Author Topic: Shutterstock Creates First Silicon Alley Billionaire (Read 36002 times)

lisafx · « **Reply #125 on:** July 02, 2013, 14:46 »

Quote from: gostwyck on July 01, 2013, 15:59

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #126 on:** July 02, 2013, 15:36 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 02, 2013, 14:46

Quote from: gostwyck on July 01, 2013, 15:59
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.

cthoman · « **Reply #127 on:** July 02, 2013, 15:38 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 02, 2013, 14:46

Quote from: gostwyck on July 01, 2013, 15:59
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).

lisafx · « **Reply #128 on:** July 02, 2013, 16:12 »

Quote from: gostwyck on July 02, 2013, 15:36

Quote from: lisafx on July 02, 2013, 14:46
Quote from: gostwyck on July 01, 2013, 15:59
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.

Milinz · « **Reply #129 on:** July 02, 2013, 17:56 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 02, 2013, 16:12

Quote from: gostwyck on July 02, 2013, 15:36
Quote from: lisafx on July 02, 2013, 14:46
Quote from: gostwyck on July 01, 2013, 15:59
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.

Tror · « **Reply #130 on:** July 03, 2013, 05:00 »

Quote from: cthoman on July 02, 2013, 15:38

Quote from: lisafx on July 02, 2013, 14:46
Quote from: gostwyck on July 01, 2013, 15:59
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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #131 on:** July 03, 2013, 05:34 »

Quote from: Tror on July 03, 2013, 05:00

Quote from: cthoman on July 02, 2013, 15:38
Quote from: lisafx on July 02, 2013, 14:46
Quote from: gostwyck on July 01, 2013, 15:59
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.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #132 on:** July 03, 2013, 05:47 »

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.

Tror · « **Reply #133 on:** July 03, 2013, 06:06 »

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

gbalex · « **Reply #134 on:** July 03, 2013, 11:01 »

Quote from: gostwyck on July 03, 2013, 05:34

Quote from: Tror on July 03, 2013, 05:00
Quote from: cthoman on July 02, 2013, 15:38
Quote from: lisafx on July 02, 2013, 14:46
Quote from: gostwyck on July 01, 2013, 15:59
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.

ARTPUPPY · « **Reply #135 on:** July 03, 2013, 11:57 »

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.

stockastic · « **Reply #136 on:** July 03, 2013, 12:40 »

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

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.

cthoman · « **Reply #137 on:** July 03, 2013, 13:02 »

Quote from: stockastic on July 03, 2013, 12:40

In economics that's called 'disintermediation' .

I call it MyStockVectors.

stockastic · « **Reply #138 on:** July 03, 2013, 13:03 »

Quote from: cthoman on July 03, 2013, 13:02

Quote from: stockastic on July 03, 2013, 12:40
In economics that's called 'disintermediation' .

I call it MyStockVectors.

Don't know about MyStockVectors but sure, the process is already underway.

djpadavona · « **Reply #139 on:** July 03, 2013, 14:31 »

Quote from: stockastic on June 28, 2013, 15:37

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

djpadavona · « **Reply #140 on:** July 03, 2013, 14:35 »

Quote from: gostwyck on June 28, 2013, 17:30

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.

sharpshot · « **Reply #141 on:** July 03, 2013, 14:46 »

Quote from: djpadavona on July 03, 2013, 14:35

Quote from: gostwyck on June 28, 2013, 17:30

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.

Ron · « **Reply #142 on:** July 03, 2013, 15:05 »

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?

tickstock · « **Reply #143 on:** July 03, 2013, 15:08 »

gbalex · « **Reply #144 on:** July 04, 2013, 13:25 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 29, 2013, 10:38

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on June 29, 2013, 10:31
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

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.

crashoran · « **Reply #145 on:** July 08, 2013, 15:20 »

Thread should be titled: Low Wage Shutterstock Contributors Create First Silicon Alley Billionaire

oldsalt19 · « **Reply #146 on:** July 09, 2013, 16:47 »

"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.

stockastic · « **Reply #147 on:** July 09, 2013, 18:01 »

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

wollwerth · « **Reply #148 on:** July 09, 2013, 18:28 »

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.

Tror · « **Reply #149 on:** July 09, 2013, 18:41 »

Quote from: wollwerth on July 09, 2013, 18:28

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock Creates First Silicon Alley Billionaire (Read 36002 times)

lisafx

gostwyck

cthoman

lisafx

Milinz

Tror

gostwyck

Pauws99

Tror

gbalex

ARTPUPPY

stockastic

cthoman

stockastic

djpadavona

djpadavona

sharpshot

Ron

tickstock

gbalex

crashoran

oldsalt19

stockastic

wollwerth

Tror

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors