Quote from: stockastic on February 26, 2013, 20:05

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?

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".

Quote from: gostwyck on February 26, 2013, 22:35

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.

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.

Quote from: gbalex on February 27, 2013, 16:31

Quote from: gostwyck on February 27, 2013, 15:29

Quote from: stockastic on February 27, 2013, 12:40

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.

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.