Author Topic: Shutterstock Preparing To Go Public In 2012? (Read 16241 times)

luissantos84 · « **on:** June 30, 2011, 10:20 »

is this something to be worried about?

http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2011/06/shutterstock-preparing-to-going-public-in-2012-tim-bixby-joins-shutterstock-as-new-cfo.html

RT · « **Reply #1 on:** June 30, 2011, 11:14 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 30, 2011, 10:20

is this something to be worried about?

Somebody left, somebody joined and somebody made a wild speculation on a blog based on those two things - No, nothing to get worried about!

luissantos84 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 30, 2011, 11:27 »

I was thinking of the same but always good to hear from other, thanks

melastmohican · « **Reply #3 on:** June 30, 2011, 11:50 »

If this happens it actually might be good cause company's operations will be more transparent.

michaeldb · « **Reply #4 on:** June 30, 2011, 12:00 »

If SS goes public I will buy shares, go to the shareholders meeting, and demand loudly that the reviewing be fixed!

luissantos84 · « **Reply #5 on:** June 30, 2011, 12:06 »

Quote from: michaeldb on June 30, 2011, 12:00

If SS goes public I will buy shares, go to the shareholders meeting, and demand loudly that the reviewing be fixed!

demand a raise too

Artemis · « **Reply #6 on:** June 30, 2011, 12:12 »

While we're here talking about shutterstock ... anyone else wondered what happened with their plans to start a big free section? Seems awfully quiet about that one....
(sorry for the OT)

Stock_Fox · « **Reply #7 on:** June 30, 2011, 12:27 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 30, 2011, 12:06

Quote from: michaeldb on June 30, 2011, 12:00
If SS goes public I will buy shares, go to the shareholders meeting, and demand loudly that the reviewing be fixed!

demand a raise too

If I had shares of Shutterstock, I probably would not demand a raise

VB inc · « **Reply #8 on:** June 30, 2011, 12:38 »

if SS went public, wouldnt the company cut contributors earnings more since its all about the companies annual revenue going up year by year? Going public means the companies decisions are based on their stock price and they have to answer to their shareholders. If it ever goes public, im betting it only gets worse for the contributor.

steheap · « **Reply #9 on:** June 30, 2011, 12:40 »

Maybe they will give us all stock options prior to the IPO to thank us for our help in their success. I think I will buy a yacht with mine!

Steve

lagereek · « **Reply #10 on:** June 30, 2011, 12:41 »

It should be a good sign when a company goes public and I sure hope it is with SS. We will see.

MikLav · « **Reply #11 on:** June 30, 2011, 13:13 »

Quote from: melastmohican on June 30, 2011, 11:50

If this happens it actually might be good cause company's operations will be more transparent.

no, it is BAD! I work in a large multi-nationals for 15 years and I've seen so many examples of decisions taken by management to please shareholders but harming the business

edited to add: when a company is sold to investors it's pretty much the same thing - investors want to be pleased now if it will harm the business in a longer run.

sharpshot · « **Reply #12 on:** June 30, 2011, 13:26 »

Wont it make it easier for a hostile takeover by those nice people at Getty

I hope they stay private, so many companies that have shareholders end up in the wrong hands or seem to only be interested in keeping their shareholders happy. It works for some but that's a huge risk for us.

stockmarketer · « **Reply #13 on:** June 30, 2011, 13:36 »

I've been in the middle of some of these myself, so I've seen the good and the bad. Here's how I would see it playing out for contributors...

GOOD: Shareholders want constant growth. That would make SS management get very aggressive about advertising and bringing in new customers, making enhancements to the site, etc... anything to drive up sales.

BAD: Shareholders want constant growth. If SS management can't deliver higher revenue by increasing sales, they'll focus on higher profits... boosting the bottom line by cutting costs such as, you guessed it, contributor royalties.

SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN: SS could be set on a warpath to gobble up smaller players and boost their market share to please the shareholders. This would result in fewer agencies that sell our work, but with less competition, the race to the bottom in pricing could ease up and they could actually increase prices, which could benefit us, assuming royalties aren't cut.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #14 on:** June 30, 2011, 14:38 »

I know nothing about economics... before deciding if it's good or bad for us, I'd like to know: why do successful companies often feel the need to go public? which is the main reason?

LSD72 · « **Reply #15 on:** June 30, 2011, 14:46 »

If "G" buys up and takes over... my port will disappear from there.

RT · « **Reply #16 on:** June 30, 2011, 14:58 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on June 30, 2011, 14:38

I know nothing about economics... before deciding if it's good or bad for us, I'd like to know: why do successful companies often feel the need to go public? which is the main reason?

Money - The owner is effectively selling the company but rather than sell it to someone else privately they sell it to the 'public' i.e. shareholders, normally they retain a majority shareholding so that they can still run it the way they want, however as others have pointed out he/she is then having to operate the company to please the other owners, and of course the other owners want to see a good return on their investment.
Surprised nobody has speculated about Getty buying up a load of the shares !!

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #17 on:** June 30, 2011, 15:29 »

Quote from: RT on June 30, 2011, 14:58

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on June 30, 2011, 14:38
I know nothing about economics... before deciding if it's good or bad for us, I'd like to know: why do successful companies often feel the need to go public? which is the main reason?

Money - The owner is effectively selling the company but rather than sell it to someone else privately they sell it to the 'public' i.e. shareholders, normally they retain a majority shareholding so that they can still run it the way they want, however as others have pointed out he/she is then having to operate the company to please the other owners, and of course the other owners want to see a good return on their investment.
Surprised nobody has speculated about Getty buying up a load of the shares !!

Very clear, thanks. Now I know it may be not so good for us.

Mantis · « **Reply #18 on:** June 30, 2011, 16:08 »

You never know, but if they go public it will be a disaster for contributors and buyers as the claws of venture capitalists reach inward to nab them for a quick buck. Need I say Istock, Getty & H&F? The pressure to squeeze the coffers juice is pretty much the same for all public companies.

cobalt · « **Reply #19 on:** June 30, 2011, 16:09 »

If they really go public this will be important to watch, especially for us istockers.

It all depends how much of a percentage of the company they float. The current owners can decide to keep a majority share, then the stock holders influence is limited.

The main goal of an IPO is to collect money, usually to expand and grow the business aggressively. The owners will be tied into long term contracts otherwise why would you buy the shares? Preparing an IPO, going on the roadshow is expensive and needs a lot of attention.

Unfortunately I cannot see any advantage for istock if they go through with it :-(

helix7 · « **Reply #20 on:** June 30, 2011, 16:59 »

Off topic:

More interesting to me than the possibility of an SS IPO was the reference to Betsy Reid's article and her comment about the party being over at istock. Gotta love how she takes one small bit of data and uses it to spin another anti-microstock rant. Same old Betsy, still clinging to her antiquated ideas, some of which were probably what led to her departure from the SAA. It seemed like she wasn't evolving with the organization or the stock industry at large and preferred to use distorted (and sometimes incorrect) data to push her own agenda, while the SAA began to embrace changes in the industry.

The more things change, the more they stay the same with some people it seems.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #21 on:** June 30, 2011, 20:45 »

Quote from: Stock_Fox on June 30, 2011, 12:27

If I had shares of Shutterstock, I probably would not demand a raise

Me neither, and I wouldn't vote to give one either. But I'd buy shares of SS if it went public and let everyone here work for me.

yuliang11 · « **Reply #22 on:** June 30, 2011, 23:04 »

way to go SS!

lagereek · « **Reply #23 on:** July 01, 2011, 00:07 »

Could be WORSE!! at least they didnt stab us in the back like Bruce did. Going public need not be anything to worry about, its a pretty normal way to go.

nruboc · « **Reply #24 on:** July 01, 2011, 00:30 »

Quote from: lagereek on July 01, 2011, 00:07

Could be WORSE!! at least they didnt stab us in the back like Bruce did. Going public need not be anything to worry about, its a pretty normal way to go.

I don't think Bruce stabbed us in the back, he cashed out, simple as that, he didn't owe us anything. The same, even more so can be said about Jon Oringer, who in my opinion deserves to be rewarded more than anyone else in this industry. If he decides to cash out at some point, I would not be surprised, and certainly wouldn't hold it against him, I would congratulate him. Hopefully, he does stay though.

The people that stabbed you in the back, IMHO, are the schills still at IStockphoto who bend over to their Getty overlords.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock Preparing To Go Public In 2012? (Read 16241 times)

luissantos84

RT

luissantos84

melastmohican

michaeldb

luissantos84

Artemis

Stock_Fox

VB inc

steheap

lagereek

MikLav

sharpshot

stockmarketer

microstockphoto.co.uk

LSD72

RT

microstockphoto.co.uk

Mantis

cobalt

helix7

RacePhoto

yuliang11

lagereek

nruboc

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors