MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Q1 numbers; Stan Pavlovsky resigned  (Read 8332 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: May 04, 2022, 21:55 »
+2
Wow.  Thanks for sharing this and your thoughts.
I am glad I have started to spend time more on my art photography.


« Reply #51 on: May 05, 2022, 00:41 »
+7
The only way SS would increase commissions is if its in their business interest to do so. Very few folks left when they cut commissions. As far as theyre concerned, lower commissions doesnt hurt their business.

Agreed. I would like to see them do something to stop their download numbers from slipping....and maybe get them to increase??

The only way they are going to get DL numbers to go up is to charge less - and pay you less and no - you won't make up the difference in volume. If they can't treat artists right I hope they crash and burn.

« Reply #52 on: May 05, 2022, 02:44 »
+9
The only way SS would increase commissions is if its in their business interest to do so. Very few folks left when they cut commissions. As far as theyre concerned, lower commissions doesnt hurt their business.

Agreed. I would like to see them do something to stop their download numbers from slipping....and maybe get them to increase??

The only way they are going to get DL numbers to go up is to charge less - and pay you less and no - you won't make up the difference in volume. If they can't treat artists right I hope they crash and burn.

There is another way, but it would involve staffing a department to clean up the database of all the dross they've approved in the last few years, sort out the search so that it doesn't return rubbish as being the best they have to offer, bring back the 7 out of 10 test and clamp down on stolen content.

If they housekeep, it would improve downloads for contributors with good, solid portfolios. At the moment we are losing to thieves, newbies who get their 3 slightly out of focus back yard shots pushed high in the search, just because they are new, and a system that loses images left and right, meaning when they finally get published they are buried on page 57.

It's short term cost for long term gain but, as the last few years have shown, Shutterstock  CEOs prefer to go with short term gain, and to hell with the future.

Whoever takes over, let's hope he/she has a mind to build some bridges with the suppliers.

Edit: I don't think that there's any chance that the commissions will be raised again and, despite the hollow promise that, on balance, we would earn as much as before, a good way to rebuild a relationship with contributors would be to calculate levels based on the previous year's downloads or on a rolling 12 month period. I don't hold out much hope, but there might be an olive branch in there somewhere.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2022, 03:27 by KuriousKat »

« Reply #53 on: May 05, 2022, 03:47 »
+1
Just wonder who'd be brave enough to become the new captain of this sinking ship.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #54 on: May 05, 2022, 07:11 »
+1
Wow.  Thanks for sharing this and your thoughts.
I am glad I have started to spend time more on my art photography.

Be aware that these stock sites also have their tentacles into art. I'm in the process of setting up a Shopify website and have stumbled on POD apps that have integrations into stock sites to use images. You can create a print, tshirt or whatever using images from Shutterstock, Getty and other sites. Not sure if there's any extra cost or what contributors are getting paid for this, but regardless our micro work is being used to create products and possibly being used to resell them.

« Reply #55 on: May 05, 2022, 12:19 »
0
staffing a department to clean up the database of all the dross they've approved in the last few years, sort out the search so that it doesn't return rubbish

The faster approach would be start fresh.

« Reply #56 on: May 05, 2022, 12:55 »
0
They aren't going to change the legacy stock business other than tweaks to the contributor commission and the pricing. When they changed the commission structure a couple of years ago, despite noise from some contributors, nothing changed. The database continued to grow and SS continued selling stock. So don't expect anything good but don't be surprised if commissions change for the worse.

For a new CEO, diversification will be the name of the game. They need to get into emerging technologies and trends and they need to find high margin business.

wds

« Reply #57 on: May 05, 2022, 13:07 »
+1
They need to do something to get their lagging downloads up....either that or totally implode and go away.

« Reply #58 on: May 05, 2022, 14:40 »
+2


"The middleman" is not a "parasite", but a critical component of the market, a component allowing the expertise to flourish, instead of being wasted with collateral activities.
The farmer can focus on farming, and the photographer on photography, while the middleman is bridging the gap between expertise and customers.

Obviously, there are always middlemen trying to push their luck, but the market has a natural tendency to reward those middlemen who understand where the equilibrium point is.

Well agree or disagree, the role of the middleman has changed in recent years. Middlemen used to be tour operators, travel agents, taxi companies, banks, auction houses. Some still exist. I lived on as a golf tour operator because of unique local knowledge and connections but a stock provider telling me which picture I should use? I dont think so.

I have been selling on Etsy lately, not photographs, just clearing a house. Users have called a strike because selling fees have gone up to 6.5%. I compare it to auction houses (typically 29% plus moving and photography fees (harrumph)  and think it a bargain. I compare it to stock sites and my eyes pop out. What is it the stock sites do with a large-scale search that entitles them to so much of contributor earnings?

« Reply #59 on: May 06, 2022, 19:43 »
+5
Shutterstock shares were worth $120 six months ago. So its a 50% loss in half a year.  It is likely that many contributors when they were degraded to level one at the start of the year stopped adding to their portfolios. I suspect the quality of fresh images is not what it used to be as a result. How long can a CEO remain under such circumstances?  Lets hope this move will result in a better scheme for contributors. I am glad SS will be under new management.

« Reply #60 on: May 06, 2022, 20:05 »
+5
Kinda like looking for a new captain of the Titanic after its hit the iceberg and the incumbent captain bails outta ship on the most luxurious of lifeboats.   

OM

« Reply #61 on: May 07, 2022, 03:34 »
+3
Presumably Stan and senior management team +Jon are smart and all made out like bandits. Lots of insider selling in the past year and no insider buying. When Stan arrived in April 2020, SSTK was $32 (after years of 'meandering' between $50 and $30) and a year later it was at $90 another 6 months on and it was at $120. Stan did exactly what Jon wanted him to do...get the stock price up and fast. With all the stock options packages a CEO can get rich pretty quickly with a 3 or 4-fold increase in stock price. Time to move on to pastures greener (for him).


« Reply #62 on: May 07, 2022, 05:00 »
+10
Stan should get an honorary compensation from Adobe for making them stronger and picking up all the customers and artists Shutterstock no longer wanted.

« Last Edit: May 09, 2022, 02:00 by cobalt »

« Reply #63 on: May 08, 2022, 13:56 »
0

« Reply #64 on: May 08, 2022, 14:27 »
+1
I don't know what this means but I just read this today. Oringer's coming back?

https://simplywall.st/stocks/us/retail/nyse-sstk/shutterstock/news/trade-alert-the-founder-of-shutterstock-inc-nysesstk-jonatha

Well his tweets against contributers won't be win.

« Reply #65 on: May 08, 2022, 20:48 »
+2
I don't know what this means but I just read this today. Oringer's coming back?

https://simplywall.st/stocks/us/retail/nyse-sstk/shutterstock/news/trade-alert-the-founder-of-shutterstock-inc-nysesstk-jonatha

It seems as if he bought back what he sold on May 4th & 5th - about the same $3.1m.

https://investor.shutterstock.com/static-files/5ec66022-df65-41b4-aafd-780bb6215243

I don't see an SEC filing for the purchase, but there should be one next week. The insider information on Yahoo Finance only goes to May 7th and doesn't the transactions in the above SEC filing from last week.

https://finance.yahoo.com/screener/insider/ORINGER%20JONATHAN

https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/sstk/sec-filings

Possibly he's trying to build investor confidence - that Boardroom Alpha article I linked to a few posts back was making much of the fact that insiders were selling and not buying?

« Last Edit: May 09, 2022, 10:49 by Jo Ann Snover »

« Reply #66 on: May 08, 2022, 22:44 »
+4
When Stan arrived in April 2020, SSTK was $32 (after years of 'meandering' between $50 and $30) and a year later it was at $90 another 6 months on and it was at $120. Stan did exactly what Jon wanted him to do...get the stock price up and fast
I'm not sure how much you could contribute the raise of the stock to Stan. Almost every technology company went up during those crazy lockdown times.


« Reply #67 on: May 09, 2022, 12:48 »
0


"The middleman" is not a "parasite", but a critical component of the market, a component allowing the expertise to flourish, instead of being wasted with collateral activities.
The farmer can focus on farming, and the photographer on photography, while the middleman is bridging the gap between expertise and customers.

Obviously, there are always middlemen trying to push their luck, but the market has a natural tendency to reward those middlemen who understand where the equilibrium point is.

Well agree or disagree, the role of the middleman has changed in recent years. Middlemen used to be tour operators, travel agents, taxi companies, banks, auction houses. Some still exist. I lived on as a golf tour operator because of unique local knowledge and connections but a stock provider telling me which picture I should use? I dont think so.


Sure, when middlemen use to be only what you described, photographers were only shooting on film.

Agree or disagree, both the middleman's and the photographer's job descriptions have evolved in the digital world.  ;)
« Last Edit: May 09, 2022, 19:25 by Zero Talent »

zeljkok

  • Non Linear Existence
« Reply #68 on: May 09, 2022, 19:25 »
+1
Stan should get an honorary compensation from Adobe for making them stronger and picking up all the customers and artists Shutterstock no longer wanted.

Great comment!

It would be really interesting to know some numbers behind.  I have only my own example;  since I stopped uploading to Shutterstock, several fresh images -that would normally be uploaded to SS as well- sold on Adobe, few on Alamy too.  So this is direct loss.  Now single contributor is just a drop in the ocean, but with enough drops ...

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #69 on: May 09, 2022, 20:19 »
+2
Imagine you are CEO of SS starting tomorrow. How would you improve it?

Since their job is to increase shareholder value, whatever they do won't be good for contributors. If anyone thinks a new superhero CEO will swoop in and save contributor bacon, welcome to fantasy land.

I think that's a major point and where anyone who thinks they care about us has missed the situation. "Over the past six months SSTK shares declined 45% while insiders sold $74.5M worth of stock. With the company clearly at a crossroads, we think insider trading activities reflect poorly and would like to see evidence of some alignment here. "

What the people on top want is more investor confidence, a higher share price and more profit for Jon and the board and officers who get paid in stock shares and bonuses. Now that the stock is down 45%, SSTK can buy back stock, bump it up again, and make more money.

None of that includes artists or increasing our income. We are an expense!

Stan should get an honorary compensation from Adobe for making them stronger and picking up all the customers and artists Shutterstock no longer wanted.


True and Adobe should publicly thank him.  ;)

Presumably Stan and senior management team +Jon are smart and all made out like bandits. Lots of insider selling in the past year and no insider buying. When Stan arrived in April 2020, SSTK was $32 (after years of 'meandering' between $50 and $30) and a year later it was at $90 another 6 months on and it was at $120. Stan did exactly what Jon wanted him to do...get the stock price up and fast. With all the stock options packages a CEO can get rich pretty quickly with a 3 or 4-fold increase in stock price. Time to move on to pastures greener (for him).



I think that's a good conclusion. Pretty rich might be understated... filthy rich?

When is the Getty SPAC going to start selling the stock? Will this make it happen?

« Reply #70 on: May 16, 2022, 08:08 »
+4
thx for the analysis.

a) I think photograhers/videopgraphers need to figure out how to market their own works. obviously these "good news" announcements for the sites are almost always just for the execs, not the contributers.

OM

« Reply #71 on: May 17, 2022, 07:26 »
0
Imagine you are CEO of SS starting tomorrow. How would you improve it?

Since their job is to increase shareholder value, whatever they do won't be good for contributors. If anyone thinks a new superhero CEO will swoop in and save contributor bacon, welcome to fantasy land.

I think that's a major point and where anyone who thinks they care about us has missed the situation. "Over the past six months SSTK shares declined 45% while insiders sold $74.5M worth of stock. With the company clearly at a crossroads, we think insider trading activities reflect poorly and would like to see evidence of some alignment here. "

What the people on top want is more investor confidence, a higher share price and more profit for Jon and the board and officers who get paid in stock shares and bonuses. Now that the stock is down 45%, SSTK can buy back stock, bump it up again, and make more money.

None of that includes artists or increasing our income. We are an expense!

Stan should get an honorary compensation from Adobe for making them stronger and picking up all the customers and artists Shutterstock no longer wanted.


True and Adobe should publicly thank him.  ;)

Presumably Stan and senior management team +Jon are smart and all made out like bandits. Lots of insider selling in the past year and no insider buying. When Stan arrived in April 2020, SSTK was $32 (after years of 'meandering' between $50 and $30) and a year later it was at $90 another 6 months on and it was at $120. Stan did exactly what Jon wanted him to do...get the stock price up and fast. With all the stock options packages a CEO can get rich pretty quickly with a 3 or 4-fold increase in stock price. Time to move on to pastures greener (for him).



I think that's a good conclusion. Pretty rich might be understated... filthy rich?

When is the Getty SPAC going to start selling the stock? Will this make it happen?

Filthy rich? = Seriously effluent!  ;D

« Reply #72 on: May 17, 2022, 07:58 »
+3

When is the Getty SPAC going to start selling the stock? Will this make it happen?

The good question is why a stock photo agency should be on the stock market? The reason for a presence on the stock market is raising money for investments. A stock photo agency does not own a lot of equipment. or property. We are the ones who own the equipment. A stock agency's servers are likely rented as well as the property/office. These are all running costs just like staff salaries. None of these are investments that are likely to pay back some day. Marketing is also ongoing costs, that should pay back if the marketing is succesful. So Shutterstock needed a lot of capital, and joined the stock market, but for what? Was there a big hole in the budget? Did they invest a lot of money in AI review systems, and the costs went out of control?
Being on the stock market is a cost, and some small and mid cap companies withdraw when their investments have paid back, maybe they maintain a smaller stock portflio for the actual owners, that may be a tax benefit.

somewhere

« Reply #73 on: May 18, 2022, 02:21 »
+4
Adobe Creative Cloud ad on Shutterstock site. Nice.

« Reply #74 on: May 18, 2022, 02:53 »
0
Adobe Creative Cloud ad on Shutterstock site. Nice.

Incredible! I have never seen BMW ads on the website of Mercedes Benz.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
54 Replies
16822 Views
Last post March 26, 2009, 06:18
by Peiling
58 Replies
14779 Views
Last post April 19, 2021, 07:12
by duns123
33 Replies
7522 Views
Last post June 08, 2020, 17:59
by Jo Ann Snover
6 Replies
2639 Views
Last post August 03, 2021, 11:41
by Uncle Pete
18 Replies
4000 Views
Last post June 18, 2022, 13:25
by cobalt

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle