Author Topic: Shutterstock Q2 Profit Rises (Read 29647 times)

Ron · « **Reply #26 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:06 »

Who says all revenue is from selling images on SS? Offset is in there as well, no? What about Skillfeed? What about other income streams from Affiliate programs, or whatever they do to make money?

cthoman · « **Reply #27 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:07 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 08, 2013, 12:00

Contributor royalties payable 8,142

I'm not sure what that means, but I don't think that is the right spot. Those total liabilities add up to more than the revenue.

tickstock · « **Reply #28 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:11 »

tickstock · « **Reply #29 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:14 »

sharpshot · « **Reply #30 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:16 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 08, 2013, 11:52

Quote from: Ron on August 08, 2013, 11:50
I dont know if you are missing something. Give people some time to respond. I know you love to bash SS, but its a bit early still.
If you think dividing royalties paid by revenue and coming up with a number is bashing Shutterstock then you are a bit sensitive. It's just math.

Aren't you forgetting their costs? If my revenue was profit, I would be doing quite well but unfortunately profit is revenue minus costs. Running a site as big as SS and marketing it must cost quite a lot and I presume that makes your simple math completely wrong?

tickstock · « **Reply #31 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:21 »

EmberMike · « **Reply #32 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:22 »

Historically, information gleaned from these reports has lead to rough estimates of high 20% to low 30% pay to contributors. I highly doubt that it has been cut in half in the last 3 months, so this 14% number floating around has to be wrong.

I'm not saying that I can offer a more accurate number, just that it seems impossible that 14% is right.

tickstock · « **Reply #33 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:24 »

gbalex · « **Reply #34 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:24 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 08, 2013, 09:11

So am I reading this correctly, they had $56.8 million revenue and paid contributors $8.1 million?

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1616602-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q2-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=3

Snip
Even though we’re receiving and reviewing more content than ever before, our service levels and time from image submission to approval improved significantly in Q2. We also paid out more to contributors than ever before, nearly $16 million in the quarter.

tickstock · « **Reply #35 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:27 »

EmberMike · « **Reply #36 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:30 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 08, 2013, 12:24

That's what I thought but it looks very clear that the number is correct, I would appreciate it if you could find where the error is though if there is one. I did expect this report to show a lower royalty rate because of Bigstock going to a subs model but I don't think that alone would explain the drop.

There was no drop. Even if those numbers were correct (clearly they aren't or they're not actual contributor earnings) from one quarter to the next they still went up by a million.

cthoman · « **Reply #37 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:31 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 08, 2013, 12:24

Quote from: EmberMike on August 08, 2013, 12:22
Historically, information gleaned from these reports has lead to rough estimates of high 20% to low 30% pay to contributors. I highly doubt that it has been cut in half in the last 3 months, so this 14% number floating around has to be wrong.
That's what I thought but it looks very clear that the number is correct, I would appreciate it if you could find where the error is though if there is one. I did expect this report to show a lower royalty rate because of Bigstock going to a subs model but I don't think that alone would explain the drop.

Like I said above, Cost of revenue ($21,768,000) seems the more likely candidate for what they payout, but that number may not all go to contributors. I assume affiliates and other things are in there too.

cobalt · « **Reply #38 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:32 »

Well, I am reading that the average revenue per download is 2.33 Usd, obviously a mix of low subscription and higher single image downloads.

The average return people are reporting here is between 0,6 to just under a dollar, so the 30% sound plausible to me.

56 Million revenue a quarter, 21 million as cost of revenue. Somewhere in the cost of revenue for the quarter must be the royalties, because all the other expenses are listed individually (marketing, sales, It)

At least that is the way I would read this.

Would be nice if they published a weekly index on their front page: This week paid out to contributors 1.x Million Dollars etc...

From istock the last data we had was from Kelly Thompson in 2008. I wonder how much they pay out now.

Ron · « **Reply #39 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:34 »

Quote from: sharpshot on August 08, 2013, 12:16

Quote from: tickstock on August 08, 2013, 11:52
Quote from: Ron on August 08, 2013, 11:50
I dont know if you are missing something. Give people some time to respond. I know you love to bash SS, but its a bit early still.
If you think dividing royalties paid by revenue and coming up with a number is bashing Shutterstock then you are a bit sensitive. It's just math.
Aren't you forgetting their costs? If my revenue was profit, I would be doing quite well but unfortunately profit is revenue minus costs. Running a site as big as SS and marketing it must cost quite a lot and I presume that makes your simple math completely wrong?

Good point.

tickstock · « **Reply #40 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:38 »

djpadavona · « **Reply #41 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:38 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 08, 2013, 12:21

Quote from: sharpshot on August 08, 2013, 12:16
Quote from: tickstock on August 08, 2013, 11:52
Quote from: Ron on August 08, 2013, 11:50
I dont know if you are missing something. Give people some time to respond. I know you love to bash SS, but its a bit early still.
If you think dividing royalties paid by revenue and coming up with a number is bashing Shutterstock then you are a bit sensitive. It's just math.
Aren't you forgetting their costs? If my revenue was profit, I would be doing quite well but unfortunately profit is revenue minus costs. Running a site as big as SS and marketing it must cost quite a lot and I presume that makes your simple math completely wrong?
When you say you get 15% at Istock what are you referring to? It's 15% of the revenue, the actual amount a buyer paid not 15% after costs are factored in. I don't know if there are any sites that figure your royalty rate after costs.

Actually he is correct here. If you want to compare apples to apples, then you divide the commissions paid by the revenue, not the profit. That is if you want the commission rate at SS to be comparable to IS, DT, etc.

What seems to be at issue here is the amount of royalties paid, which doesn't appear to be cut-and-dry per the line item, breakout that tickstock quoted.

djpadavona · « **Reply #42 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:44 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 08, 2013, 12:38

I guess it must be part of that number and the "Contributor royalties payable" is what? I guess they aren't lying on the earnings call so it must be $15.5-16 million in royalties paid or 27-28% overall.

Did you listen to the earnings call? I just wonder if they are mixing in YTD numbers in the call. I didn't listen to it, so I cannot comment. Otherwise I don't understand the big difference between the printed quarterly report and the conference call.

tickstock · « **Reply #43 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:45 »

djpadavona · « **Reply #44 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:47 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 08, 2013, 09:13

Quote from: Ron on August 08, 2013, 05:03
You will get butchered here for asking for a raise. They will call you a hater; 'If you want a raise, produce better images'. And, 'you got a raise already, the SODs are your raise'. The SS fan boys will whiplash you for even thinking about a raise.

In fact it's more likely to head the other direction - commission cuts. As a recent IPO, they need to move their stock price up to satisfy first-round investors wanting to cash out, and the quickest way to do that is commission cuts. And as their market share continues to increase, they know photographers are even less likely to remove their images in response to cuts, because other sites are declining.

Maybe. I'm curious to see how much industry power they really will have several years down the road. There are plenty of very strong IS exclusives who left IS but refused to join SS, including one Mr. Locke. They are losing out on a lot of excellent content that will go elsewhere, and potentially build another agency into a powerhouse.

djpadavona · « **Reply #45 on:** August 08, 2013, 12:50 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 08, 2013, 12:45

Quote from: djpadavona on August 08, 2013, 12:44
Quote from: tickstock on August 08, 2013, 12:38
I guess it must be part of that number and the "Contributor royalties payable" is what? I guess they aren't lying on the earnings call so it must be $15.5-16 million in royalties paid or 27-28% overall.

Did you listen to the earnings call? I just wonder if they are mixing in YTD numbers in the call. I didn't listen to it, so I cannot comment. Otherwise I don't understand the big difference between the printed quarterly report and the conference call.
Thinking about it a little more, the "Contributor royalties payable" might be money that is left on contributors accounts but is below the payout level.

Are you looking on the balance sheet or the income sheet? If it is the balance sheet, then I believe the unpaid royalties would be as you stated, and treated as a liability (potential future expense if/when people make payout). If it is on the income sheet, then it should be a cut and dry, already paid royalty number. I used to know this stuff inside and out when I was investing, but as an options trader none of particularly matters.

stockastic · « **Reply #46 on:** August 08, 2013, 13:05 »

I don't understand the numbers, and don't need to. The basic equation is: increasing market domination, plus pressure to increase profits following an IPO, will mean reduced payments to suppliers. Those reductions may be disguised in various ways - i.e. "we're excited to announce BigStock blah blah blah" - but the logic, as I see it, is inescapable.

People who look forward to reading about Jon Orringer's' lifestyle in "Cigar Afficionado" magazine will be happy. People hoping to make microstock photography worthwhile - well, mixed feelings.

EmberMike · « **Reply #47 on:** August 08, 2013, 13:11 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 08, 2013, 12:45

Thinking about it a little more, the "Contributor royalties payable" might be money that is left on contributors accounts but is below the payout level.

You beat me to it, that's exactly what I was just thinking. It has to be money that's unpaid but accrued in contributor accounts and payable in the future.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #48 on:** August 08, 2013, 13:22 »

Quote from: BK on August 08, 2013, 07:23

So I guess they survived the loss of Yuri?

I can now reveal the reason the stock dropped back then. I bought some at 57, meaning that days later, it was fated to go off a cliff.

Anita Potter · « **Reply #49 on:** August 08, 2013, 13:25 »

No matter how you slice it, dice it and crunch numbers we're not getting the entire picture. Are those numbers pure profit or total revenue after the costs of running the company and payments (either made or still accruing) to contributors?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock Q2 Profit Rises (Read 29647 times)

tickstock

Ron

cthoman

tickstock

tickstock

sharpshot

tickstock

EmberMike

tickstock

gbalex

tickstock

EmberMike

cthoman

cobalt

Ron

tickstock

djpadavona

djpadavona

tickstock

djpadavona

djpadavona

stockastic

EmberMike

Sean Locke Photography

Anita Potter

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors