MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Ron on June 28, 2013, 12:09
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-28/shutterstock-creates-first-silicon-alley-billionaire.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-28/shutterstock-creates-first-silicon-alley-billionaire.html)
Oringer, 39, owns about 55 percent of Shutterstock, which has about 28 million licensed photos, illustrations and videos available for sale on its website. His 18.5 million shares, which he controls through closely held investment company Pixel Holdings Inc., were valued at $1 billion at 12:25 p.m. in New York.
Congratulations, but makes me sad at the same time.
Paying cents, but laughing all the way to the bank over our hard worked backs.
Aaaah, whatever, but pulling stunts like on BS with astronomical targets doesnt favor his likability factor, especially when you read stuff like that. :D
Come on Jon, a raise please !! ;)
Its a remarkable business story for sure. I should have bought stock. lol
ETA: My comments are tongue-in-cheek, dont take it too serious ;)
-
The inequity is stunning.
A raise is long past overdue!
I am sure he/they could spare a dime or two to restore the site to good working order.
-
I see losing Yuri has made the share price go up :)
-
Funny, reports of Jon being a billionaire, and I am seeing the bottom fall out of June the last two days. As if someone hid my portfolio. LOL. Sales are pathetic at the moment.
-
Funny, reports of Job being a billionaire, and I am seeing the bottom fall out of June the last two days. As if someone hid my portfolio. LOL. Sales are pathetic at the moment.
while somebody is having a stunning week, I guess you know who I am talking about, one week is sweet other it sucks and leaving LOL
-
Oh look it was posted on SS 17 minutes before here.☺
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:52 am
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131094 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131094)
-
Congrats to Jon! It's pretty awesome success story.
I'm happy to be able to utilize his creation to sell my creativity.
Shutterstock has made me a very happy thousandaire.
-
Yes, congratulations, and I think a Nobel Prize is in order, for research leading to the discovery that the optimum compensation for commercial use of a photo is 35 cents. It's truly a better world.
-
Yes, totally great news. Shutterstock is tripling its value while many full time stockers which provide the soul of SS are starving and running out of money...getting side jobs etc. ....really great news Jon...
-
Yes, totally great news. Shutterstock is tripling its value while many full time stockers which provide the soul of SS are starving and running out of money...getting side jobs etc. ....really great news Jon...
Can you name some of these "many full time stockers" who are actually starving please? Between us on MSG we should be able to have a whip-round and send them food parcels.
What about the $50M per annum that SS is distributing to it's contributors? That should buy a lot of food for 'starving' contributors.
Why are people criticising SS but not FT, DT, IS, etc? SS have historically treated their contributors much better than the others. It would seem that their main crime now has to become successful and, via the IPO, publish their financial data (which we don't get from any other microstock agency).
-
Why are people criticising SS but not FT, DT, IS, etc?
Because this is an SS forum.
The others, especially iS, get plenty of bashing in the appropriate places.
-
Yes, totally great news. Shutterstock is tripling its value while many full time stockers which provide the soul of SS are starving and running out of money...getting side jobs etc. ....really great news Jon...
Can you name some of these "many full time stockers" who are actually starving please? Between us on MSG we should be able to have a whip-round and send them food parcels.
What about the $50M per annum that SS is distributing to it's contributors? That should buy a lot of food for 'starving' contributors.
Why are people criticising SS but not FT, DT, IS, etc? SS have historically treated their contributors much better than the others. It would seem that their main crime now has to become successful and, via the IPO, publish their financial data (which we don't get from any other microstock agency).
When earnings of a company which mainly consists of equity of a third party rises without adequate compensation for those entities which deliver the original content something is wrong. We need and deserve a raise. Period.
-
Yes, totally great news. Shutterstock is tripling its value while many full time stockers which provide the soul of SS are starving and running out of money...getting side jobs etc. ....really great news Jon...
Can you name some of these "many full time stockers" who are actually starving please? Between us on MSG we should be able to have a whip-round and send them food parcels.
What about the $50M per annum that SS is distributing to it's contributors? That should buy a lot of food for 'starving' contributors.
Why are people criticising SS but not FT, DT, IS, etc? SS have historically treated their contributors much better than the others. It would seem that their main crime now has to become successful and, via the IPO, publish their financial data (which we don't get from any other microstock agency).
When earnings of a company which mainly consists of equity of a third party rises without adequate compensation for those entities which deliver the original content something is wrong. We need and deserve a raise. Period.
But in the real world, we wont get one, because all the other big sites have cut commissions. Its not good for us but that's the reality and there's no pressure on SS to give us a raise. I really wish it was different but until we see the other sites stopping commission cuts or reversing them, I don't see much point in thinking SS should give us a raise.
-
I really wish it was different but until we see the other sites stopping commission cuts or reversing them, I don't see much point in thinking SS should give us a raise.
Yes, that's a well established principle in economics and law, technically known as the "gee Dad, all the other kids were doing it" defense.
-
What seems odd is that iStock is meant to have the revenues of Shutterstock several times over but seems to be valued at less, taking account of the fact that it is also supposedly the little brother of Gettyimages.
As for the bitching, I guess Jon's main crime is that he had the wit to hang on to his creation and then float it as an IPO instead of grabbing a bag of cash from Getty or Corbis.
-
When earnings of a company which mainly consists of equity of a third party rises without adequate compensation for those entities which deliver the original content something is wrong. We need and deserve a raise. Period.
SS 'earnings' (in the proper financial sense) are pretty much directly related to contributor compensation. You can hardly expect to get a raise based on the share price which is subject to the whims of the market. Would you welcome a decrease in royalties if the shares fell in value?
The truth is that SS alone have stuck reasonably firmly to the basic principles of microstock since I joined them in 2004. All the others got much too greedy, much too fast ... and thus they blew it. Don't blame SS for that. Back in 2004 I had an RPD of 20c with SS. Nowadays it's nearly 80c. That's a four-fold increase, in less than a decade and right through a severe recession. Remind me what the problem is again?
I don't understand why some people are whining. SS haven't changed their terms (unlike almost every other agency). If you didn't like SS's terms when you started with them then why did you ever contribute to them? SS's discipline in keeping their heads and sticking to the original business plan (when all around them were losing theirs) is precisely the reason for their success.
I have made a lot of very easy money through SS over the years and it continues to rise, month by month, year by year. This evening I am raising a glass (of an excellent Jack Daniel's Tennessee Honey) in honour of Jon and his extraordinary success. I hope he goes on to make $10B and also wipe the floor with Getty in the process.
Cheers to Jon!
-
+1 gostwyck
(-2 for agreeing with a great post)
-
When earnings of a company which mainly consists of equity of a third party rises without adequate compensation for those entities which deliver the original content something is wrong. We need and deserve a raise. Period.
SS 'earnings' (in the proper financial sense) are pretty much directly related to contributor compensation. You can hardly expect to get a raise based on the share price which is subject to the whims of the market. Would you welcome a decrease in royalties if the shares fell in value?
The truth is that SS alone have stuck reasonably firmly to the basic principles of microstock since I joined them in 2004. All the others got much too greedy, much too fast ... and thus they blew it. Don't blame SS for that. Back in 2004 I had an RPD of 20c with SS. Nowadays it's nearly 80c. That's a four-fold increase, in less than a decade and right through a severe recession. Remind me what the problem is again?
I don't understand why some people are whining. SS haven't changed their terms (unlike almost every other agency). If you didn't like SS's terms when you started with them then why did you ever contribute to them? SS's discipline in keeping their heads and sticking to the original business plan (when all around them were losing theirs) is precisely the reason for their success.
I have made a lot of very easy money through SS over the years and it continues to rise, month by month, year by year. This evening I am raising a glass (of an excellent Jack Daniel's Tennessee Honey) in honour of Jon and his extraordinary success. I hope he goes on to make $10B and also wipe the floor with Getty in the process.
Cheers to Jon!
Marketing blablaahhh....
-
When earnings of a company which mainly consists of equity of a third party rises without adequate compensation for those entities which deliver the original content something is wrong. We need and deserve a raise. Period.
SS 'earnings' (in the proper financial sense) are pretty much directly related to contributor compensation. You can hardly expect to get a raise based on the share price which is subject to the whims of the market. Would you welcome a decrease in royalties if the shares fell in value?
The truth is that SS alone have stuck reasonably firmly to the basic principles of microstock since I joined them in 2004. All the others got much too greedy, much too fast ... and thus they blew it. Don't blame SS for that. Back in 2004 I had an RPD of 20c with SS. Nowadays it's nearly 80c. That's a four-fold increase, in less than a decade and right through a severe recession. Remind me what the problem is again?
I don't understand why some people are whining. SS haven't changed their terms (unlike almost every other agency). If you didn't like SS's terms when you started with them then why did you ever contribute to them? SS's discipline in keeping their heads and sticking to the original business plan (when all around them were losing theirs) is precisely the reason for their success.
I have made a lot of very easy money through SS over the years and it continues to rise, month by month, year by year. This evening I am raising a glass (of an excellent Jack Daniel's Tennessee Honey) in honour of Jon and his extraordinary success. I hope he goes on to make $10B and also wipe the floor with Getty in the process.
Cheers to Jon!
Marketing blablaahhh....
That feeble response is a clear indication of how little you understand.
-
I don't understand the complaining either. Shutterstock pays me ten times what any other site does. If it weren't for Shutterstock, I wouldn't even bother with stock photography. I only upload to other sites because all the work has already been done. If you don't like the fact that the guy who created it and turned it into the No. 1 microstock site has made good, then stop contributing there in protest.
Although Yuri leaving didn't even cause a blip, so it's not like anyone would notice.
-
I don't understand why some people are whining. SS haven't changed their terms (unlike almost every other agency). If you didn't like SS's terms when you started with them then why did you ever contribute to them? SS's discipline in keeping their heads and sticking to the original business plan (when all around them were losing theirs) is precisely the reason for their success.
I have made a lot of very easy money through SS over the years and it continues to rise, month by month, year by year. This evening I am raising a glass (of an excellent Jack Daniel's Tennessee Honey) in honour of Jon and his extraordinary success. I hope he goes on to make $10B and also wipe the floor with Getty in the process.
Cheers to Jon!
Couldn't have said it better myself. Jon created a platform that richly rewards people who understand what his customers want. He built it, we participate in it and reap rewards based on our ingenuity.
I supplied him with pictures that were fairly easy for me to create, and he's paid me handsomely. SS (and to a smaller extent, the other agencies) has made it possible to take my family on lavish vacations every year, drive new cars, and move into a larger home.
To anyone who cries about his success, feel free to demand your raise, and if they don't see fit to grant it to you, feel free to walk away. Build your own site, make your own rules and build your own wealth.
-
" But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
- George Orwell: "1984"
-
...This evening I am raising a glass (of an excellent Jack Daniel's Tennessee Honey) in honour of Jon and his extraordinary success. I hope he goes on to make $10B and also wipe the floor with Getty in the process.
I'll drink to that.
:)
-
...This evening I am raising a glass (of an excellent Jack Daniel's Tennessee Honey) in honour of Jon and his extraordinary success. I hope he goes on to make $10B and also wipe the floor with Getty in the process.
I'll drink to that.
:)
I'm not much of a drinker, so I'll just agree with the sentiment. If a little more falls through the cracks to the artists I won't complain either.
-
" But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
- George Orwell: "1984"
Yep never ending newspeak and doublethink. One thing not mentioned in that article is the millions Jon made every year before going public. He must have a nice stash besides the new billion.
The enforced wisdom of the thought police from the "SS thought crime enforcement brigade" is entertaining.
No one is ever going to brainwash me into thinking that .38 cents is sufficent return on investment for the type of images the micros asks us to produce to remain competative. The return on investment is not sufficent, no matter how many copies they sell or the new markets they may break into.
Take a good look at the economies SS is entertaining and moving into. It is no coincidence that Jon is hosting dinners in Brazil and talking about Turkey in interviews. How low do you suppose submitters in the dark green zones would be willing to go?
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/gmaps.jsp (http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/gmaps.jsp)
-
What seems odd is that iStock is meant to have the revenues of Shutterstock several times over but seems to be valued at less, taking account of the fact that it is also supposedly the little brother of Gettyimages.
As for the bitching, I guess Jon's main crime is that he had the wit to hang on to his creation and then float it as an IPO instead of grabbing a bag of cash from Getty or Corbis.
I guess 1 billion knocks 50 million out of the water any day ;-)
-
What seems odd is that iStock is meant to have the revenues of Shutterstock several times over but seems to be valued at less, taking account of the fact that it is also supposedly the little brother of Gettyimages.
As for the bitching, I guess Jon's main crime is that he had the wit to hang on to his creation and then float it as an IPO instead of grabbing a bag of cash from Getty or Corbis.
I guess 1 billion knocks 50 million out of the water any day ;-)
Yeah, of course it isn't really a billion, though. It's Wall Street fantasy cash. If he ordered his broker to sell all his shares on Monday he'd be lucky to get 10% of that. His real money is the cash he pocketed when he sold the 45%.
Similarly, if they add 10% to the artists' commission, the share price will probably collapse by 50% or so, because of the impact that would have on the company's earnings projections, so it's nonsense to want to link the commission rate to the share price.
What we get paid depends on what we will accept for our work. That applies to every site. If we want to insist on higher prices we simply don't supply sites that pay commissions below that level. Then you can sit at home, twiddle your thumbs and curse the scum who are destroying photography while watching your files not selling.
The main thing about SS is that it works. It's only sites that deliver the goods that people get worked up about and say are not paying enough. Who gives two hoots about Cutcaster? If you find a place that makes no money at all you don't complain about their rates but when a site is making you big bucks and you think another 10% would give you another $100 a month, then you get jealous over how much the owner is making and start agitating.
When a site is delivering a good return, don't try to break it. And right now, it seems that every site except SS is broken as far as indes are concerned. It's going to account for about 50% of my total earnings this month.
-
I think there is a misunderstanding, I am not jealous of Jon. I cant even be jealous coz he is doing something I cant even copy or do myself. :) I am just a simple man with a day job and not savvy enough to create something like Jon did. I know shares and commissions cant be linked, I specifically added smileys and a note to my comment to explain it was tongue in cheek.
-
I think there is a misunderstanding, I am not jealous of Jon. I cant even be jealous coz he is doing something I cant even copy or do myself. :) I am just a simple man with a day job and not savvy enough to create something like Jon did. I know shares and commissions cant be linked, I specifically added smileys and a note to my comment to explain it was tongue in cheek.
I wasn't quite sure what point you were making, I was just using your reply as a starting point to respond to a lot of different posts earlier in the thread.
BTW, did you see Sean Locke mentioned in some thread or other that he had more than 1,000 files at Pond 5 and had not made one sale in 15 days! Sean!!! That seems to say something about the importance of the way sites market themselves and capture customer share and also about the price sensitivity of customers.
-
Ok, gotcha.
Yes, I saw that post and it made me realize P5 is not going to bring me any cash. So I am going to drop them.
-
He also says he's getting two or three sales a day at Stocksy, where he also seems to have about 1,000 picture - image exclusive. Again, if that is what he is getting at his level then I doubt if Stocksy would be any good for me. It would probably be better to switch to doing exclusive RM for Alamy.
Actually, the way things are going, I might just cut back to SS and Alamy, with RF going to the first and RM to the other.
-
Well 2-3 sales a day, at Stocksy, is 10-150 dollar per day. 300-4500 dollar a month. Thats more then I make at SS, basically.
-
I really don`t understand the People on this Forum getting hearts for brainwash marketing talk while others who demand a raise getting downrated. Whats wrong with those people? When a company we supply is doing well with the sale of our material we should get a raise. Pretty simple to me.
-
Fanboys do that, just ignore it.
-
Well 2-3 sales a day, at Stocksy, is 10-150 dollar per day. 300-4500 dollar a month. Thats more then I make at SS, basically.
Yes but that's him. You'd probably have to knock two noughts off the tally to find the sort of return I would get .... maybe a sale a month. And that would be with 1,000 exclusive images, which would pretty well be a year's output for me - and working hard at it, at that!
-
Give Jon a few more years and he can buy all of Getty with his pocket change.
He and his team all worked hard for their success, no rich family in the background to prop them up. So congrats and well deserved!
-
I think there is a misunderstanding, I am not jealous of Jon. I cant even be jealous coz he is doing something I cant even copy or do myself. :) I am just a simple man with a day job and not savvy enough to create something like Jon did. I know shares and commissions cant be linked, I specifically added smileys and a note to my comment to explain it was tongue in cheek.
I wasn't quite sure what point you were making, I was just using your reply as a starting point to respond to a lot of different posts earlier in the thread.
BTW, did you see Sean Locke mentioned in some thread or other that he had more than 1,000 files at Pond 5 and had not made one sale in 15 days! Sean!!! That seems to say something about the importance of the way sites market themselves and capture customer share and also about the price sensitivity of customers.
He should have no problems selling video clips on Pond5. I think they need at least a year to see if they can also sell stills.
-
I really don`t understand the People on this Forum getting hearts for brainwash marketing talk while others who demand a raise getting downrated. Whats wrong with those people? When a company we supply is doing well with the sale of our material we should get a raise. Pretty simple to me.
best thing i've red here
-
" But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
- George Orwell: "1984"
Yep never ending newspeak and doublethink. One thing not mentioned in that article is the millions Jon made every year before going public. He must have a nice stash besides the new billion.
The enforced wisdom of the thought police from the "SS thought crime enforcement brigade" is entertaining.
No one is ever going to brainwash me into thinking that .38 cents is sufficent return on investment for the type of images the micros asks us to produce to remain competative. The return on investment is not sufficent, no matter how many copies they sell or the new markets they may break into.
Take a good look at the economies SS is entertaining and moving into. It is no coincidence that Jon is hosting dinners in Brazil and talking about Turkey in interviews. How low do you suppose submitters in the dark green zones would be willing to go?
[url]http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/gmaps.jsp[/url] ([url]http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/gmaps.jsp[/url])
Why do you see success as a vice?
-
he does even better than yuri, so now he is our new hero.
-
I guess watching someone else make a lot of money from my photos is the next best thing to doing it myself. I know that every coffee grower in Guatamala has a framed photo of Howard Shultz hanging in his home. So why am I not excited...
-
" But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
- George Orwell: "1984"
Yep never ending newspeak and doublethink. One thing not mentioned in that article is the millions Jon made every year before going public. He must have a nice stash besides the new billion.
The enforced wisdom of the thought police from the "SS thought crime enforcement brigade" is entertaining.
No one is ever going to brainwash me into thinking that .38 cents is sufficent return on investment for the type of images the micros asks us to produce to remain competative. The return on investment is not sufficent, no matter how many copies they sell or the new markets they may break into.
Take a good look at the economies SS is entertaining and moving into. It is no coincidence that Jon is hosting dinners in Brazil and talking about Turkey in interviews. How low do you suppose submitters in the dark green zones would be willing to go?
[url]http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/gmaps.jsp[/url] ([url]http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/gmaps.jsp[/url])
Why do you see success as a vice?
I don't see success as a vice, my father has a very large company of his own. He did not build it by exploiting suppliers or employees. The corp pay's fair $$$$$ to those who helped it succeed. While the company brings in more revenue than SS they have not pocketed as much, they return a larger % to those who helped them get there.
He could have gone public to pocket more money, but he chose not to because he knew what it would do to the people who helped him get there. How much money does any one person need to be secure, happy, content?
-
I guess watching someone else make a lot of money from my photos is the next best thing to doing it myself. I know that every coffee grower in Guatamala has a framed photo of Howard Shultz hanging in his home. So why am I not excited...
Probably because he used your images to make himself a billionaire and you're most likely still working hard to barely get by.
The only things that prevent any of us from being another Jon Oringer are ability and willingness.
-
The only things that prevent any of us from being another Jon Oringer are ability and willingness.
Now that really IS the best quote for ages.
I do wonder how much people think SS has "pocketed", what its actual percentage profit on turnover is ... and how that compares with Balex's dad's company.
-
" But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
- George Orwell: "1984"
Yep never ending newspeak and doublethink. One thing not mentioned in that article is the millions Jon made every year before going public. He must have a nice stash besides the new billion.
The enforced wisdom of the thought police from the "SS thought crime enforcement brigade" is entertaining.
No one is ever going to brainwash me into thinking that .38 cents is sufficent return on investment for the type of images the micros asks us to produce to remain competative. The return on investment is not sufficent, no matter how many copies they sell or the new markets they may break into.
Take a good look at the economies SS is entertaining and moving into. It is no coincidence that Jon is hosting dinners in Brazil and talking about Turkey in interviews. How low do you suppose submitters in the dark green zones would be willing to go?
[url]http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/gmaps.jsp[/url] ([url]http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/gmaps.jsp[/url])
Why do you see success as a vice?
I don't see success as a vice, my father has a very large company of his own. He did not build it by exploiting suppliers or employees. The corp pay's fair $$$$$ to those who helped it succeed. While the company brings in more revenue than SS they have not pocketed as much, they return a larger % to those who helped them get there.
He could have gone public to pocket more money, but he chose not to because he knew what it would do to the people who helped him get there. How much money does any one person need to be secure, happy, content?
Certainly not going to debate your dad's success. Just trying to understand the hate you express for Shutterstock.
I'm not sure how anyone could be involved in Microstock and not respect shutterstock.
Is there an agency that you would recommend?
-
Asking a company to pay a fair royalty and maintain their site so that we are able to bring reasonable returns on our investments does not equal hate.
Why is it unreasonable to expect a fair and functional marketplace from a successful company?
-
Asking a company to pay a fair royalty and maintain their site so that we are able to bring reasonable returns on our investments does not equal hate.
Why is it unreasonable to expect a fair and functional marketplace from a successful company?
Not unreasonable. Where do we get that?
-
I don't hate Shutterstock. In fact, I think it's the best microstock company out there. But being all happy for Jon because he hits the 1B $ mark is a bit silly while we contributors still make pennies for each download. Jon Oringer is not a hero or a god or a friend, so I couln't really care any less, as long as I make some money off of this.
-
I don't hate Shutterstock. In fact, I think it's the best microstock company out there. But being all happy for Jon because he hits the 1B $ mark is a bit silly while we contributors still make pennies for each download. Jon Oringer is not a hero or a god or a friend, so I couln't really care any less, as long as I make some money off of this.
like others said in this topic, build your own site and wealth, I really don't think we can complain looking at ALL other agencies, would you have a reason to continue doing microstock without SS at this exact moment?
-
I'm not sure how anyone could be involved in Microstock and not respect shutterstock.
"Respect", sure. It's a success, and an interesting high-tech company. It offers photographers stability in the form of a fairly reliable marketing channel. Jon Oringer seems to have made money by honest effort, and might be the nicest guy in the world. Maybe, like Bill Gates, he'll go on to use his money to do good things.
But I don't see why I should be personally thrilled about this success. The formula has been to force suppliers' prices below the floor, to the point where it's hardly worth continuing. His company now controls a huge part of the market, and competitors paying much more to contributors are being forced out, and the barrier to entry is colossal. Some posters here seem to believe this was the only possible outcome, and that therefor we should rejoice in it, and enjoy Oringer's success vicariously.
It's been said that people the ultra rich to office in the belief that this will somehow make them richer themselves. I don't see that we're participating greatly in the success of Shutterstock; our position is more like the small scale coffee growers that find they can only sell to a couple of big middlemen, at subsistence prices, with no hope of a better deal in the future.
Sorry but I won't be getting in the line to wax "Jon's" BMW this weekend.
-
Some posters here seem to believe this was the only possible outcome, and that therefor we should rejoice in it, and enjoy Oringer's success vicariously.
which agency have paid you more $$$ since you started?
don't you think that an agency paying you the most every single month since the very first second that contributors submit their work proudly? impossible to have other feeling!
its hard for you to accept that SS took over microstock but in fact IS and all other agencies have made a nice job screwing it up lowering royalties and recently pricing cuts when SS maintained their strategy (actually they have increased it, not in my time but from reading other comments it started at 20 cents I guess)
sure I would love to have a 5$ RPD but I also believe that we need to get down to earth and see what competitors have been doing, at this moment you can try to adapt or continue complaining as you do so well ;D
-
like others said in this topic, build your own site and wealth, I really don't think we can complain looking at ALL other agencies, would you have a reason to continue doing microstock without SS at this exact moment?
I dont agree with all these similar statements. Because Shutterstock does better than other agencies is no be all and end all. You need to judge SS on its own, not by comparison, because by comparison Shutterstock is great, I agree, on its own they pay 25 cent royalty per sale. Give or take a few on demand downloads, but the majority of the downloads is subs. Lets take it the other way, if Shutterstock is doing so well with an average RPD around, then by comparison you cant complain at all about DT with one of the highest RPDs.
-
Ron you aren't being honest, who is having 25 cent sales? (this month I am close to 90 cents)
-
I don't hate Shutterstock. In fact, I think it's the best microstock company out there. But being all happy for Jon because he hits the 1B $ mark is a bit silly while we contributors still make pennies for each download. Jon Oringer is not a hero or a god or a friend, so I couln't really care any less, as long as I make some money off of this.
like others said in this topic, build your own site and wealth, I really don't think we can complain looking at ALL other agencies, would you have a reason to continue doing microstock without SS at this exact moment?
I'm not complaining about SS, I'm just not personally overjoyed by Oringer's success.
-
...The formula has been to force suppliers' prices below the floor, to the point where it's hardly worth continuing....
You always seem to forget the fact that istock didn't pay anything at the start. SS has gone from only $0.20 to paying $120 for some sales. My RPD has gone up with them every year. They aren't perfect and I fear that they will pay us less in the future but that's mostly because so many people supply a site that pays 15-20% commission.
-
Ron you aren't being honest, who is having 25 cent sales? (this month I am close to 90 cents)
Just checked and my average is $0.91 this month. That's the highest since I started in 2006.
-
Ron you aren't being honest, who is having 25 cent sales? (this month I am close to 90 cents)
Nothing to do with being honest. I can argue that they are paying 25 cent. It takes about 3 years for most people to hit 38 cent these days if not longer. Doesnt take anything away from my comment. Look, I am happy with SS but sure would like a raise. Not because he is a billionaire, but because Shutterstock and all other agencies are raking in the cash over our backs and intellectual property. It doesnt sit right. Next comment is, that I myself agreed with the terms, but what did I know when I signed up. A year later and things certainly look different now, in a completely different perspective.
-
Ron you aren't being honest, who is having 25 cent sales? (this month I am close to 90 cents)
Just checked and my average is $0.91 this month. That's the highest since I started in 2006.
Thats not the argument here, compare that with DT and read my comment a few posts back to Luis.
It so easy for a discussion to derail because someone quotes something out of context. No disrespect, just an observation. :)
-
...part of the huge success of Shutterstock was simply its timing IMHO. They had been in the right place at the right time with the right concept. And no, I do not think it has to do because Jon is a genius, because the site is so beautiful nor was it because of the good selection of the inspectors etc.
When I started 2004 with MS istock got a success along with shutterstock because they were simply first. All the sites which came after had less success with every step. It was followed by DT, Bigstock and Canstock and a bit later (if Im remember right) by Fotolia. Biggstock never took really off despite of its good timing because of the inicial license terms. (It was founded by a guy who needed shots for Homepage templates and istock forbade that in its terms, so he created bigstock with the permission to sublicense the photos - a lot of photogs didn`t like that and never joined initially - correct me if I am wrong). However, nuff of that....off to the beach now for me :D
-
Shutterstock has done well by not doing anything stupid. Dont get me wrong thats very impressive when you are first ;D
-
I don't see success as a vice, my father has a very large company of his own. He did not build it by exploiting suppliers or employees. The corp pay's fair $$$$$ to those who helped it succeed. While the company brings in more revenue than SS they have not pocketed as much, they return a larger % to those who helped them get there.
He could have gone public to pocket more money, but he chose not to because he knew what it would do to the people who helped him get there. How much money does any one person need to be secure, happy, content?
Can I get a job at your father's company? There are so few companies left out there that are willing to share the wealth with the people who help make it all possible. :-\
-
" But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
- George Orwell: "1984"
Yep never ending newspeak and doublethink. One thing not mentioned in that article is the millions Jon made every year before going public. He must have a nice stash besides the new billion.
The enforced wisdom of the thought police from the "SS thought crime enforcement brigade" is entertaining.
No one is ever going to brainwash me into thinking that .38 cents is sufficent return on investment for the type of images the micros asks us to produce to remain competative. The return on investment is not sufficent, no matter how many copies they sell or the new markets they may break into.
Take a good look at the economies SS is entertaining and moving into. It is no coincidence that Jon is hosting dinners in Brazil and talking about Turkey in interviews. How low do you suppose submitters in the dark green zones would be willing to go?
[url]http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/gmaps.jsp[/url] ([url]http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/gmaps.jsp[/url])
Why do you see success as a vice?
I don't see success as a vice, my father has a very large company of his own. He did not build it by exploiting suppliers or employees. The corp pay's fair $$$$$ to those who helped it succeed. While the company brings in more revenue than SS they have not pocketed as much, they return a larger % to those who helped them get there.
He could have gone public to pocket more money, but he chose not to because he knew what it would do to the people who helped him get there. How much money does any one person need to be secure, happy, content?
Can I get a job at your father's company? There are so few companies left out there that are willing to share the wealth with the people who help make it all possible. :-\
So well said! But first we, the People, suppliers, we as Photographers have to stop to value abusive behaviour...not everyone who makes a trillion bucks with a wallstreet company is automatically a hero. We should stop identifying every commercial success with a successful (or happy) life.
-
Ron you aren't being honest, who is having 25 cent sales? (this month I am close to 90 cents)
Just checked and my average is $0.91 this month. That's the highest since I started in 2006.
Thats not the argument here, compare that with DT and read my comment a few posts back to Luis.
It so easy for a discussion to derail because someone quotes something out of context. No disrespect, just an observation. :)
we aren't derailing but looking at RPD doesn't actually mean much because the totals are totally different comparing to other agencies, this month I have 20 times IS income and pretty much the same at other agencies, again I wish I had a 5$ RPD at SS but hey if there wasn't SS would IS or other agency be any better? its just impossible to put SS out of the equation because it is the number 1 since ever in my books
-
You are missing my point when you say its impossible to keep SS out of the equation, when my whole argument is about not comparing SS with other agencies and look at SS on its own. Why do you need to compare it with other agencies? If I understand correctly, you are happy with the 38 cent p/dl you are getting and asking for a raise is unreasonable. Some people dont agree with the comments here that we shouldnt complain because SS does better then other agencies. Its like saying Pepsi is healthy because Coca Cola is not.
-
its impossible not to compare because SS as a business have competitors and somehow they all change due to the different strategies approached along time, we as contributors have also competitors as you know, I have never said it is unreasonable to ask for a raise but looking at the microstock state its almost inevitable to say we are in fact lucky to have SS around, what income would we have without SS?
pretty much we are working for SS not for any other agency / pod , I have been contributing to a ton of agencies and many paying over 50%, I will keep on supporting those, until there is no better solution I will stick with SS and hoping for their best (wishing no pay cuts for contributors)
-
but looking at the microstock state its almost inevitable to say we are in fact lucky to have SS around, what income would we have without SS?
That I agree with
-
SS gained market share by offering low cost images & they increased revenue by driving cost per sale down. Over the last 3 years revenue per download is up.
@SS A one year subscription will net buyers 25 images a day, every day for $2,388.00 or slightly over $.26 cents per image.
@BS A one year subscription will net buyers 50 images a day, every day for $2,879.00 or $.16 cents per image.
BS Royalty rates
(http://s5.postimg.org/hr8tuvuxz/bigstock_rc_levels.jpg)
http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1817283 (http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1817283)
(http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-creates-first-silicon-alley-billionaire/?action=dlattach;attach=11707;image)
http://www.stockmarketstudy.org/wordpress/tag/sstk/page/2/ (http://www.stockmarketstudy.org/wordpress/tag/sstk/page/2/)
Ross Sandler – Deutsche Bank
And are the unit economics for the kind of core Subscription versus the On Demand or à la carte versus the direct business? Those are kind of the three different things going on here. Are they roughly the same? Can you talk about like with that differential in growth rates what’s that going to mean in terms of a contribution margin for you?
Tim Bixby
Yes, they are quite similar and we’ve structured it that way in the pieces where we have really have tight control, so for example royalties that we pay contributors is the primary cost of revenue for the company.
So our gross margin is about 60%, cost of goods about 40%. Of that 40%, 30% is essentially going to contributors for the images that we provide. So that’s the same across all the pricing plans. The payout structure is slightly different but we’ve structured it so the net effective rate is roughly the same. Below the line – below the gross margin line you’ve got some shifts between sales costs in a direct sales structure or marketing costs if we’re driving people to the website to convert on their own, but those are roughly in line as well and so which is an overall contribution line that’s pretty comparable across almost every unit, almost every different pricing plan.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm)
Cost of Revenue
The Company's cost of revenue includes contributor royalties, credit card processing fees, image and video reviewer expenses, hosting and bandwidth expenses, amortization of content intangible assets, and depreciation of network equipment, which are the direct costs related to providing content to customers.
Additionally, the Company includes an allocation of overhead costs primarily related to payroll, insurance, and facilities expenses based on headcount.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1417071-shutterstock-s-ceo-discusses-q1-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=5&p=qanda&l=last (http://seekingalpha.com/article/1417071-shutterstock-s-ceo-discusses-q1-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=5&p=qanda&l=last)
Lloyd - Deutsche Bank
Hey guys, it’s Lloyd in for Ross. I had a few if I may. Just first it looks like sales and marketing expense on a year-over-year growth basis actually declined, so seeing tremendous efficiency gains it looks like. Should we expect you to kind of reinvest some of those efficiency gains and see the growth in sales and marketing expense start to grow again?
Tim Bixby
So I’ll take the first one first – this is Tim on the sales and marketing spend rate. I think a good thing to look at, while the improvements year-on-year were you know, I think fairly dramatic I think if you look at Q3, Q4, Q1 you can see a more consistent pattern and a tighter range of spend versus revenue. And I think that’s really the range that you should expect to see going forward so it’s sort of the low 20%s as a percent of total revenues.
http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1817283&highlight= (http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1817283&highlight=)
Revenue
Revenue for the first quarter was $51.1 million, a 36% increase from the first quarter of 2012.
Net Income
Net income for the first quarter of 2013 increased by 50% to $5.6 million as compared to $3.7 million in the first quarter of 2012. Net income available to common stockholders/members for the first quarter of 2013 was $5.5 million or $0.16 per share on a fully diluted basis as compared to $2.8 million or $0.13 per share on a fully diluted basis in the first quarter of 2012.
Cash
The Company's cash balance was $107.0 million as of March 31, 2013 as compared to $102.1 million as of December 31, 2012. The Company had no bank debt as of March 31, 2013. The Company generated $13.8 million of cash from operations in the first quarter of 2013 and paid down short-term debt of $6.0 million during the quarter.
http://www.stockmarketstudy.org/wordpress/tag/sstk/page/2/ (http://www.stockmarketstudy.org/wordpress/tag/sstk/page/2/)
So our strategy is really volume leadership
Ross Sandler – Deutsche Bank
Would you talk about that for a sec, the landscape because we’ve taken a lot of questions about it, as the IPO was happening in the sense, but you guys are now officially that the largest online royalty free inventory business out there. How would you characterize the competitive landscape today versus maybe a year ago, between a few of those bigger guys that you just mentioned and some of the smaller? Which are you more focused on if at all?
Thilo Semmelbauer
So our strategy is really volume leadership and Ross, you’re quite right that in volume terms, we delivered more downloads, paid downloads last year than all of Getty combined.
And Getty is certainly continues to be the revenue leader in this space. If Getty is sort of in the $800 million to $1 billion revenue range, we think the market is somewhere in the $4 billion to $6 billion range, just for stock imagery. And given our size, $170 million last year we’re really still a very small player in a large and growing market, and we see opportunity for several big players continuing to dominate in the market. So and obviously we want to be one of them.
In terms of changes in competitive dynamics, I’d say in the last year, not significant changes. Getty continues to be a big player. Numbers of years ago they bought iStockPhoto. From everything we can tell, Getty is not growing but they continue to generate lot of cash. It’s a strong business. There are always new players popping up and disappearing because as Tim mentioned barriers to entry are very low in this space but barriers to scale are high and we’re not really seeing – we’re not seeing anybody else anywhere close to where we are.
-
SS gained market share by offering low cost images & they increased revenue by driving cost per sale down. Over the last 3 years revenue per download is up.
Revenue per download is up because SS have been selling more and more ODD's and SOD's. That's pretty much where all the growth has come from. Subscription downloads and revenue have actually been fairly static.
Personally I think SS have 'gained market share' by simply offering a better service than their competitors. Their sub packages and their single image deals aren't actually any cheaper than their competitors (other than IS exclusive 'collections'). SS have got the most accurate, flexible and quickest search results of anyone and that's where they score. As Jon says, SS are not really in the business of licencing images but of providing a service;
"We’ve sold over a quarter of a billion assets over the past 9 years. We have an incredible amount of data on these downloads. We know what search leads to what image, and at this point we can practically read the user’s mind in 14 different languages. Shutterstock is the volume leader, and therefore we are the data leader. In several languages we use the data we have to display the best search results for any given query. We obsess over search success – and if we can reduce the time it takes to get from search to download by a tenth of a second, we win that day. We iterate over and over and use whatever data we have to continuously find the best image for the customer. The best image for a given search isn’t one that another agency doesn’t have, it’s the one that will get chosen and downloaded. Out of over 20 million images, with 10,000 more each day, we’re likely to have the image you need. We believe that if we can get the right product to the buyer the buyer the quickest, we win in the end. Having exclusive royalty free content is of no advantage when a buyer is going to choose where to buy a photo – it’s getting a relevant photo the quickest. To see the user of this data in action, go ahead and try a search on Shutterstock – and compare it the same search on our competitors sites."
http://jonoringer.com/2013/01/13/why-going-exclusive-as-a-microstock-photographer-doesnt-work/ (http://jonoringer.com/2013/01/13/why-going-exclusive-as-a-microstock-photographer-doesnt-work/)
-
I don't really care how much money Jon is trousering these days as long as my own bottom line still has vitality. And having worked for three of the top IT companies I don't expect an automatic raise just because the company made more money - that stopped happening around 2008/09
This last quarter SS paid me $0.60 PD which is about 10% up on 2012. In this climate, I'll take 10% growth any day. So what if I can average $1.50 to $2.00 elsewhere - my turnover at other sites is around 60% lower than SS. I know which model works for me and I'll take increased market penetration/volume sales over a raise thanks. Keep doing what you're doing Jonno.
-
Net Income
Net income for the first quarter of 2013 increased by 50% to $5.6 million as compared to $3.7 million in the first quarter of 2012. Net income available to common stockholders/members for the first quarter of 2013 was $5.5 million or $0.16 per share on a fully diluted basis as compared to $2.8 million or $0.13 per share on a fully diluted basis in the first quarter of 2012.
So, they increased their net income by 50%. So why shouldn`t we get at least a raise by, lets say, 20%? Any reason for that? They are making mroe money on our content and we should participate. And why are there still people here who want to block such a move against the interest of the contributor?
-
Net Income
Net income for the first quarter of 2013 increased by 50% to $5.6 million as compared to $3.7 million in the first quarter of 2012. Net income available to common stockholders/members for the first quarter of 2013 was $5.5 million or $0.16 per share on a fully diluted basis as compared to $2.8 million or $0.13 per share on a fully diluted basis in the first quarter of 2012.
So, they increased their net income by 50%. So why shouldn`t we get at least a raise by, lets say, 20%? Any reason for that? They are making mroe money on our content and we should participate. And why are there still people here who want to block such a move against the interest of the contributor?
I don't think anyone in their right mind is against them giving us a raise, its just not likely to happen. I'd like someone to give me $1,000,000 but I know its not going to happen. If you want a raise, why not ask them? They read this forum but I don't think this thread is going to make them think they better give us a raise.
How could we put pressure on them to give us a raise? I can think of one way, all non-exclusives leave istock and send out a message that they wont carry on tolerating low commission percentages. Until something like that happens, I think we have absolutely no negotiating power with SS. Would be great if I was proved wrong on this, I'd love a proper raise.
-
Net Income
Net income for the first quarter of 2013 increased by 50% to $5.6 million as compared to $3.7 million in the first quarter of 2012. Net income available to common stockholders/members for the first quarter of 2013 was $5.5 million or $0.16 per share on a fully diluted basis as compared to $2.8 million or $0.13 per share on a fully diluted basis in the first quarter of 2012.
So, they increased their net income by 50%. So why shouldn`t we get at least a raise by, lets say, 20%? Any reason for that? They are making mroe money on our content and we should participate. And why are there still people here who want to block such a move against the interest of the contributor?
Faulty logic there. Their profit was about 10% of turnover (5.6m on 51m). I think we determined in the past that their payout to suppliers is around 30% - say 17m. So if you increase that by 20% it will knock 3.4m off the profits, taking them to about 2.2m, or a 20% fall in profits, compared with last year.
Why do you think shareholders should agree to a 20% cut in earnings, so that suppliers can have a 20% increase in payout? The effect of rapidly falling year-on-year profits would probably wipe 75% off the share price (it would certainly go below the IPO level, which included an assumption that profits would rise in future).
I think this calculation shows just how ridiculous it is for people to talk about a "fair commission rate". What's fair? Is 30c per image fair and 25c not fair? Would a 50c starting rate be "fair", causing a $17m fall in profits and causing SS to go bankrupt? Or should they double commissions and double the subscription price, and then we can all feel that we're getting a "fair" 50c to 76c per dl - and mourn the fact that all the buyers have gone to Thinkstock so we don't get sales any longer, but at least they are "fair" 76c sales that aren't happening.
Sure, I'd love to see an increase in commissions AND earnings, but I don't want to see commissions rise and LOSE earnings as a result.
It's really very clear from the figures that the only way our earnings can achieve a sustainable improvement on SS is from them growing sales overall and opening new markets. We can't get meaningful earnings growth from higher commissions there because it would destroy the entire business model - maybe a penny a sale for subs is feasible, but that is only worth 3%-4% to us. The SODs market they opened up recently has given my earnings a 30% boost this month (admittedly, 10% is more usual).
Shareholders and contributors alike will benefit from SS growing its markets. Neither party will benefit from any significant pay rise for contributors.
The difference between Jon being a billionaire and Jon being bankrupt and us all out looking for "proper" jobs appears to be about an extra 10c commission per download. And who here thinks 48c is "fair" but 38c is "unfair"?
It's working, let's not call for it to be broken.
PS: I'd love to know if Balex's dad thinks that achieving a 10% profit on turnover constitutes grinding the workers' faces in the mud and, if so, what the correct profit level is.
-
How could we put pressure on them to give us a raise? I can think of one way, all non-exclusives leave istock and send out a message that they wont carry on tolerating low commission percentages.
Except that if all indies who have not already done so leave iS, SS will know that actually they would then be LESS likely to leave SS, as they will need the money even more.
Of course SS should be charging customers more and paying contributors more than they did when they opened. No doubt acceptance standards were much lower then, and it would be far more difficult to have files from cheaper equipement accepted now than it was then. Also, most of the 'cheap to make shots' which have selling potential are already there in scores, so new material is more expensive to produce.
-
How could we put pressure on them to give us a raise? I can think of one way, all non-exclusives leave istock and send out a message that they wont carry on tolerating low commission percentages.
Except that if all indies who have not already done so leave iS, SS will know that actually they would then be LESS likely to leave SS, as they will need the money even more.
Of course SS should be charging customers more and paying contributors more than they did when they opened. No doubt acceptance standards were much lower then, and it would be far more difficult to have files from cheaper equipement accepted now than it was then. Also, most of the 'cheap to make shots' which have selling potential are already there in scores, so new material is more expensive to produce.
If I recall correctly their initial sub was $99 a month (I don't remember how many dls that allowed). The starting commission was 20c per dl. They increased both the price and the commission levels annually for several years until other agencies started getting heavily into subs and the financial crash had buyers looking at their budgets more closely. Since then they have concentrated on growth by boosting their market, rather than from increasing prices (which would let competitors undercut them).
[Amazing! I get a -1 vote for a simple statement of facts. What do people have against reality?]
-
I don't expect to see a raise, despite believing that it would be justified. Jon said it himself recently in an interview, the level of quality at Shutterstock has gone up tremendously, and that he thinks he wouldn't even be accepted to SS as a photographer today. That growth in quality is largely due to the contributors, and the fact that we all can still get images accepted to the collection speaks to how we've upped our own quality standards to keep up, helping he company grow along the way. A little gratitude for that would be appreciated.
So if a raise is unlikely, maybe a year-end bonus would be more appropriate. Years when the company has done well and the stock price has soared, come December maybe kick a little back to the contributors.
I enjoy getting those hand-signed holiday cards from Jon and Thilo, but I would like them even more if they came with a bonus check. :)
-
]
-
Their payout is 27% counting shutterstock and bigstock. Bigstock at 50% and shutterstock around 24%. Overall payout will probably be lower next report with subs introduced at bigstock.
Thanks. I couldn't be bothered to trawl the threads to find the sums.
[And two minus votes for saying "thanks"!!!!]
-
Net Income
Net income for the first quarter of 2013 increased by 50% to $5.6 million as compared to $3.7 million in the first quarter of 2012. Net income available to common stockholders/members for the first quarter of 2013 was $5.5 million or $0.16 per share on a fully diluted basis as compared to $2.8 million or $0.13 per share on a fully diluted basis in the first quarter of 2012.
So, they increased their net income by 50%. So why shouldn`t we get at least a raise by, lets say, 20%? Any reason for that? They are making mroe money on our content and we should participate. And why are there still people here who want to block such a move against the interest of the contributor?
Faulty logic there. Their profit was about 10% of turnover (5.6m on 51m). I think we determined in the past that their payout to suppliers is around 30% - say 17m. So if you increase that by 20% it will knock 3.4m off the profits, taking them to about 2.2m, or a 20% fall in profits, compared with last year.
Why do you think shareholders should agree to a 20% cut in earnings, so that suppliers can have a 20% increase in payout? The effect of rapidly falling year-on-year profits would probably wipe 75% off the share price (it would certainly go below the IPO level, which included an assumption that profits would rise in future).
I think this calculation shows just how ridiculous it is for people to talk about a "fair commission rate". What's fair? Is 30c per image fair and 25c not fair? Would a 50c starting rate be "fair", causing a $17m fall in profits and causing SS to go bankrupt? Or should they double commissions and double the subscription price, and then we can all feel that we're getting a "fair" 50c to 76c per dl - and mourn the fact that all the buyers have gone to Thinkstock so we don't get sales any longer, but at least they are "fair" 76c sales that aren't happening.
Sure, I'd love to see an increase in commissions AND earnings, but I don't want to see commissions rise and LOSE earnings as a result.
It's really very clear from the figures that the only way our earnings can achieve a sustainable improvement on SS is from them growing sales overall and opening new markets. We can't get meaningful earnings growth from higher commissions there because it would destroy the entire business model - maybe a penny a sale for subs is feasible, but that is only worth 3%-4% to us. The SODs market they opened up recently has given my earnings a 30% boost this month (admittedly, 10% is more usual).
Shareholders and contributors alike will benefit from SS growing its markets. Neither party will benefit from any significant pay rise for contributors.
The difference between Jon being a billionaire and Jon being bankrupt and us all out looking for "proper" jobs appears to be about an extra 10c commission per download. And who here thinks 48c is "fair" but 38c is "unfair"?
It's working, let's not call for it to be broken.
PS: I'd love to know if Balex's dad thinks that achieving a 10% profit on turnover constitutes grinding the workers' faces in the mud and, if so, what the correct profit level is.
I follow your logic here and that is why I think it was a bad move for the contributors that SS goes wallstreet. The shareholder concept is almost always destructive for the general economy while only few have profits.
-
The shareholder concept is almost always destructive for the general economy while only few have profits.
Of course it isn't. It has provided the capital over the last couple of centuries to allow the world to industrialise and raise the standards of living for all. Most infrastructure (railways, telephone systems, etc) were originally funded privately with cash raised from the stock markets. Whenever someone invests their money in stock they are taking a risk. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose but their investment is necessary and it is beneficial to society. By far the biggest investors are pension funds and hopefully you will, in time, also benefit directly from that.
-
PS: I'd love to know if Balex's dad thinks that achieving a 10% profit on turnover constitutes grinding the workers' faces in the mud and, if so, what the correct profit level is.
You are forgetting that SS paid down dept, had one time IPO and relocation expenses at a expensive location in that time period.
As for the corp they run at 3% annual profit on recent annual revenues of 3 billion. In the early years % of profit was less than 3% and he gave key people and supervisors stock in the corp. He would be the first to tell you he did not do it alone and it did not happen over night. If you drove by the offices or visited you would never know the corp is so successful. So the answer would be yes in practice he does.
The company core culture understands that it's success rest on the success of the people within it. If you put that concept into action you don't need to raise money for growth by putting the people who made you successful in the first place out to dry.
Happy cows produce better milk and they don't enjoy the maxim he who dies with the most toys wins.
-
The shareholder concept is almost always destructive for the general economy while only few have profits.
Of course it isn't. It has provided the capital over the last couple of centuries to allow the world to industrialise and raise the standards of living for all. Most infrastructure (railways, telephone systems, etc) were originally funded privately with cash raised from the stock markets. Whenever someone invests their money in stock they are taking a risk. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose but their investment is necessary and it is beneficial to society. By far the biggest investors are pension funds and hopefully you will, in time, also benefit directly from that.
That is a good one, let's not talk about what the Wallstreet crowd did to pension funds recently!
-
The shareholder concept is almost always destructive for the general economy while only few have profits.
Of course it isn't. It has provided the capital over the last couple of centuries to allow the world to industrialise and raise the standards of living for all. Most infrastructure (railways, telephone systems, etc) were originally funded privately with cash raised from the stock markets. Whenever someone invests their money in stock they are taking a risk. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose but their investment is necessary and it is beneficial to society. By far the biggest investors are pension funds and hopefully you will, in time, also benefit directly from that.
That is a good one, let's not talk about what the Wallstreet crowd did to pension funds recently!
Let's not talk about the politicians who dismantled the sensible regulations that had previously kept the market in check. Capital markets are not perfect and they do need effective regulation.
-
The shareholder concept is almost always destructive for the general economy while only few have profits.
Of course it isn't. It has provided the capital over the last couple of centuries to allow the world to industrialise and raise the standards of living for all. Most infrastructure (railways, telephone systems, etc) were originally funded privately with cash raised from the stock markets. Whenever someone invests their money in stock they are taking a risk. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose but their investment is necessary and it is beneficial to society. By far the biggest investors are pension funds and hopefully you will, in time, also benefit directly from that.
That is a good one, let's not talk about what the Wallstreet crowd did to pension funds recently!
Let's not talk about the politicians who dismantled the sensible regulations that had previously kept the market in check. Capital markets are not perfect and they do need effective regulation.
Let's not forget that politicians and wall street work hand in hand a lot of the time. This is a revolving door relationship for some politicians as they get out of office, they get right into the corporate world they helped make laws to help themselves really.
I am in agreement that SS going public isn't in the best interest of the contributors but shareholders. Thats y i put my money on its stocks for the time being and this latest article among a couple of others has helped move the stock to its all time high this past week. Made more money one day with stocks than all of last 2 months income on SS (if i sell that is). I wish they would make more articles =P
-
Gets my vote. Here's to his success, which has also contributed to many people here making their own smaller return at the same time.
Congrats to Jon! It's pretty awesome success story.
I'm happy to be able to utilize his creation to sell my creativity.
Shutterstock has made me a very happy thousandaire.
-
I can't believe there are still people saying that because Jon's stock is worth so much, and because the company's revenues are up, then we should get our commission raised. This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works.
We are suppliers to a company that sells our product. We're like sellers of widgets to The Store. If The Store sells 20% more of your widgets this year than they sold the prior year, are you going to raise your per-unit cost to The Store? Should they voluntarily give you some kind of bonus for selling so many of your products? Your bonus is the fact that they sold 20% more of your product than the year before!
Oh, but your widgets didn't see a 20% increase in sales in line with The Store's 20% revenue increase? Then that means customers were buying a wide variety of products, and fewer were buying yours. Should The Store reward you for that achievement? If anything, if your product is being bought less frequently in relation to the other widgets, you would lose favor with The Store and maybe be taken from the shelves. And you think you should get a raise!
-
I can't believe there are still people saying that because Jon's stock is worth so much, and because the company's revenues are up, then we should get our commission raised. This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works.
We are suppliers to a company that sells our product. We're like sellers of widgets to The Store. If The Store sells 20% more of your widgets this year than they sold the prior year, are you going to raise your per-unit cost to The Store? Should they voluntarily give you some kind of bonus for selling so many of your products? Your bonus is the fact that they sold 20% more of your product than the year before!
Oh, but your widgets didn't see a 20% increase in sales in line with The Store's 20% revenue increase? Then that means customers were buying a wide variety of products, and fewer were buying yours. Should The Store reward you for that achievement? If anything, if your product is being bought less frequently in relation to the other widgets, you would lose favor with The Store and maybe be taken from the shelves. And you think you should get a raise!
Very true and good example. Of course if The Store did sell 20% more of a supplier's product they'd actually be looking for a volume discount the following year. They'd want to pay less for it not more.
-
Yes, an increase would make no sense, and I know all those coffee growers in Guatamala agree. Actually, the only reason they wanted a raise was so they could buy TVs and be able to see Howard Schultz on "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous".
So if commissions are increased in the coming year, we should refuse, in order to keep the business healthy. However I think it's more likely that commissions will be cut - in one way or another - and if so we probably won't have the option to decline.
-
I can't believe there are still people saying that because Jon's stock is worth so much, and because the company's revenues are up, then we should get our commission raised. This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works.
We are suppliers to a company that sells our product. We're like sellers of widgets to The Store. If The Store sells 20% more of your widgets this year than they sold the prior year, are you going to raise your per-unit cost to The Store? Should they voluntarily give you some kind of bonus for selling so many of your products? Your bonus is the fact that they sold 20% more of your product than the year before!
Oh, but your widgets didn't see a 20% increase in sales in line with The Store's 20% revenue increase? Then that means customers were buying a wide variety of products, and fewer were buying yours. Should The Store reward you for that achievement? If anything, if your product is being bought less frequently in relation to the other widgets, you would lose favor with The Store and maybe be taken from the shelves. And you think you should get a raise!
Very true and good example. Of course if The Store did sell 20% more of a supplier's product they'd actually be looking for a volume discount the following year. They'd want to pay less for it not more.
That is completely flawed. We are suppliers as well as manufactures. A manufacturer sets the price. What you two are saying is Coca Cola sell their product to Wall Mart and Wall Mart dictates the price Coca Cola can sell it to them for.
-
I can't believe there are still people saying that because Jon's stock is worth so much, and because the company's revenues are up, then we should get our commission raised. This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works.
We are suppliers to a company that sells our product. We're like sellers of widgets to The Store. If The Store sells 20% more of your widgets this year than they sold the prior year, are you going to raise your per-unit cost to The Store? Should they voluntarily give you some kind of bonus for selling so many of your products? Your bonus is the fact that they sold 20% more of your product than the year before!
Oh, but your widgets didn't see a 20% increase in sales in line with The Store's 20% revenue increase? Then that means customers were buying a wide variety of products, and fewer were buying yours. Should The Store reward you for that achievement? If anything, if your product is being bought less frequently in relation to the other widgets, you would lose favor with The Store and maybe be taken from the shelves. And you think you should get a raise!
Very true and good example. Of course if The Store did sell 20% more of a supplier's product they'd actually be looking for a volume discount the following year. They'd want to pay less for it not more.
That is completely flawed. We are suppliers as well as manufactures. A manufacturer sets the price. What you two are saying is Coca Cola sell their product to Wall Mart and Wall Mart dictates the price Coca Cola can sell it to them for.
That's exactly how Wal-Mart does business.
-
I can't believe there are still people saying that because Jon's stock is worth so much, and because the company's revenues are up, then we should get our commission raised. This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works.
We are suppliers to a company that sells our product. We're like sellers of widgets to The Store. If The Store sells 20% more of your widgets this year than they sold the prior year, are you going to raise your per-unit cost to The Store? Should they voluntarily give you some kind of bonus for selling so many of your products? Your bonus is the fact that they sold 20% more of your product than the year before!
Oh, but your widgets didn't see a 20% increase in sales in line with The Store's 20% revenue increase? Then that means customers were buying a wide variety of products, and fewer were buying yours. Should The Store reward you for that achievement? If anything, if your product is being bought less frequently in relation to the other widgets, you would lose favor with The Store and maybe be taken from the shelves. And you think you should get a raise!
Very true and good example. Of course if The Store did sell 20% more of a supplier's product they'd actually be looking for a volume discount the following year. They'd want to pay less for it not more.
That is completely flawed. We are suppliers as well as manufactures. A manufacturer sets the price. What you two are saying is Coca Cola sell their product to Wall Mart and Wall Mart dictates the price Coca Cola can sell it to them for.
That's exactly how Wal-Mart does business.
Can you back that up? Because I just read that coca cola determines the price of their product.
-
I can't believe there are still people saying that because Jon's stock is worth so much, and because the company's revenues are up, then we should get our commission raised. This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works.
We are suppliers to a company that sells our product. We're like sellers of widgets to The Store. If The Store sells 20% more of your widgets this year than they sold the prior year, are you going to raise your per-unit cost to The Store? Should they voluntarily give you some kind of bonus for selling so many of your products? Your bonus is the fact that they sold 20% more of your product than the year before!
Oh, but your widgets didn't see a 20% increase in sales in line with The Store's 20% revenue increase? Then that means customers were buying a wide variety of products, and fewer were buying yours. Should The Store reward you for that achievement? If anything, if your product is being bought less frequently in relation to the other widgets, you would lose favor with The Store and maybe be taken from the shelves. And you think you should get a raise!
Very true and good example. Of course if The Store did sell 20% more of a supplier's product they'd actually be looking for a volume discount the following year. They'd want to pay less for it not more.
That is completely flawed. We are suppliers as well as manufactures. A manufacturer sets the price. What you two are saying is Coca Cola sell their product to Wall Mart and Wall Mart dictates the price Coca Cola can sell it to them for.
That's exactly how Wal-Mart does business.
Can you back that up? Because I just read that coca cola determines the price of their product.
Everything on the internet is true. Bonjour. ;D
-
:
-
Yes, an increase would make no sense, and I know all those coffee growers in Guatamala agree. Actually, the only reason they wanted a raise was so they could buy TVs and be able to see Howard Schultz on "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous".
So if commissions are increased in the coming year, we should refuse, in order to keep the business healthy. However I think it's more likely that commissions will be cut - in one way or another - and if so we probably won't have the option to decline.
Do you need everything spoon-fed for you? If you want 'a raise' then get off your arse, do some more work and thereby earn it. Your success or otherwise is entirely down to you and the effort you are prepared to put in.
The success enjoyed by Oringer and SS was earned through hard work, risk-taking, technical skills and ingenuity. I'm guessing he didn't sit there like an effing cry-baby, wailing for 'a raise' from whomever he thought might have more money than him. If Oringer wants more money then he has to think up new ways to sell more images (on our behalf) and then risk his money exploring new markets to do so.
I know, I know __ you're now going to tell me that Oringer made all his money off your hard work. Well, you signed up to the ToS. How come you are not asking IS, DT or FT to change the ToS in your favour? After all, they have changed the ToS against your favour on several occasions. At least SS haven't done that.
Please do not insult others. We know you are not objective about SS, but this is no reason for harsh words.
-
I can't believe there are still people saying that because Jon's stock is worth so much, and because the company's revenues are up, then we should get our commission raised. This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works.
We are suppliers to a company that sells our product. We're like sellers of widgets to The Store. If The Store sells 20% more of your widgets this year than they sold the prior year, are you going to raise your per-unit cost to The Store? Should they voluntarily give you some kind of bonus for selling so many of your products? Your bonus is the fact that they sold 20% more of your product than the year before!
Oh, but your widgets didn't see a 20% increase in sales in line with The Store's 20% revenue increase? Then that means customers were buying a wide variety of products, and fewer were buying yours. Should The Store reward you for that achievement? If anything, if your product is being bought less frequently in relation to the other widgets, you would lose favor with The Store and maybe be taken from the shelves. And you think you should get a raise!
Very true and good example. Of course if The Store did sell 20% more of a supplier's product they'd actually be looking for a volume discount the following year. They'd want to pay less for it not more.
That is completely flawed. We are suppliers as well as manufactures. A manufacturer sets the price. What you two are saying is Coca Cola sell their product to Wall Mart and Wall Mart dictates the price Coca Cola can sell it to them for.
That's exactly how Wal-Mart does business.
Can you back that up? Because I just read that coca cola determines the price of their product.
They can't, at least in most capitalist countries, as it would be against anti-competition laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices)
-
You can rant all you want, you are still wrong.
-
I can't believe there are still people saying that because Jon's stock is worth so much, and because the company's revenues are up, then we should get our commission raised. This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works.
We are suppliers to a company that sells our product. We're like sellers of widgets to The Store. If The Store sells 20% more of your widgets this year than they sold the prior year, are you going to raise your per-unit cost to The Store? Should they voluntarily give you some kind of bonus for selling so many of your products? Your bonus is the fact that they sold 20% more of your product than the year before!
Oh, but your widgets didn't see a 20% increase in sales in line with The Store's 20% revenue increase? Then that means customers were buying a wide variety of products, and fewer were buying yours. Should The Store reward you for that achievement? If anything, if your product is being bought less frequently in relation to the other widgets, you would lose favor with The Store and maybe be taken from the shelves. And you think you should get a raise!
Very true and good example. Of course if The Store did sell 20% more of a supplier's product they'd actually be looking for a volume discount the following year. They'd want to pay less for it not more.
That is completely flawed. We are suppliers as well as manufactures. A manufacturer sets the price. What you two are saying is Coca Cola sell their product to Wall Mart and Wall Mart dictates the price Coca Cola can sell it to them for.
That's exactly how Wal-Mart does business.
Can you back that up? Because I just read that coca cola determines the price of their product.
It's Business 101. A huge corporation like WalMart (or SS in our case) has the LEVERAGE to set the prices they want to pay their suppliers, and if the suppliers don't agree, they can take the next supplier waiting in line who will gladly supply at the price you were unwilling to accept.
Coca Cola sets the price for the mom and pop store on the corner. But 99.9% of Coca Cola's sales are going through WalMart, McDonald's, etc... places where they can't easily dictate their price to the customer.
Now you'll say this is an example of SS becoming a corporate behemoth like WalMart and McDonald's. Like it's a bad thing. I'm pretty happy being a supplier to a corporate behemoth as long as what I'm earning makes sense for my personal business model (in my case supplying SS, I'm making money hand over fist, with very little costs.)
The moment I decide the price SS is dictating I get compensated isn't worth my while, I will find another customer or another line of work. I won't be complaining about it in a forum, while in another browser window I'm simultaneously uploading my next batch to the hated behemoth and saying my prayers for 100% acceptance.
-
That link to wiki proves nothing. Clutching at straws.
Here listen to this. Maybe it calms you down http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9135BDEFC471E083 (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9135BDEFC471E083)
-
That link to wiki proves nothing. Clutching at straws.
Here listen to this. Maybe it calms you down [url]http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9135BDEFC471E083[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9135BDEFC471E083[/url])
From USATODAY...
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2003-01-28-walmartnation_x.htm (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2003-01-28-walmartnation_x.htm)
"History has shown that suppliers suffer if they run afoul of Wal-Mart. Rubbermaid raised the prices it charged Wal-Mart in the mid-1990s because of an 80% jump in the cost of a key ingredient in its plastic containers. The retailer responded by giving more shelf space to lower-priced competitors, helping drive Rubbermaid into a 1999 merger with rival Newell, says John Mariotti, a former Rubbermaid executive. "Rubbermaid earned Wal-Mart's wrath by not giving it the best deal," he says."
-
I won't be complaining about it in a forum, while in another browser window I'm simultaneously uploading my next batch to the hated behemoth and saying my prayers for 100% acceptance.
I have stopped uploading to SS and all other agencies. But not because of what is being discussed here.
So in your example WalMart goes shopping for coca cola elsewhere if the price coca cola sets is too high. lol
This is not about coca cola, your example was flawed. Thats all.
-
I can't believe there are still people saying that because Jon's stock is worth so much, and because the company's revenues are up, then we should get our commission raised. This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works.
We are suppliers to a company that sells our product. We're like sellers of widgets to The Store. If The Store sells 20% more of your widgets this year than they sold the prior year, are you going to raise your per-unit cost to The Store? Should they voluntarily give you some kind of bonus for selling so many of your products? Your bonus is the fact that they sold 20% more of your product than the year before!
Oh, but your widgets didn't see a 20% increase in sales in line with The Store's 20% revenue increase? Then that means customers were buying a wide variety of products, and fewer were buying yours. Should The Store reward you for that achievement? If anything, if your product is being bought less frequently in relation to the other widgets, you would lose favor with The Store and maybe be taken from the shelves. And you think you should get a raise!
Very true and good example. Of course if The Store did sell 20% more of a supplier's product they'd actually be looking for a volume discount the following year. They'd want to pay less for it not more.
That is completely flawed. We are suppliers as well as manufactures. A manufacturer sets the price. What you two are saying is Coca Cola sell their product to Wall Mart and Wall Mart dictates the price Coca Cola can sell it to them for.
That's exactly how Wal-Mart does business.
Can you back that up? Because I just read that coca cola determines the price of their product.
It's Business 101. A huge corporation like WalMart (or SS in our case) has the LEVERAGE to set the prices they want to pay their suppliers, and if the suppliers don't agree, they can take the next supplier waiting in line who will gladly supply at the price you were unwilling to accept.
Coca Cola sets the price for the mom and pop store on the corner. But 99.9% of Coca Cola's sales are going through WalMart, McDonald's, etc... places where they can't easily dictate their price to the customer.
Now you'll say this is an example of SS becoming a corporate behemoth like WalMart and McDonald's. Like it's a bad thing. I'm pretty happy being a supplier to a corporate behemoth as long as what I'm earning makes sense for my personal business model (in my case supplying SS, I'm making money hand over fist, with very little costs.)
The moment I decide the price SS is dictating I get compensated isn't worth my while, I will find another customer or another line of work. I won't be complaining about it in a forum, while in another browser window I'm simultaneously uploading my next batch to the hated behemoth and saying my prayers for 100% acceptance.
...thats why competition is healthy. We, the contributors, have the raw material in hand and should not feed monocultures.
-
I won't be complaining about it in a forum, while in another browser window I'm simultaneously uploading my next batch to the hated behemoth and saying my prayers for 100% acceptance.
I have stopped uploading to SS and all other agencies. But not because of what is being discussed here.
So in your example WalMart goes shopping for coca cola elsewhere if the price coca cola sets is too high. lol
This is not about coca cola, your example was flawed. Thats all.
So you've decided that microstock isn't worth your time and have stopped uploading. But getting into debates in a forum focused on the activity you have sworn off is a good use of your time? You can bet Jon Oringer didn't get where he is with that kind of work ethic.
-
Coca-Cola is a unique brand. There is only one supplier of Coke concentrate in the market and that Coca-Cola so it would make sense that the company is able to dictate terms. If there were 20,000 other manufacturers of near identical products Coca-Cola would be in a much weaker position.
In microstock, Yuri seems able to dictate terms to some degree but hardly anyone else can. That's because he made himself a brand and established a leading position on the supply side.
On the other hand, there are only a couple of agencies who control almost the entire sales side, therefore they are able to dictate terms to the thousands of suppliers because we are largely interchangable.
Stockmarketeer said more or less the same while I was typing...
Tror - we can stop supplying them at any time we like and it will not make an iota of difference - as someone pointed out, Yuri quit SS and the share price has gone up.
-
That link to wiki proves nothing. Clutching at straws.
Here listen to this. Maybe it calms you down [url]http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9135BDEFC471E083[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9135BDEFC471E083[/url])
From USATODAY...
[url]http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2003-01-28-walmartnation_x.htm[/url] ([url]http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2003-01-28-walmartnation_x.htm[/url])
"History has shown that suppliers suffer if they run afoul of Wal-Mart. Rubbermaid raised the prices it charged Wal-Mart in the mid-1990s because of an 80% jump in the cost of a key ingredient in its plastic containers. The retailer responded by giving more shelf space to lower-priced competitors, helping drive Rubbermaid into a 1999 merger with rival Newell, says John Mariotti, a former Rubbermaid executive. "Rubbermaid earned Wal-Mart's wrath by not giving it the best deal," he says."
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=coca+cola+pricing+strategy (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=coca+cola+pricing+strategy)
-
I won't be complaining about it in a forum, while in another browser window I'm simultaneously uploading my next batch to the hated behemoth and saying my prayers for 100% acceptance.
I have stopped uploading to SS and all other agencies. But not because of what is being discussed here.
So in your example WalMart goes shopping for coca cola elsewhere if the price coca cola sets is too high. lol
This is not about coca cola, your example was flawed. Thats all.
So you've decided that microstock isn't worth your time and have stopped uploading. But getting into debates in a forum focused on the activity you have sworn off is a good use of your time? You can bet Jon Oringer didn't get where he is with that kind of work ethic.
No I havent, I am not going to spill out my life to you. Its in the June earnings thread. You are drawing conclusions based on nothing.
-
I won't be complaining about it in a forum, while in another browser window I'm simultaneously uploading my next batch to the hated behemoth and saying my prayers for 100% acceptance.
I have stopped uploading to SS and all other agencies. But not because of what is being discussed here.
So in your example WalMart goes shopping for coca cola elsewhere if the price coca cola sets is too high. lol
This is not about coca cola, your example was flawed. Thats all.
So you've decided that microstock isn't worth your time and have stopped uploading. But getting into debates in a forum focused on the activity you have sworn off is a good use of your time? You can bet Jon Oringer didn't get where he is with that kind of work ethic.
Bingo!
-
If you try to order Coke at a Taco Bell, KFC or many other chain restaurants, you won't get it. You'll get Pepsi. Those two companies are fiercely competitive in locking in deals with restaurants, movie theatres, etc... and you can bet the beverage company that offers the best deal gets the contract.
But you're right, every store want to sell Coke. They have to carry it. But Coke wants the end caps and premium shelf space. If Pepsi offers WalMart a better deal, guess who gets the endcaps, freezers at the checkout lanes, etc... and guess who moves more product?
Coke still has to be prepared to deal with its customers and can't dictate its pricing, because it knows Pepsi is in the hall waiting to offer a better deal.
Read up on Rubbermaid, what happened when it stood up against WalMart. I'm not saying one side is right or wrong. Just pointing out the reality of business.
-
Tror - we can stop supplying them at any time we like and it will not make an iota of difference - as someone pointed out, Yuri quit SS and the share price has gone up.
True, but I think I didn`t express myself clear here. I was referring on not creating monocultures, but not to stop supplying the sites. Just feed all the competition and not let one come too much on top of the others to prevent a monopoly.
-
Tror - we can stop supplying them at any time we like and it will not make an iota of difference - as someone pointed out, Yuri quit SS and the share price has gone up.
True, but I think I didn`t express myself clear here. I was referring on not creating monocultures, but not to stop supplying the sites. Just feed all the competition and not let one come too much on top of the others.
We have no control over who comes out on top. That depends on their marketing skills and also their history.
-
I won't be complaining about it in a forum, while in another browser window I'm simultaneously uploading my next batch to the hated behemoth and saying my prayers for 100% acceptance.
I have stopped uploading to SS and all other agencies. But not because of what is being discussed here.
So in your example WalMart goes shopping for coca cola elsewhere if the price coca cola sets is too high. lol
This is not about coca cola, your example was flawed. Thats all.
So you've decided that microstock isn't worth your time and have stopped uploading. But getting into debates in a forum focused on the activity you have sworn off is a good use of your time? You can bet Jon Oringer didn't get where he is with that kind of work ethic.
Bingo!
Bingo? I am setting up my own stock site, thats the reason. I am doing something about it. I am getting off my arse and try and change something for the better.
-
Tror - we can stop supplying them at any time we like and it will not make an iota of difference - as someone pointed out, Yuri quit SS and the share price has gone up.
True, but I think I didn`t express myself clear here. I was referring on not creating monocultures, but not to stop supplying the sites. Just feed all the competition and not let one come too much on top of the others.
We have no control over who comes out on top. That depends on their marketing skills and also their history.
I agree again, but we can do our part and supply the competition as well. Everybody has its role in the game :-)
-
I won't be complaining about it in a forum, while in another browser window I'm simultaneously uploading my next batch to the hated behemoth and saying my prayers for 100% acceptance.
I have stopped uploading to SS and all other agencies. But not because of what is being discussed here.
So in your example WalMart goes shopping for coca cola elsewhere if the price coca cola sets is too high. lol
This is not about coca cola, your example was flawed. Thats all.
So you've decided that microstock isn't worth your time and have stopped uploading. But getting into debates in a forum focused on the activity you have sworn off is a good use of your time? You can bet Jon Oringer didn't get where he is with that kind of work ethic.
Bingo!
Bingo? I am setting up my own stock site, thats the reason. I am doing something about it. I am getting off my arse and try and change something for the better.
Congrats, You should! I've been running my own site for 7 very profitable years. It is well worth the time.
-
That link to wiki proves nothing. Clutching at straws.
Here listen to this. Maybe it calms you down [url]http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9135BDEFC471E083[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9135BDEFC471E083[/url])
From USATODAY...
[url]http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2003-01-28-walmartnation_x.htm[/url] ([url]http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2003-01-28-walmartnation_x.htm[/url])
"History has shown that suppliers suffer if they run afoul of Wal-Mart. Rubbermaid raised the prices it charged Wal-Mart in the mid-1990s because of an 80% jump in the cost of a key ingredient in its plastic containers. The retailer responded by giving more shelf space to lower-priced competitors, helping drive Rubbermaid into a 1999 merger with rival Newell, says John Mariotti, a former Rubbermaid executive. "Rubbermaid earned Wal-Mart's wrath by not giving it the best deal," he says."
Now that is an exploitative company to admire.
-
That is completely flawed. We are suppliers as well as manufactures. A manufacturer sets the price. What you two are saying is Coca Cola sell their product to Wall Mart and Wall Mart dictates the price Coca Cola can sell it to them for.
Actually, my brother had a product that he was selling at many stores. When he contacted Walmart, they told him that they would only pay $X for the product, which was much less than other stores were paying. So yes, Walmart dictates the price.
-
That is completely flawed. We are suppliers as well as manufactures. A manufacturer sets the price. What you two are saying is Coca Cola sell their product to Wall Mart and Wall Mart dictates the price Coca Cola can sell it to them for.
Actually, my brother had a product that he was selling at many stores. When he contacted Walmart, they told him that they would only pay $X for the product, which was much less than other stores were paying. So yes, Walmart dictates the price.
Well, they state what they'll pay. If the supplier says 'no', then Walmart hasn't dictated a price - only tried to.
I can walk into a car dealership and 'dictate' a price. I might or might not leave with a car.
-
Absolute fact elvinstar. I know some sales people and a company Rep. went into Walmart and said, we're increasing the prices, and the buyer said, "you don't tell us, we tell you... and we no longer carry your product." They were removed fromthe shelves.
Don't believe it's only Walmart the evil empire, Sears did this for years. They would buy and buy, private label, until a company was dependent on those sales. Then Sears would say they needed a lower price and lower price. The choice was make less and be dominated by Sears or go out of business.
Ace and Tru-Value, negotiate lower prices with buying power. Some of the larger farm supply places do the same. Part of that power is "do you want to be in our stores or not" Many of these place do get special prices on Coca-Cola products, so it's a legitimate example. Coke only dictates prices to smaller buyers.
McMaster-Carr and Grainger (industrial) get special prices, for everything. In more than one case they have sold products for less than authorized distributors pay for the same. That's competition.
If anyone here had a collection of 20,000 images (for example) and they were desirable images, I'm sure there would be room for a contract with an agency. Even an exclusive, that wasn't exclusive, for older images, which have already been licensed all over anyway. But maybe for everything new?
That is completely flawed. We are suppliers as well as manufactures. A manufacturer sets the price. What you two are saying is Coca Cola sell their product to Wall Mart and Wall Mart dictates the price Coca Cola can sell it to them for.
Actually, my brother had a product that he was selling at many stores. When he contacted Walmart, they told him that they would only pay $X for the product, which was much less than other stores were paying. So yes, Walmart dictates the price.
Thanks for the laugh Stockmarketer:
I have stopped uploading to SS and all other agencies. But not because of what is being discussed here.
So you've decided that microstock isn't worth your time and have stopped uploading. But getting into debates in a forum focused on the activity you have sworn off is a good use of your time?
Here's my answer for the people who think it's all about the stock holders of SS. BUY STOCK IN THE COMPANY!
-
¢ǼǾ♫☼♀♣○╩╝√∏∑
Ye-haw yippee kyay!
-
Uh oh wait wait wait here it comes!
☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺
:) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? :P :-[ :-\ :-* :'(
-
If you try to order Coke at a Taco Bell, KFC or many other chain restaurants, you won't get it. You'll get Pepsi. Those two companies are fiercely competitive in locking in deals with restaurants, movie theatres, etc... and you can bet the beverage company that offers the best deal gets the contract.
But you're right, every store want to sell Coke. They have to carry it. But Coke wants the end caps and premium shelf space. If Pepsi offers WalMart a better deal, guess who gets the endcaps, freezers at the checkout lanes, etc... and guess who moves more product?
Coke still has to be prepared to deal with its customers and can't dictate its pricing, because it knows Pepsi is in the hall waiting to offer a better deal.
Read up on Rubbermaid, what happened when it stood up against WalMart. I'm not saying one side is right or wrong. Just pointing out the reality of business.
Im pretty much sure that you are pointing your perception of the reality of business
Im sure u know u are right, you researched every number of that reality that u live in , you are smart, you understand your reality...so Im sure you make perfect sense there.
But I for example do stand on some totally different spot , some totally different reality here writing and experiencing world.
Obviously it overlaps with partly with yours in some small amount, so we are not experiencing the matter from same perspective,and who in the world can blame us for having quite opposite opinions.
Thank God for diversity , it would be a boring place if we all were the same.
-
The really curious thing is that if you try to order a meal from McD in the country where I am without having the coke included they charge more for it than if you have the sticky muck. So on the one or two occasions a year when I buy the rubbish these places dish out I get a coke to reduce the price and use it for toilet cleaner.
-
Keep the raise Jon - just keep creating opportunities like SOD and ODD downloads and opening up new markets in the BRIC sector. I'm seeing far more DLs in Singapore, India, S Korea and Brazil than I did last year. I'd like you to crack the Chinese market though if you can fit that in between yacht parties. I'd be seriously impressed if you did that.
All the best.
-
So you've decided that microstock isn't worth your time and have stopped uploading. But getting into debates in a forum focused on the activity you have sworn off is a good use of your time? You can bet Jon Oringer didn't get where he is with that kind of work ethic.
I can relate to this. The problem is you can leave the sites you don't like, but their decisions and terms still follow you around. So unless you entirely leave microstock, the sites still affect you and your business.
I'm not sure what Oringer complains about in his free time though. Maybe, he can't find parking for his Ferrari in the city. ;)
-
Maybe, he can't find parking for his Ferrari in the city. ;)
he has a helicopter ;D
-
Maybe, he can't find parking for his Ferrari in the city. ;)
he has a helicopter ;D
And even if he had a Ferrari in N.Y. City I doubt very much that there would be any problems finding somewhere to park it. :)
-
And even if he had a Ferrari in N.Y. City I doubt very much that there would be any problems finding somewhere to park it. :)
You're probably right. I bet he just leaves it anywhere and just orders a new one when he gets out. ;)
-
He doesn't need a car. I'll drive him around for 35 cents a trip.
-
If you want 'a raise' then get off your arse, do some more work and thereby earn it. Your success or otherwise is entirely down to you and the effort you are prepared to put in.
While I agree SS has not cut our royalties (other than the referral bonus), the above statement is patently and demonstrably false regarding microstock as a whole.
Innumerable people have seen their royalties cut repeatedly over the past couple of years, regardless of their hard work.
I posted in the earnings thread for June that my DLs are actually UP on most sites from last year, but my earnings are way down.
Microstock stopped being a meritocracy several years ago and it is ridiculous to argue otherwise.
-
If you want 'a raise' then get off your arse, do some more work and thereby earn it. Your success or otherwise is entirely down to you and the effort you are prepared to put in.
While I agree SS has not cut our royalties (other than the referral bonus), the above statement is patently and demonstrably false regarding microstock as a whole.
Innumerable people have seen their royalties cut repeatedly over the past couple of years, regardless of their hard work.
I posted in the earnings thread for June that my DLs are actually UP on most sites from last year, but my earnings are way down.
Microstock stopped being a meritocracy several years ago and it is ridiculous to argue otherwise.
This isn't a 'general microstock' thread. It's specifically about SS, the money that Oringer has made and, latterly, some people demanding a raise because of it. Therefore my post that you have quoted was tailored to that effect __ it was never intended to be a comment on the general industry.
I still think that SS is a genuine meritocracy. I have never seen any evidence of some contributors being more equal than others and SS have never changed the ToS for royalties (except in our favour). Sort-order position, as far as I can tell, is entirely determined by how many times an image is sold, referenced against the keywords that were used by the buyer.
My earnings at SS have grown fairly steadily since 2004. Seasonal variations aside (and with reasonably steady uploading) it's almost been a straight-line graph. I'm 100% confident that had I worked harder and uploaded more then I would have gained 'a raise' more or less in direct proportion to my increased efforts.
I just wish that other agencies offered the same incentive and reward.
-
If you want 'a raise' then get off your arse, do some more work and thereby earn it. Your success or otherwise is entirely down to you and the effort you are prepared to put in.
While I agree SS has not cut our royalties (other than the referral bonus), the above statement is patently and demonstrably false regarding microstock as a whole.
Innumerable people have seen their royalties cut repeatedly over the past couple of years, regardless of their hard work.
I posted in the earnings thread for June that my DLs are actually UP on most sites from last year, but my earnings are way down.
Microstock stopped being a meritocracy several years ago and it is ridiculous to argue otherwise.
This is pretty much why I stopped uploading to SS 3 years ago. Being a good little worker bee was no longer enough for continued growth.
That said, I think there is something to be said for the power still being in the contributors' hands. I just wish that power was being leveraged better (or at all).
-
If you want 'a raise' then get off your arse, do some more work and thereby earn it. Your success or otherwise is entirely down to you and the effort you are prepared to put in.
While I agree SS has not cut our royalties (other than the referral bonus), the above statement is patently and demonstrably false regarding microstock as a whole.
Innumerable people have seen their royalties cut repeatedly over the past couple of years, regardless of their hard work.
I posted in the earnings thread for June that my DLs are actually UP on most sites from last year, but my earnings are way down.
Microstock stopped being a meritocracy several years ago and it is ridiculous to argue otherwise.
This isn't a 'general microstock' thread. It's specifically about SS, the money that Oringer has made and, latterly, some people demanding a raise because of it. Therefore my post that you have quoted was tailored to that effect __ it was never intended to be a comment on the general industry.
I still think that SS is a genuine meritocracy. I have never seen any evidence of some contributors being more equal than others and SS have never changed the ToS for royalties (except in our favour). Sort-order position, as far as I can tell, is entirely determined by how many times an image is sold, referenced against the keywords that were used by the buyer.
My earnings at SS have grown fairly steadily since 2004. Seasonal variations aside (and with reasonably steady uploading) it's almost been a straight-line graph. I'm 100% confident that had I worked harder and uploaded more then I would have gained 'a raise' more or less in direct proportion to my increased efforts.
I just wish that other agencies offered the same incentive and reward.
Fair enough. Other than being in a thread on SS, it wasn't obvious to me that your comments referred only to SS, so I wanted to make the point that, in general, working hard is (unfortunately) not necessarily a remedy for falling income anymore.
-
If you want 'a raise' then get off your arse, do some more work and thereby earn it. Your success or otherwise is entirely down to you and the effort you are prepared to put in.
While I agree SS has not cut our royalties (other than the referral bonus), the above statement is patently and demonstrably false regarding microstock as a whole.
Innumerable people have seen their royalties cut repeatedly over the past couple of years, regardless of their hard work.
I posted in the earnings thread for June that my DLs are actually UP on most sites from last year, but my earnings are way down.
Microstock stopped being a meritocracy several years ago and it is ridiculous to argue otherwise.
This isn't a 'general microstock' thread. It's specifically about SS, the money that Oringer has made and, latterly, some people demanding a raise because of it. Therefore my post that you have quoted was tailored to that effect __ it was never intended to be a comment on the general industry.
I still think that SS is a genuine meritocracy. I have never seen any evidence of some contributors being more equal than others and SS have never changed the ToS for royalties (except in our favour). Sort-order position, as far as I can tell, is entirely determined by how many times an image is sold, referenced against the keywords that were used by the buyer.
My earnings at SS have grown fairly steadily since 2004. Seasonal variations aside (and with reasonably steady uploading) it's almost been a straight-line graph. I'm 100% confident that had I worked harder and uploaded more then I would have gained 'a raise' more or less in direct proportion to my increased efforts.
I just wish that other agencies offered the same incentive and reward.
Fair enough. Other than being in a thread on SS, it wasn't obvious to me that your comments referred only to SS, so I wanted to make the point that, in general, working hard is (unfortunately) not necessarily a remedy for falling income anymore.
+1 every in general true except SS.
-
If you want 'a raise' then get off your arse, do some more work and thereby earn it. Your success or otherwise is entirely down to you and the effort you are prepared to put in.
While I agree SS has not cut our royalties (other than the referral bonus), the above statement is patently and demonstrably false regarding microstock as a whole.
Innumerable people have seen their royalties cut repeatedly over the past couple of years, regardless of their hard work.
I posted in the earnings thread for June that my DLs are actually UP on most sites from last year, but my earnings are way down.
Microstock stopped being a meritocracy several years ago and it is ridiculous to argue otherwise.
This is pretty much why I stopped uploading to SS 3 years ago. Being a good little worker bee was no longer enough for continued growth.
That said, I think there is something to be said for the power still being in the contributors' hands. I just wish that power was being leveraged better (or at all).
Well said. Working like crazy just to give the shareholders a nice return is frustrating on the long run.
-
If you want 'a raise' then get off your arse, do some more work and thereby earn it. Your success or otherwise is entirely down to you and the effort you are prepared to put in.
While I agree SS has not cut our royalties (other than the referral bonus), the above statement is patently and demonstrably false regarding microstock as a whole.
Innumerable people have seen their royalties cut repeatedly over the past couple of years, regardless of their hard work.
I posted in the earnings thread for June that my DLs are actually UP on most sites from last year, but my earnings are way down.
Microstock stopped being a meritocracy several years ago and it is ridiculous to argue otherwise.
This is pretty much why I stopped uploading to SS 3 years ago. Being a good little worker bee was no longer enough for continued growth.
That said, I think there is something to be said for the power still being in the contributors' hands. I just wish that power was being leveraged better (or at all).
Well said. Working like crazy just to give the shareholders a nice return is frustrating on the long run.
You could always use your SS earnings to become one of those shareholders.
-
Coca Cola is a very powerful Brand like Yuri in MS world a small supplier to Walmart or a stock site does not have the same power thats just a fact of capitalism. In the UK at least there have been attempts to curtail the practice where retailers are too powerful, but for examples if Tesco plan a price reduction they often ask suppliers to take a cut.
-
Ok, this has nothing directly to do with SS, so forgive me to post this here. I just thought it would be relevant since meanwhile the discussion includes the business practices of Walmart and similar companies:
Walmart: The High Cost Of Low Prices FULL MOVIE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jazb24Q2s94#)
-
If you want 'a raise' then get off your arse, do some more work and thereby earn it. Your success or otherwise is entirely down to you and the effort you are prepared to put in.
While I agree SS has not cut our royalties (other than the referral bonus), the above statement is patently and demonstrably false regarding microstock as a whole.
Innumerable people have seen their royalties cut repeatedly over the past couple of years, regardless of their hard work.
I posted in the earnings thread for June that my DLs are actually UP on most sites from last year, but my earnings are way down.
Microstock stopped being a meritocracy several years ago and it is ridiculous to argue otherwise.
This is pretty much why I stopped uploading to SS 3 years ago. Being a good little worker bee was no longer enough for continued growth.
That said, I think there is something to be said for the power still being in the contributors' hands. I just wish that power was being leveraged better (or at all).
Well said. Working like crazy just to give the shareholders a nice return is frustrating on the long run.
You could always use your SS earnings to become one of those shareholders.
No thanks, I don't need that kind of money, who needs to be a nouveau sméagol hovering over his precious SS stock investment. All the while hoping that SS will not give his fellows a fair annual raise in royalty, because that would negatively affect the price of his stock and dividends.
Nope, I don't need money badly enough to help any company accelerate the race to the bottom.
-
Interesting discussion. Since we are talking about buying Shutterstock shares as a possible investment, I’ll just add my two cents. Originally during the IPO I thought about jumping in, but looking at the numbers, I think Shutterstock is way over valued. Here is an easy test to see if you would like to purchase shares in any company:
Take the number of shares that are outstanding on the market and multiply by the current share price. So for Shutterstock:32,838,281 shares X $56.00 current share price = about 1.9 BILLION dollars. Now if you just won the powerball lottery and had 1.9 billion dollars in your hands, would you invest it all in Shutterstock and buy it outright? Let’s not forget that Shutterstock does not pay a dividend, so you’ll have to hope that it can maintain it’s current 2012 sales figures in order for you to recoup your investment. Lets say it does, for the sake of simplicity, so it will continue to earn a rough EBITDA of $32 million dollars. It would take you a little over 57 years to get your money back. So would you buy Shutterstock outright for 1.9 billion? If the answer is “No” then why would you buy a single share? Because you’re doing the same thing, just a different percentage of ownership.
The P/E ratio is also helpful for a stock’s value. Today the share price is roughly $56 and it has a P/E ratio of about 36. That means you’re willing to pay about $36 bucks for each dollar Shutterstock has currently earned. In this case you would be very hopeful that it will earn way more than it is raking in today. Don’t forget, there is no dividend so the stock will not be paying you as you own it. I like to use the P/E as the number of years I can hold onto the share of stock before I get my money back. So for Shutterstock I would have to hold on to it for 36 years before it pays for it’s $56 dollar price. The average market P/E ratio is 20-25 times earnings. For perspective, Royal Bank (Canada) as a P/E of about 13 (and a dividend). Apple’s P/E is about 9.6.
As a final note, I encourage everyone to view the annual report put out by Shutterstock. Look carefully under “assets” and you’ll discover Shutterstock has valued all those photos and illustrations kindly submitted by contributors. (25 million images so far) It lists a dollar value (and lifespan) for an asset it doesn’t even own. That’s like saying my business is suddenly valued at a million dollars since my buddy parked his Bugatii Vernon in my driveway. Funny how no one brought that up...
Yes good for Jon for doing the IPO on Shutterstock. The real tragedy is I wish Bruce did this with istockphoto before he turned to Getty and sold out. Who knows what would of become of this marketplace then?
Want an easy stock tip? Look at Hasbro the toy company. It has a P/E of 14. And pays a dividend. It also owns the toy rights to “Star Wars.” And Disney just bought out George Lucas and has plans for three more Star Wars movies. Connect the dots and there may be a buyout for Hasbro’s future.
-
I worked in the technology business for 30 years and I remember the dot-com boom like it was yesterday. IMHO, any time you hear people talking up a newly public company, how brilliant their management is and and how it's going to the moon, it's already overvalued. SS is pretty clearly almost a bubble investment at this point and enormous windfall profits made by founders and top executives are a typical sign that for small investors, Elvis has left the building.
SS is a middleman, not a producer. Early attempts at selling photos on the internet were fairly chaotic, and the market benefited from the introduction of competent middlemen. But in just a few years, a small set of middlemen are controlling the market and extracting too much 'value' from the transaction. At some point the market starts to route around such middlemen and finds ways for buyers and sellers to get in more direct contact. In economics that's called 'disintermediation' and it's inevitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintermediation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintermediation)
We can't predict exactly how it will happen, but I could guess that automated 'image quality' services, and search engines that go deeper and tap into something like the existing IPTC data in images, will be part of it. This is an example of the "semantic web" forseen by Berners-Lee and others - where web content announces and describes itself without the need for active middlemen, saying in effect (to the search engines) "here is an image with these keywords, of independently verifiable quality, purchasable and downloadable through a well-known and trusted transaction processor". When a buyer can look at pages of such thumbnails without the need for an intermediary like SS, well, stockholders will really start to feel the pain.
-
In economics that's called 'disintermediation' .
I call it MyStockVectors.
-
In economics that's called 'disintermediation' .
I call it MyStockVectors.
Don't know about MyStockVectors but sure, the process is already underway.
-
Yes, congratulations, and I think a Nobel Prize is in order, for research leading to the discovery that the optimum compensation for commercial use of a photo is 35 cents. It's truly a better world.
But I make 36 cents
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't understand why some people are whining. SS haven't changed their terms (unlike almost every other agency).
While I agree with everything you wrote, I think this part is incorrect. BigStock is part of SS, and they most definitely cut commissions pretty severely via switching many credit sales over to subscription, and paying out a near industry low for sub commissions. I think we are all still whistling past the graveyard, pretending SS won't do a similar cut in the future.
-
I don't understand why some people are whining. SS haven't changed their terms (unlike almost every other agency).
While I agree with everything you wrote, I think this part is incorrect. BigStock is part of SS, and they most definitely cut commissions pretty severely via switching many credit sales over to subscription, and paying out a near industry low for sub commissions. I think we are all still whistling past the graveyard, pretending SS won't do a similar cut in the future.
I agree. If it wasn't for this, I would be thinking about doing lots more microstock work but I can't ignore this big warning sign. I'll work on other things until its clear that commission cuts are a thing of the past.
-
Well now you mention it. They had 204 million DLs in 2011 so if they claw back 1 cent per download... $2,040,000. Easy money.
And what do you call reducing the referral program other than a change in terms?
-
]
-
The only things that prevent any of us from being another Jon Oringer are ability and willingness.
Now that really IS the best quote for ages.
I do wonder how much people think SS has "pocketed", what its actual percentage profit on turnover is ... and how that compares with Balex's dad's company.
Check the annual report C62
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTgyODczfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1 (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTgyODczfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1)
Historically, we made monthly cash distributions to members of Shutterstock Images LLC with
respect to their membership interests. For the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, distributions
to the members of Shutterstock Images LLC were $28.6 million and $25.9 million, respectively.
Additionally, between January 1, 2012 and October 4, 2012, we distributed $36.0 million to the
members of Shutterstock Images LLC. Following the Reorganization on October 5, 2012, no further
distributions to members were made. For additional information regarding the Reorganization, see
Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part II, Item 8 of this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.
-
Thread should be titled: Low Wage Shutterstock Contributors Create First Silicon Alley Billionaire
-
"The P/E ratio is also helpful for a stock’s value."
But this is only half using the P/E--and to ignore the other half is done at the investor's peril. As well as using the tool to evaluate the worthiness of a stock's profitability, the tool is also useful as a measure of sentiment as to where the company is going. If one believes that a company's fortune will continue to rise, then a higher P/E may be justified before the company is overvalued. I believe the SS will continue to do very well.
A number of years ago, the very successful investor and fund manager Peter Lynch wrote a book titled One Up on Wall Street. in which he suggested that the successful investor should use that exceptional knowledge that most investors already have-- the knowledge of his or her own profession. A professional automobile mechanic is better qualified than most investors to recognize the next great concept in automobile engine design when he sees it first marketed. If he invests in the company which is putting such an automobile on the market, he has a huge advantage in the random walk market. Because of my (and the other members of this forum) experience in stock, I knew that SS was the top of the heap. As soon as the bubbly buzz at its IPO settled down, I bought what SS stock I could afford--and I have doubled my money. When and if things sour at SS, I will especially know it because of my own knowledge and that of you all in this forum and I will sell. BTW, when I bought, I mentioned all of the above in the SS forum; a post which was greeted with stony silence.
-
I think I get it now. We should all wise up, get out of photography, and invest in companies that successfully exploit photographers. All that remains is to change the name of this site to MicrostockholdersGroup.com
-
In my opinion, it seemed that people were pretty happy until they found out that the owner of the company is now a billionaire. It sounds like a simple case of envy to me. I've always felt that shutterstock has been fair to its contributors, and I've seen nothing but an increase in revenues for myself since I started in 2005. I currently pay my mortgage with my stock earnings, most of which comes from shutterstock. This is part time work for me. If I can make a decent earning from it, and the owner of the company can be successful, then that's great for both of us, and people should stop whining.
-
In my opinion, it seemed that people were pretty happy until they found out that the owner of the company is now a billionaire. It sounds like a simple case of envy to me.
No. I watch and help SS growing since many years. A raise is overdue since years. The only thing changed is that the numbers are now more official and show that they actually make every time more Profit without valueing our work by handing down somje of the success with a raise.
-
I think I get it now. We should all wise up, get out of photography, and invest in companies that successfully exploit photographers. All that remains is to change the name of this site to MicrostockholdersGroup.com
Could not say it better....
-
In my opinion, it seemed that people were pretty happy until they found out that the owner of the company is now a billionaire. It sounds like a simple case of envy to me. I've always felt that shutterstock has been fair to its contributors, and I've seen nothing but an increase in revenues for myself since I started in 2005. I currently pay my mortgage with my stock earnings, most of which comes from shutterstock. This is part time work for me. If I can make a decent earning from it, and the owner of the company can be successful, then that's great for both of us, and people should stop whining.
Well said Sir. The politics of envy always rules supreme. The truth is that SS have invariably treated their contributors better than any other agency ... and now they are being criticised for being incredibly successful whilst doing so. You couldn't make it up.
-
In my opinion, it seemed that people were pretty happy until they found out that the owner of the company is now a billionaire. It sounds like a simple case of envy to me. I've always felt that shutterstock has been fair to its contributors, and I've seen nothing but an increase in revenues for myself since I started in 2005. I currently pay my mortgage with my stock earnings, most of which comes from shutterstock. This is part time work for me. If I can make a decent earning from it, and the owner of the company can be successful, then that's great for both of us, and people should stop whining.
Well said Sir. The politics of envy always rules supreme. The truth is that SS have invariably treated their contributors better than any other agency ... and now they are being criticised for being incredibly successful whilst doing so. You couldn't make it up.
we can say that 47 times but some independent contributors can't accept the fact SS got them a big chunk of their income and it grows every month, looks like they would have lived better without SS
-
In my opinion, it seemed that people were pretty happy until they found out that the owner of the company is now a billionaire. It sounds like a simple case of envy to me. I've always felt that shutterstock has been fair to its contributors, and I've seen nothing but an increase in revenues for myself since I started in 2005. I currently pay my mortgage with my stock earnings, most of which comes from shutterstock. This is part time work for me. If I can make a decent earning from it, and the owner of the company can be successful, then that's great for both of us, and people should stop whining.
Well said Sir. The politics of envy always rules supreme. The truth is that SS have invariably treated their contributors better than any other agency ... and now they are being criticised for being incredibly successful whilst doing so. You couldn't make it up.
we can say that 47 times but some independent contributors can't accept the fact SS got them a big chunk of their income and it grows every month, looks like they would have lived better without SS
Lets put this into perspective. Submitters have not had a royalty raise since 2008 while their production expenses have gone up across the board for 6 years. The world has been struggling under a global recession and many submitters have been struggling just to put food on the table and pay their mortgages/rent, utility, gas and medical expenses.
Many submitters felt guilty about asking for a raise when they felt the SS was struggling also. Little did they know that while the majority suffered SS was quietly lining its pockets with 90.5 million plus and a potential billion dollar stock bonus using the assets we produced with our own funds under challenging conditions.
Add the new search into the equation and the fact that many who worked very hard to provide the assets that made SS successful are now finding that they need to find new jobs. The new search changes will help SS's bottom line but are harming those who made them successful and wealthy. Then there is the screw job on the Referral program, submitters feel more than betrayed. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=128547&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=108 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=128547&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=108)
Maybe you are beginning to get the picture. To add insult to injury gostwyck and his stock toting buddies are talking nouveau riche smack and encouraging the company to gouge us further so that their freshly bought stock will go up in price.
-
In my opinion, it seemed that people were pretty happy until they found out that the owner of the company is now a billionaire. It sounds like a simple case of envy to me. I've always felt that shutterstock has been fair to its contributors, and I've seen nothing but an increase in revenues for myself since I started in 2005. I currently pay my mortgage with my stock earnings, most of which comes from shutterstock. This is part time work for me. If I can make a decent earning from it, and the owner of the company can be successful, then that's great for both of us, and people should stop whining.
Well said Sir. The politics of envy always rules supreme. The truth is that SS have invariably treated their contributors better than any other agency ... and now they are being criticised for being incredibly successful whilst doing so. You couldn't make it up.
I know. What's with all these jerks that can't enjoy their huge success in microstock because of all their jealousy of the owners of these agencies? ::)
-
In my opinion, it seemed that people were pretty happy until they found out that the owner of the company is now a billionaire. It sounds like a simple case of envy to me. I've always felt that shutterstock has been fair to its contributors, and I've seen nothing but an increase in revenues for myself since I started in 2005. I currently pay my mortgage with my stock earnings, most of which comes from shutterstock. This is part time work for me. If I can make a decent earning from it, and the owner of the company can be successful, then that's great for both of us, and people should stop whining.
Well said Sir. The politics of envy always rules supreme. The truth is that SS have invariably treated their contributors better than any other agency ... and now they are being criticised for being incredibly successful whilst doing so. You couldn't make it up.
we can say that 47 times but some independent contributors can't accept the fact SS got them a big chunk of their income and it grows every month, looks like they would have lived better without SS
Lets put this into perspective. Submitters have not had a royalty raise since 2008 while their production expenses have gone up across the board for 6 years. The world has been struggling under a global recession and many submitters have been struggling just to put food on the table and pay their mortgages/rent, utility, gas and medical expenses.
Many submitters felt guilty about asking for a raise when they felt the SS was struggling also. Little did they know that while the majority suffered SS was quietly lining its pockets with 90.5 million plus and a potential billion dollar stock bonus using the assets we produced with our own funds under challenging conditions.
Add the new search into the equation and the fact that many who worked very hard to provide the assets that made SS successful are now finding that they need to find new jobs. The new search changes will help SS's bottom line but are harming those who made them successful and wealthy. Then there is the screw job on the Referral program, submitters feel more than betrayed. [url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=128547&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=108[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=128547&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=108[/url])
Maybe you are beginning to get the picture. To add insult to injury gostwyck and his stock toting buddies are talking nouveau riche smack and encouraging the company to gouge us further so that their freshly bought stock will go up in price.
You are the hero of my day. I cannot hear this corporate propaganda stuff anymore...
-
Lets put this into perspective. Submitters have not had a royalty raise since 2008 while their production expenses have gone up across the board for 6 years. The world has been struggling under a global recession and many submitters have been struggling just to put food on the table and pay their mortgages/rent, utility, gas and medical expenses.
Oh, come on! Anybody who threw in the day job to go microstocking without having proved to themselves in advance that they had the ability to earn double what they needed to live on (allowing a safety cushion) was just being foolish. As was anyone who really believed that it would be a secure income source for life, rather than for the next four or five years, with anything after that being a piece of good fortune (and, right now, I'd be inclined to say that it's not really possible to look forward more than a couple of years with any confidence).
It may have been a life-line to some people who had no job and are using it to cling on to economic survival but if so the consequences for them have been beneficial, regardless of whether SS is making a fat profit or just scraping by. The old socialist "we're starving and you're growing fat on our sweat and toil" line can be wheeled out by any employee who feels envious of the business owner's lifestyle. It is just a whinging abdication of personal responsibility: if you don't like the terms you get, then open a wedding studio, or do commercial photography or something and use your skills entirely for your own benefit. If you're good you'll probably make a lot more money, but you'll have a hell of a lot more worries, too.
Many submitters felt guilty about asking for a raise when they felt the SS was struggling also. Little did they know that while the majority suffered SS was quietly lining its pockets with 90.5 million plus and a potential billion dollar stock bonus using the assets we produced with our own funds under challenging conditions.
Anybody who observed the famous $50m heist by iStock when it sold out to Getty (or the Great Satan, as it was widely regarded by the participating photographers of 2004) would have to have been pretty dim not to realise that SS was making good profits and would have enormous stock market value if it was ever floated.
Thank goodness that they didn't accept any offer they might have got (and probably did get) from GettyImages, which would have taken them off in the direction of StockXpert and various other aquisitions that Getty merged into its corporate body or consigned to the dustbin of TS.
-
Anybody who observed the famous $50m heist by iStock when it sold out to Getty (or the Great Satan, as it was widely regarded by the participating photographers of 2004) would have to have been pretty dim not to realise that SS was making good profits and would have enormous stock market value if it was ever floated.
Thank goodness that they didn't accept any offer they might have got (and probably did get) from GettyImages, which would have taken them off in the direction of StockXpert and various other aquisitions that Getty merged into its corporate body or consigned to the dustbin of TS.
Surely you remember that Bruce sold Istock in 2006 just before the world slipped into a global recession. The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2006 is widely know to have kicked the world into a deep and prolonged recession. Go dig up the threads on SS asking for a raise it is all there in black and white.
-
Anybody who observed the famous $50m heist by iStock when it sold out to Getty (or the Great Satan, as it was widely regarded by the participating photographers of 2004) would have to have been pretty dim not to realise that SS was making good profits and would have enormous stock market value if it was ever floated.
Thank goodness that they didn't accept any offer they might have got (and probably did get) from GettyImages, which would have taken them off in the direction of StockXpert and various other aquisitions that Getty merged into its corporate body or consigned to the dustbin of TS.
Surely you remember that Bruce sold Istock in 2006 just before the world slipped into a global recession. The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2006 is widely know to have kicked the world into a deep and prolonged recession. Go dig up the threads on SS asking for a raise it is all there in black and white.
Sorry, I really don't understand the point you are trying to make. You'll probably find me in the threads asking for a rise, too, there's no harm in asking!
I'm completely baffled by your apparent suggestion that ss should have responded to a global recession by raising prices and commission rates. Isn't one major reason for its outstanding success the fact that it froze prices in response to the hard times that customers were facing?
-
The old socialist "we're starving and you're growing fat on our sweat and toil" line can be wheeled out by any employee who feels envious of the business owner's lifestyle.
Is it envy if it's true? How many people are making a livable wage (by US standards where SS is located) off their SS earnings alone?
-
Everybody asking for a raise or even mentioning a raise is marked down as being jealous or showing envy. The people spewing that nonsense are also never hit by any of what the agencies are doing and every change by the agency is making them more money. SS and IS shills is what they are. LOL
-
Everybody asking for a raise or even mentioning a raise is marked down as being jealous or showing envy. The people spewing that nonsense are also never hit by any of what the agencies are doing and every change by the agency is making them more money. SS and IS shills is what they are. LOL
I rather think the "spewing nonsense" is on the other side. The only reason this has come up is because of the valuation of the stock by Wall Street. It's completely unrelated to production costs or anything else, it's just "oooh look how much money they've made, they should have given some of it to me instead". It's nonsense, it's not even real money, it's a notional paper profit.
What's more, I am not gaining from the SS share price, I'm certainly not gaining from iS's shenanigans and I resent being called a shill for the crime of pointing out that we don't live in a quasi-commie paradise where all the profits are handed over to the company's suppliers, as some people keep suggesting they should be. My only relationship with both these companies is as a supplier of images, the same as most others in this thread.
SS has grown its overall business, which has allowed us to boost our earnings while carrying on doing exactly what we were doing seven years ago, even using the same equipment if we want to. I don't see what is unfair about that. Oh, but I forgot, Jon's got a billion dollars that he should be giving away just like Getty and every other corporation gives its wealth away.
What a lot of molluscs!
-
The old socialist "we're starving and you're growing fat on our sweat and toil" line can be wheeled out by any employee who feels envious of the business owner's lifestyle.
Is it envy if it's true? How many people are making a livable wage (by US standards where SS is located) off their SS earnings alone?
Why should someone in India be getting a full-time US wage? Why should someone who is self-employed supplying a dozen companies with their product have a right to a livable wage (by US standards) from each of those companies? Why should anybody be entitled to more than they have freely agreed to accept for their work? Why should artists with all sorts of different skills and abilities, and levels of effort, all be entitled to a US living wage? Should that apply to everyone with more than 10 images, or more than 100, or more than 1,000 or more than 10,000? Or should they all get the same regardless of everything, and regardless of whether their work sells or not?
I mean, really, this "workers deserve a living wage" stuff - while it is fair enough for US employees - is utter nonsense when you start trying to apply it to any Tom, Dick or Harry who happens to have sent a few pictures to an agency. We are NOT employees, we are individual businesses working for ourselves and using whatever different agency arrangements happen to suit us.
-
Seems to be a lot of "self-proclaimed" victims.
I think the thread originated as a congratulatory message. Certainly has deteriorated.
-
Its not mollucs or whatever you call it, I am not calling you a shill either. You are all putting way to much weight on someone saying they want a raise because they are jealous or because Jon is a billionaire. Its fallacies. I even made it clear it was a cheeky comment. Everybody asking for a raise gets jumped on. Whatever. But its these kind of threads that a raise is mentioned. You dont mention a raise on a thread about rejections. Its normal for people to ask for a raise. In fact I got a raise this year at my company because the company is doing excellent. People asking for a raise has nothing to do with jealousy or envy, thats complete crap.
-
Seems to be a lot of "self-proclaimed" victims.
I think the thread originated as a congratulatory message. Certainly has deteriorated.
Every thread derails here
-
In fact you and everybody else is complaining about the agencies stealing from us with 70-85% commissions, yet when people ask for 1% back they are greedy. Seriously.
-
I still don`t get it why so many people are against a raise inspite of the good numbers SS produces with our content. Have you ever seen a employee of a big successful company seen reject a raise? Or telling its company/employer: "Noooo, its ok, keep the money, I don`t need a raise and you do such a good job". I mean: how stupid can it get?
BTW Baldrick: Yes, I actually think the people should earn the same for the same work, no matter if they are in India or the US.
-
Its not mollucs or whatever you call it, I am not calling you a shill either. You are all putting way to much weight on someone saying they want a raise because they are jealous or because Jon is a billionaire. Its fallacies. I even made it clear it was a cheeky comment. Everybody asking for a raise gets jumped on. Whatever. But its these kind of threads that a raise is mentioned. You dont mention a raise on a thread about rejections. Its normal for people to ask for a raise. In fact I got a raise this year at my company because the company is doing excellent. People asking for a raise has nothing to do with jealousy or envy, thats complete crap.
I don't mind anyone asking for a rise. But the terms people have couched it in here is rooted in the report that Jon has become a billionaire as a result of the share sale, not anything else. As far as I am concerned, that's not a valid argument.
If people want to talk about inflation, rising production costs etc., then, fine. But the sudden wheeling out of the "photographers are starving while fat-cat Jon enjoys his billion" really doesn't strike me as a valid argument. Do you imagine Jonathon Klein or Serban over at iS are anything other than stinking rich? Even tiny agencies might be making a lot of money for their owners - tens of thousands a month, while people take a year or more to get a payout of $100. Running a pre-paid microstock site is a fabulous way to get rich. Doesn't everybody know that?
-
Seems to be a lot of "self-proclaimed" victims.
I think the thread originated as a congratulatory message. Certainly has deteriorated.
Every thread derails here
Hey, come on, your original post was far from being unnuanced!
-
Everybody asking for a raise or even mentioning a raise is marked down as being jealous or showing envy. The people spewing that nonsense are also never hit by any of what the agencies are doing and every change by the agency is making them more money. SS and IS shills is what they are. LOL
I rather think the "spewing nonsense" is on the other side. The only reason this has come up is because of the valuation of the stock by Wall Street. It's completely unrelated to production costs or anything else, it's just "oooh look how much money they've made, they should have given some of it to me instead". It's nonsense, it's not even real money, it's a notional paper profit.
What's more, I am not gaining from the SS share price, I'm certainly not gaining from iS's shenanigans and I resent being called a shill for the crime of pointing out that we don't live in a quasi-commie paradise where all the profits are handed over to the company's suppliers, as some people keep suggesting they should be. My only relationship with both these companies is as a supplier of images, the same as most others in this thread.
SS has grown its overall business, which has allowed us to boost our earnings while carrying on doing exactly what we were doing seven years ago, even using the same equipment if we want to. I don't see what is unfair about that. Oh, but I forgot, Jon's got a billion dollars that he should be giving away just like Getty and every other corporation gives its wealth away.
What a lot of molluscs!
I would agree with you if SS produced it's own assets, the fact is they do not.
Why don't you go to lunch with a few of the HCV producers who have been affected. To start look adigrosu, aquafish and many more in the face and tell them they do not deserve a raise from a company who is prospering by offering the asset they produced for sale. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131258 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131258)
-
BTW Baldrick: Yes, I actually think the people should earn the same for the same work, no matter if they are in India or the US.
Then you have no understanding of the world and the different value of money in different parts of it. [edit: But, come to think of it, that is exactly what SS provides: we all get paid enough for artists in India to live on quite handsomely!]
And I'm not saying that people should refuse a rise, or not ask for one. What I am saying is that they should not become hostile towards a company they have chosen to market their goods through just because it is doing well.
It seems that it is perfectly all right to put a lot of time and effort into supplying a company that never pays out because it sells so slowly that you never hit the payout level, but it is unacceptable for a company to do so well that it pays you month after month without fail.
You guys seem to embrace failure and hate success - and you seem to prefer to be partnered with companies that never pay you than with those that do pay you, because those that pay out are unacceptably capitalist. Strange. Very strange, I really don't understand the mindset.
-
Why don't you go to lunch with a few of the HCV producers who have been affected. To start look adigrosu, aquafish and many more in the face and tell them they do not deserve a raise from a company who is prospering by offering the asset they produced for sale. [url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131258[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131258[/url])
No problem. I'll pay for a five-star lunch if you arrange for them to come to Qatar.
-
Seems to be a lot of "self-proclaimed" victims.
I think the thread originated as a congratulatory message. Certainly has deteriorated.
Every thread derails here
Hey, come on, your original post was far from being unnuanced!
LOL. But a thread doesnt derail with the OP, only the second post has that power :)
Cheeky comment, thats all it was, and the thread is banjaxed. Ganky muck savages.
-
A division of opinion based on different world-views, that's all.
-
Hostile towards SS? embrace failure and hate success? I must be missing something completely. I am done.
-
Its not mollucs or whatever you call it, I am not calling you a shill either. You are all putting way to much weight on someone saying they want a raise because they are jealous or because Jon is a billionaire. Its fallacies. I even made it clear it was a cheeky comment. Everybody asking for a raise gets jumped on. Whatever. But its these kind of threads that a raise is mentioned. You dont mention a raise on a thread about rejections. Its normal for people to ask for a raise. In fact I got a raise this year at my company because the company is doing excellent. People asking for a raise has nothing to do with jealousy or envy, thats complete crap.
I don't mind anyone asking for a rise. But the terms people have couched it in here is rooted in the report that Jon has become a billionaire as a result of the share sale, not anything else. As far as I am concerned, that's not a valid argument.
If people want to talk about inflation, rising production costs etc., then, fine. But the sudden wheeling out of the "photographers are starving while fat-cat Jon enjoys his billion" really doesn't strike me as a valid argument. Do you imagine Jonathon Klein or Serban over at iS are anything other than stinking rich? Even tiny agencies might be making a lot of money for their owners - tens of thousands a month, while people take a year or more to get a payout of $100. Running a pre-paid microstock site is a fabulous way to get rich. Doesn't everybody know that?
He sold shares of a company that mainly consists of our content. Honestly, nobody is envying his success and he did a good job with SS, but he could not have done it without us. I never saw anybody selling shares for a billion worth for a empty domain lol
-
He sold shares of a company that mainly consists of our content. Honestly, nobody is envying his success and he did a good job with SS, but he could not have done it without us. I never saw anybody selling shares for a billion worth for a empty domain lol
And so did Bruce, and so did the StockXpert guys, and so did Canstock, and so did .....
Sure, it is hard to see how the value of our work enhances someone else's company's valuation, but that's just how the system works. Distribution of other people's work is big business - look at e-bay or Amazon, they are essentially the same. Facebook is even more nebulous.
We can post threads here or on SS asking for a rise if we like, I doubt that it will make any difference. Or, if the terms are unacceptable we can undermine his share price by stopping supplying his business - though, of course, we will suffer a lot more than the agency.
-
He sold shares of a company that mainly consists of our content. Honestly, nobody is envying his success and he did a good job with SS, but he could not have done it without us. I never saw anybody selling shares for a billion worth for a empty domain lol
And so did Bruce, and so did the StockXpert guys, and so did Canstock, and so did .....
Sure, it is hard to see how the value of our work enhances someone else's company's valuation, but that's just how the system works. Distribution of other people's work is big business - look at e-bay or Amazon, they are essentially the same. Facebook is even more nebulous.
We can post threads here or on SS asking for a rise if we like, I doubt that it will make any difference. Or, if the terms are unacceptable we can undermine his share price by stopping supplying his business - though, of course, we will suffer a lot more than the agency.
So, what are you basically trying to say? That our content is worthless? I cannot even get emotional about that...lol...this is really getting too stupid, I`m out too...
-
So, what are you basically trying to say? That our content is worthless? I cannot even get emotional about that...lol...this is really getting too stupid, I`m out too...
A sad misrepresentation. I am saying that it is worth what we can get for it. You, apparently, think it has some enhanced value becuase of the SS share price, but it doesn't.
-
Why should someone in India be getting a full-time US wage? Why should someone who is self-employed supplying a dozen companies with their product have a right to a livable wage (by US standards) from each of those companies? Why should anybody be entitled to more than they have freely agreed to accept for their work? Why should artists with all sorts of different skills and abilities, and levels of effort, all be entitled to a US living wage? Should that apply to everyone with more than 10 images, or more than 100, or more than 1,000 or more than 10,000? Or should they all get the same regardless of everything, and regardless of whether their work sells or not?
I mean, really, this "workers deserve a living wage" stuff - while it is fair enough for US employees - is utter nonsense when you start trying to apply it to any Tom, Dick or Harry who happens to have sent a few pictures to an agency. We are NOT employees, we are individual businesses working for ourselves and using whatever different agency arrangements happen to suit us.
It's less about deserving it and more about opportunity to achieve it.
Take SS's 2011 revenue of 120 million dollars. I assume they paid out around 30% of that to contributors ($36 mil). That works out to 3 million a month. It all sounds very respectable until you start dividing it up.
SS has 35K contributors. If you divided that evenly that would be about $85 a piece, but we all know that isn't happening. Let's say only 10K of the contributors are getting paid regularly (maybe, it's less). 50% of those (5000) are getting $100 a month. That takes out $500K of your 3 million. Another 40% (4000) are getting $500 a month. That eats up another $2 million, so I only have $500K left to pay my remaining 10%. Which would mean I can only pay 500 people $1000 a month.
Obviously, people are making more than that, but it is hard to slice up the pie to give out too much money. I could give it to 1500 contributors and pay them all $2000 a month or 750 contributors at $4000 a month, but neither of those are happening either since that would leave nothing for all the little guys.
My point in this long rambling post was that there just isn't that much opportunity to make larger wages.
-
My point in this long rambling post was that there just isn't that much opportunity to make larger wages.
Exactly. A 10% or 20% increase would probably be enough to put the company into trouble but would make very little difference to the suppliers.
We need a strong company to represent us and, hopefully, to increase its reach so that we earn more from its organic growth. There is much more to be had from that than from trying to wring all the profits out of it. I got $200 from just two SOD sales there last month, more than Alamy brought me, lets see them bring us more of those.
-
I do love seeing how a couple of people methodically go through the posts putting -1 on everything that contradicts their prejudices. It's like watching someone shove their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and shout "who-nanny-na-na, I'm not listening" to try to blank out unwelcome realities. But you know you can't resist reading it, can you?
-
The old socialist "we're starving and you're growing fat on our sweat and toil" line can be wheeled out by any employee who feels envious of the business owner's lifestyle.
Is it envy if it's true? How many people are making a livable wage (by US standards where SS is located) off their SS earnings alone?
Why should someone in India be getting a full-time US wage? Why should someone who is self-employed supplying a dozen companies with their product have a right to a livable wage (by US standards) from each of those companies? Why should anybody be entitled to more than they have freely agreed to accept for their work? Why should artists with all sorts of different skills and abilities, and levels of effort, all be entitled to a US living wage? Should that apply to everyone with more than 10 images, or more than 100, or more than 1,000 or more than 10,000? Or should they all get the same regardless of everything, and regardless of whether their work sells or not?
I mean, really, this "workers deserve a living wage" stuff - while it is fair enough for US employees - is utter nonsense when you start trying to apply it to any Tom, Dick or Harry who happens to have sent a few pictures to an agency. We are NOT employees, we are individual businesses working for ourselves and using whatever different agency arrangements happen to suit us.
Maybe you would like to help SS promote the company by helping them produce compelling promotional marketing material via your story. Since you reside in Qatar you might have a better chance of winning the cash prize if you move to a dark green area where I am sure they will be actively promoting these SS success stories. http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/gmaps.jsp (http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/gmaps.jsp)
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2013/07/stories/ (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2013/07/stories/)
-
The old socialist "we're starving and you're growing fat on our sweat and toil" line can be wheeled out by any employee who feels envious of the business owner's lifestyle.
Is it envy if it's true? How many people are making a livable wage (by US standards where SS is located) off their SS earnings alone?
Why should someone in India be getting a full-time US wage? Why should someone who is self-employed supplying a dozen companies with their product have a right to a livable wage (by US standards) from each of those companies? Why should anybody be entitled to more than they have freely agreed to accept for their work? Why should artists with all sorts of different skills and abilities, and levels of effort, all be entitled to a US living wage? Should that apply to everyone with more than 10 images, or more than 100, or more than 1,000 or more than 10,000? Or should they all get the same regardless of everything, and regardless of whether their work sells or not?
I mean, really, this "workers deserve a living wage" stuff - while it is fair enough for US employees - is utter nonsense when you start trying to apply it to any Tom, Dick or Harry who happens to have sent a few pictures to an agency. We are NOT employees, we are individual businesses working for ourselves and using whatever different agency arrangements happen to suit us.
Maybe you would like to help SS promote the company by helping them produce compelling promotional marketing material via your story. Since you reside in Qatar you might have a better chance of winning the cash prize if you move to a dark green area where I am sure they will be actively promoting these SS success stories. [url]http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/gmaps.jsp[/url] ([url]http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/gmaps.jsp[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2013/07/stories/[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2013/07/stories/[/url])
And your point is? What on earth are you on about concerning "compelling promotional marketing material"? I can assure you that with my rent here at $2,500 per month I do intend to move somewhere more "dark green" in due course.
Look, consider this: the argument appears to be that the success of SS and its share price proves the great value of our artwork that is (apart from a bit of computer stuff) its entire asset. But if the value of our files is defined by the SS share price, then it follows that they have the same value on Alamy and on Cutcaster. We should be offering them everywhere not for a measly 38c, no they are worth more!, we should be insisting on 50c per sale everywhere.
But, hang on, I don't want to sell at Alamy for 50c (though I have done a few times) and I don't want all my iStock sales to be for 50c, either (though that might be their new average).
You get the picture? Different outlets produce different returns. Credit sales and subscription sales are different and the sales mechanism actually changes the value of the product. We are not able to set the commission rates. And if we did, 50c per sale would destroy SS and leave us with nothing. What a great outcome that would be!
Remember also that we do not sell pictures, we sell usage rights. The ultimate worth of a picture is the sum of all the rights it accumulates. That's not 38c, it's hundreds or sometimes thousands of dollars from SS alone.
PS: In case you have never been to them, there are "dark green" places on that map where you can eat your fill at the best restaurant in town for $5 and rent a spacious house and garden for $40 a month. I've been there and seen it. Anyone on an American "living wage" of say $3,000 a month could literally live the lifestyle of a millionaire in parts of Asia.
-
This issue has nothing to do with emotions like jealousy, or with irrational feelings that some companies are "good" and some are "bad". Or with imagined ideas of what Jon Oringer is like, personally. Forget all that stuff and just think about economics.
A market in which the middleman is making an extraordinary killing, and has total control over suppliers' prices, is neither efficient in economic terms, nor fair in human terms. Nevertheless that's where stock photography has ended up. The reasons have to do with history and technology: basically, it's globablization.
Steve Jobs inspired a lot of hero worship and became virtually a cult figure. At the same time, workers in China were beaten and abused, and paid a subsistence wage, to produce Apple products at prices that were deemed necessary and appropriate. I don't hate Steve Jobs, I think he accomplished great things. That doesn't mean I think Foxconn is in fact the Best Of All Possible Worlds.
-
Hostile towards SS? embrace failure and hate success? I must be missing something completely. I am done.
Show me a thread about Cutcaster or Featurepics - or any of the other bottom 25 - that is critical of them and their achievements in the way people have been about SS.
Nobody criticises the sites that deliver nothing but consume our time and effort to return nothing at all, ever. But do well, pay people thousands of dollars, and, hey, you're a capitalist swine stealing the value of our work.
Yes, lots of people here hate success and love failure, this thread proves it.
-
Show me a thread about Cutcaster or Featurepics - or any of the other bottom 25 - that is critical of them and their achievements in the way people have been about SS.
Nobody criticises the sites that deliver nothing but consume our time and effort to return nothing at all, ever. But do well, pay people thousands of dollars, and, hey, you're a capitalist swine stealing the value of our work.
Yes, lots of people here hate success and love failure, this thread proves it.
Again, it's not about hating success. It's about sharing in that success. I don't limit that criticism to SS either. The same can be said for a lot of agencies.
-
Hostile towards SS? embrace failure and hate success? I must be missing something completely. I am done.
Show me a thread about Cutcaster or Featurepics - or any of the other bottom 25 - that is critical of them and their achievements in the way people have been about SS.
Nobody criticises the sites that deliver nothing but consume our time and effort to return nothing at all, ever. But do well, pay people thousands of dollars, and, hey, you're a capitalist swine stealing the value of our work.
Yes, lots of people here hate success and love failure, this thread proves it.
Many of the low end companies do their part in my income...why talk them down? To have even less competition and more power to fewer companies? None of the People here critizing SS or any other company hate success. They just have a clear business perspective and do not just think one dimensional. As stockastic pointed out: its not about people or sympathy or emotion. Its about business. And your view should remain clear on that. Worshipping a company or the leader of the company is not a analytical view neither would be envy.
-
Again, it's not about hating success. It's about sharing in that success. I don't limit that criticism to SS either. The same can be said for a lot of agencies.
Exactly right.
Look, I'm not saying that anyone deserves a handout just because SS is doing well these days. But I don't think it's out of line to suggest that our part in SS doing well may be a little understated (yanking the rug out from under us on the referral program speaks to that), and that there is legitimate cause for concern about what the next ten years will bring for contributors. It's hard not to think that something is really wrong when I'm looking at my stats and getting seriously concerned about my future in this business while reading about Jon's billion-dollar stock holdings.
Sure I'm happy for the guy, but man does it sting a little when I watched a few grand go out the window with the end of the referral program and then see my earnings sliding lately despite new uploads. It's tough to not feel like I'm being shorted when it's a constant struggle just to stay afloat while the company itself is doing better and better.
"I am Shutterstock." That's the tagline of this new promo they launched today. Am I Shutterstock? I like to think so. I love this company, I really do. But I don't know if they realize how tough it is to be a contributor sometimes. And while I certainly do want to make a 5-minute video talking about all of the good that SS has brought me, I feel like I'd need to spend at least a minute of that video asking them to remember what we all did for the past several years to help Shutterstock become what it is. I hope they remember that we weren't just referring people to SS to make a few bucks. We were ambassadors to artists who might have otherwise bought into the anti-microstock rhetoric and passed on joining. Heck, some of us were outright mocked for doing what we do here. I worked for a design agency when I started with SS and people I worked with thought I was an idiot doing all this work to sell images for $0.25.
We all helped SS grow into what it is today by taking chances years ago and pushing this microstock thing when no one was sure where we were pushing it to. And we backed SS above all other companies because SS was doing right by us. We had a partnership. Or at least it seemed like one. Nowadays I'm not so sure.
"I am Shutterstock." Sure, I can say that. But is Shutterstock still the artists? I don't think we need another 10 years to find out. I hope this company can definitively show that they are still concerned about their contributors, and they haven't forgotten our part in what SS is today. And maybe that doesn't equate to a raise or a bonus or anything for us, but it would be nice to know that we can still share in the success of the company if we want to. Right now I'm not so sure that we have much say in it anymore.