS royalties, cutting referral earnings, changing search algorithms, actively putting things in place to attract corporate clients to BS who previously purchased images on SS at a higher cost per sale.

I think it is pretty safe to assume that you have lost touch with reality when you ignore relevant actions so that you can convince yourself that things are going to continue to be rosy when signs are increasing that we could be in for more nasty changes.  When you ignore multiple negative actions and paint fairly tail scenarios for yourself based on what you want to happen, you are in for a real let down in the future.




« Reply #71 on: February 27, 2013, 19:56 »
0
I am sorry, but it seems you know more then Jon himself. Nobody knows what he is up too.

No matter how fanatic the SS fanboys are, just because they say something doesnt make it true.

It's quite simple. There are different types of entrepreneur. You can tell, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, from how they've played their cards in the past to how they are likely to play them in the future. No-one accuses Zuckerberg for example of being a 'pump and dump' merchant. He was offered millions, then hundreds of millions, then billions to sell out. Always he refused (which almost none of us could possibly have done). These guys are different to most of us and their motivations are different too. Oringer is the same and has similar ambitions.

As the golfer Rory Mcilroy pointed out recently, at the ripe old age of 23, he's no longer playing golf for the money (that side is already assured), he's just playing for titles and records. It's the same for Oringer and his type. Money has become largely meaningless; it's only winning the game that now matters.

« Reply #72 on: February 27, 2013, 20:00 »
+2
I am sorry, but it seems you know more then Jon himself. Nobody knows what he is up too.

No matter how fanatic the SS fanboys are, just because they say something doesnt make it true.

It's quite simple. There are different types of entrepreneur. You can tell, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, from how they've played their cards in the past to how they are likely to play them in the future. No-one accuses Zuckerberg for example of being a 'pump and dump' merchant. He was offered millions, then hundreds of millions, then billions to sell out. Always he refused (which almost none of us could possibly have done). These guys are different to most of us and their motivations are different too. Oringer is the same and has similar ambitions.

As the golfer Rory Mcilroy pointed out recently, at the ripe old age of 23, he's no longer playing golf for the money (that side is already assured), he's just playing for titles and records. It's the same for Oringer and his type. Money has become largely meaningless; it's only winning the game that now matters.

I agree with you, but what we are talking about here is the methods he could use to win the game.
You seem to believe he will never screw you, and I hope you're right, but others disagree.

« Reply #73 on: February 27, 2013, 20:20 »
+1
I agree with you, but what we are talking about here is the methods he could use to win the game.
You seem to believe he will never screw you, and I hope you're right, but others disagree.

If I was in Oringer's position, and even if I was his closest advisor, I would concur that screwing your contributor base is the quickest way to screwing yourself. It just about worked for H&F but obviously at the cost of slaughtering the Istock cash-cow in the process. Even then most of their gains came from paying themselves 'dividends' by shackling the business with debt. It wasn't from profit. That didn't matter to them because they only ever intended to 'invest' in the business for 3-5 years. The situation for SS and Oringer is completely different.

Poncke

« Reply #74 on: February 28, 2013, 12:01 »
+1
I agree with you, but what we are talking about here is the methods he could use to win the game.
You seem to believe he will never screw you, and I hope you're right, but others disagree.

If I was in Oringer's position, and even if I was his closest advisor, I would concur that screwing your contributor base is the quickest way to screwing yourself. It just about worked for H&F but obviously at the cost of slaughtering the Istock cash-cow in the process. Even then most of their gains came from paying themselves 'dividends' by shackling the business with debt. It wasn't from profit. That didn't matter to them because they only ever intended to 'invest' in the business for 3-5 years. The situation for SS and Oringer is completely different.
Whats the difference between Bruce and Jon then? Bruce was carried by many as a hero, he sold IS in the end. Why couldnt Jon do the same?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
37 Replies
9462 Views
Last post December 07, 2012, 02:56
by etienjones
11 Replies
3815 Views
Last post December 27, 2012, 18:17
by Poncke
1 Replies
2415 Views
Last post June 29, 2013, 13:22
by cathyslife
6 Replies
2610 Views
Last post October 10, 2013, 08:18
by jjneff
43 Replies
7362 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