pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Q2 Profit Rises  (Read 28695 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: August 11, 2013, 13:32 »
+2
What suppliers? All I have is gear, which has been paid for by just stock earnings 10 times over, and all that I spent on it was deducted from my business taxes. I don't pay models, buy props or pay assistants. I've been using the same memory cards for two years. I don't travel to do stock shoots. My costs are negligible.

And my images don't get special treatment on Shutterstock. They're treated just like yours. I haven't been in a light box since they used to do a "New Artist" one.

On the other hand, I don't try to make microstock my main business. If that's what you mean, I can see your point. I don't think it's possible to rely solely on microstock income to support your family. In fact, I think the idea is a little absurd. I'm not sure how these factories do it. Microstock isn't designed to work that way. It's more for the millions of little people like me who have no costs, so that selling at subscription prices is little sacrifice.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2013, 13:40 by robhainer »


« Reply #76 on: August 11, 2013, 15:06 »
0
All commodity prices go up over time, even the ones with historic gluts on the market.

That's not true at all __ if you take inflation into account. When Henry VIII was king of England, for example, a simple rice pudding was quite literally considered "food fit for a king". To make rice pudding you needed sugar from as far west as the known world and rice from as far east as the known world. Rice pudding was impossibly exotic and very expensive. Nowadays those same commodities are absurdly cheap in the developed world.

Commodity prices are defined by supply and demand. I'm not sure why you might think that there exists a dearth in the supply of images that might justify an increase in their prices?

SS have stated quite clearly that they are currently 'operating for growth' (as opposed to 'operating for profit'). That means that they're not going to raise prices (and therefore royalties) for the foreseeable future. If you want 'a raise' then you'll have to do the work yourself __ just like SS themselves. If they want a raise then they have to spend the money and take the risks in order to, hopefully, sell more of our images.

« Reply #77 on: August 11, 2013, 19:34 »
+6
All commodity prices go up over time, even the ones with historic gluts on the market.


That's not true at all __ if you take inflation into account. When Henry VIII was king of England, for example, a simple rice pudding was quite literally considered "food fit for a king". To make rice pudding you needed sugar from as far west as the known world and rice from as far east as the known world. Rice pudding was impossibly exotic and very expensive. Nowadays those same commodities are absurdly cheap in the developed world.

Commodity prices are defined by supply and demand. I'm not sure why you might think that there exists a dearth in the supply of images that might justify an increase in their prices?

SS have stated quite clearly that they are currently 'operating for growth' (as opposed to 'operating for profit'). That means that they're not going to raise prices (and therefore royalties) for the foreseeable future. If you want 'a raise' then you'll have to do the work yourself __ just like SS themselves. If they want a raise then they have to spend the money and take the risks in order to, hopefully, sell more of our images.


How can you be in business and not take inflation into account? Every year our expenses go up and it costs more to produce images. Take your example of rice for instance, if I drive to the store to buy rice and then photograph it it will cost me more to purchase both rice and gas each year and the value of my royalty has gone down via inflation.

Re: Commodity prices are defined by supply and demand. I'm not sure why you might think that there exists a dearth in the supply of images that might justify an increase in their prices?

You mistake the sites willingness to drive the value of our content down to gain market share with their actual worth.  If the sites actually had to pay to produce that content themselves rest assured they would take much better care to guard the value of those assets!

Each year their market share increases and they gain a larger RPD and they are doing it based on our investments. And yes even the price of rice goes up.

As far as supply outpacing demand that is a fallacy and is not happening, despite the huge flux received over the last few months from IS exclusives.

2013 Number of paid downloads 2013 46,700,000 / Images in collection (end of 6 month period) 2013 27,300,000 = 1.7 Paid Downloads Per Image in SS collection

2012 Number of paid downloads 2012 35,900,000 / Images in collection (end of 6 month period) 2012 20,200,000 = 1.7 Paid Downloads Per Image in SS collection
   
Revenue per download Three Months Ended June 2013 2.33 vs Revenue per download Three Months Ended June 2012 2.22

http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1845768

- Quarterly revenue increases 40% from prior year period to $56.8 million
- Adjusted EBITDA increases 61% to $13.4 million
- Quarterly image downloads increase 33% to 24.3 million
- Revenue per download increases 5% to $2.33   

Number of paid downloads 2013 46,700,000
Number of paid downloads 2012 35,900,000
   
Revenue per download Three Months Ended June 2013 2.33
Revenue per download Three Months Ended June 2012 2.22
   
Images in collection (end of 6 month period) 2013 27,300,000
Images in collection (end of 6 month period) 2012 20,200,000


« Reply #78 on: August 11, 2013, 23:49 »
-5
Expenses don't matter. Our images are worth what people are willing to pay for them. No more, no less. Shutterstock pays me more for my images -- at least 10 times more -- than any other site out there. If a site comes up that can pay me more, I'd be happy to consider them.

And I'm not in this boat alone. The little chart to the right pretty much says it all. (I don't buy the iStock exclusive results either.)


« Reply #79 on: August 12, 2013, 00:16 »
-2
\
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:23 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #80 on: August 12, 2013, 03:22 »
+7
Isnt a raise a reward for doing good work, so you get paid more for doing the same work? How is adding more and better images a raise for me? If more and better and newer images dont sell its even a waste of time and money. I can only agree with Gbalex here.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 03:25 by Ron »

Tror

« Reply #81 on: August 12, 2013, 03:43 »
+4
This whole "if you want more money work harder" is pure nonsense. You could tell the same to the people working in indonesian sweat shops: hey guys, we pay just a fraction of our profit, but you ahve a opportunity! How cynic and brainwashed! And not only for the Contributor, for the Agencies too. We will simply see more of the same images in more quantity with stagnating quality and Contributors will leave the ship as soon as some alternative projects like symbiostock shows a decent monetary reward. No one likes to get ripped off. Under the current Model Databases just get bloated with similars, therefore some Clients already complain while looking for different shots like of "real people" for example.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 03:46 by Tror »

« Reply #82 on: August 12, 2013, 05:17 »
0
Jon Oringer, 39, founded 10 companies before he hit on the idea for Shutterstock, the successful stock-photo website that has made him Silicon Alley's first billionaire.

"I'd failed a whole bunch of times before that and I was willing to fail again," says Mr Oringer of his decision to go into the photography business, something he knew nothing about.

Now, after a successful stock market debut in October 2012 and with more than 28 million photos, videos and illustrations in its vast database, shares in Mr Oringer's Shutterstock are soaring.

With an ownership stake estimated at more than 55% of the company, Mr Oringer has become the first billionaire to come out of Silicon Alley - New York's thriving tech sector - with an estimated net wealth of $1.05bn (682m)."

I'm not entirely sure its really worth this much I notice hes retained control with 55% - good news

« Reply #83 on: August 12, 2013, 09:38 »
-4
\
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:22 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #84 on: August 12, 2013, 09:53 »
+6
Expenses don't matter. Our images are worth what people are willing to pay for them. No more, no less. Shutterstock pays me more for my images -- at least 10 times more -- than any other site out there. If a site comes up that can pay me more, I'd be happy to consider them.

And I'm not in this boat alone. The little chart to the right pretty much says it all. (I don't buy the iStock exclusive results either.)

You do not know what people are willing to pay for images because you have a leading site keeping prices down so that they can gain market share!

Ron

« Reply #85 on: August 12, 2013, 12:16 »
0
Jon Oringer, 39, founded 10 companies before he hit on the idea for Shutterstock, the successful stock-photo website that has made him Silicon Alley's first billionaire.

"I'd failed a whole bunch of times before that and I was willing to fail again," says Mr Oringer of his decision to go into the photography business, something he knew nothing about.

Now, after a successful stock market debut in October 2012 and with more than 28 million photos, videos and illustrations in its vast database, shares in Mr Oringer's Shutterstock are soaring.

With an ownership stake estimated at more than 55% of the company, Mr Oringer has become the first billionaire to come out of Silicon Alley - New York's thriving tech sector - with an estimated net wealth of $1.05bn (682m)."

I'm not entirely sure its really worth this much I notice hes retained control with 55% - good news

Are you quoting the BBC article?  My favorite line in that piece is:  "More than 40,000 artists submit images and videos to the Shutterstock marketplace, responding to real-time data that tells them what the site's members are looking for - a picture of a cat, for instance."
I know they have cutting edge technology over there but they've figured out after 10 years that buyers are looking for pictures of cats, I guess it really is over for the rest of the sites.
Here's the link to the article (puff piece) if you care to read it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23469410
You always use fallacies in your arguments, making them nonsense.

When its raining the sun doesnt shine. So when the sun doesnt shine, it must be raining. (I am sure someone will say the sun always shines somewhere, thats not the point)

« Reply #86 on: August 12, 2013, 12:44 »
+5
Expenses don't matter. Our images are worth what people are willing to pay for them. No more, no less. Shutterstock pays me more for my images -- at least 10 times more -- than any other site out there. If a site comes up that can pay me more, I'd be happy to consider them.

SS is gaining market share over time, at the expense of smaller companies that would pay more to contributors. So yes, not surprising that most of your sales income is coming from SS.  That isn't necessarily a good thing.

When a middleman like SS gains control of a market, payments to suppliers don't increase.  Just the opposite.


 
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 16:15 by stockastic »

« Reply #87 on: August 12, 2013, 12:52 »
-1
\

« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:22 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #88 on: August 12, 2013, 13:04 »
+3
I think SS is more about expanding the market than taking an already small market share from competitors

« Reply #89 on: August 12, 2013, 17:21 »
-2
Isnt a raise a reward for doing good work, so you get paid more for doing the same work? How is adding more and better images a raise for me? If more and better and newer images dont sell its even a waste of time and money. I can only agree with Gbalex here.

We're not employees. That's the difference. When you are self-employed, the only way to make more money is to produce more and produce better quality. It is all on you.  Asking Shutterstock for a raise "for doing good work" is like asking Shutterstock to give you paid holidays and health insurance. Might as well ask for those, too. You have about the same chance of getting them.


« Reply #90 on: August 13, 2013, 01:23 »
+6
Isnt a raise a reward for doing good work, so you get paid more for doing the same work? How is adding more and better images a raise for me? If more and better and newer images dont sell its even a waste of time and money. I can only agree with Gbalex here.


We're not employees. That's the difference. When you are self-employed, the only way to make more money is to produce more and produce better quality. It is all on you.  Asking Shutterstock for a raise "for doing good work" is like asking Shutterstock to give you paid holidays and health insurance. Might as well ask for those, too. You have about the same chance of getting them.


That is right we are suppliers and suppliers all over the world raise prices as their own expenses go up.

Just how many publicly traded companies do you think will be affected by rising supplier costs from Asia?

Asia Soaring Wages Mean Rising Prices Worldwide
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-02/asia-soaring-wages-stoke-inflation-as-factory-costs-rise.html

Snip
Executive Director Ernie Koh has a message for clients in 50 countries who complain about the Singapore-based furniture makers first price increase in two years: Take it or leave it.

Kodas factories in China, Malaysia and Vietnam are battling rising costs as governments in Asia increase minimum wages to curb discontent over a widening wealth gap. While weak global growth and increased competition limited the ability of producers to raise prices during the past five years, Koh says they cant go on absorbing the additional expenses.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2013, 01:27 by gbalex »

« Reply #91 on: August 13, 2013, 06:59 »
-6
OK. Go ahead. Raise your prices. I won't raise mine. I would even consider cutting mine if it resulted in more sales.

You're ignoring the other parts of the equation. Competition and what customers are willing to pay for your product.


EmberMike

« Reply #92 on: August 13, 2013, 08:33 »
+8
OK. Go ahead. Raise your prices. I won't raise mine. I would even consider cutting mine if it resulted in more sales.

You're ignoring the other parts of the equation. Competition and what customers are willing to pay for your product.

I don't think anyone is suggesting a raise in prices. Any raise should come from the agencies, not the buyers end of things. Because we all know that there is still room there for contributors to get more. 20%, 30%, even 50% of each sale is low. I can't help mentioning the Apple App Store example again, where developers get 70% of each sale.

That said, I don't expect to ever see a raise in contributor royalties. I just don't think any of these companies care if it's impossible for any of us to have a long-term career in this business. I can't do this 10 years from now if I can't grow my income to keep up with increasing costs of living. But do any of these companies care about that? So I have to drop out of microstock in the next five to ten years. Big deal. Why should they care?

That's the real problem. Not whether or not anyone deserves a raise or whether these companies can afford it (they all can, it's a fact). The real problem is that these companies have zero incentive to helping us make this a sustainable (sorry to use that word) business for contributors.

A raise will never happen, that's just how it is. So we can either struggle to keep up by constantly cranking out more content faster, or expect to be doing something else to make a living in the next several years.

« Reply #93 on: August 13, 2013, 09:27 »
+1

I don't think anyone is suggesting a raise in prices. Any raise should come from the agencies, not the buyers end of things. Because we all know that there is still room there for contributors to get more. 20%, 30%, even 50% of each sale is low. I can't help mentioning the Apple App Store example again, where developers get 70% of each sale.

That said, I don't expect to ever see a raise in contributor royalties. I just don't think any of these companies care if it's impossible for any of us to have a long-term career in this business. I can't do this 10 years from now if I can't grow my income to keep up with increasing costs of living. But do any of these companies care about that? So I have to drop out of microstock in the next five to ten years. Big deal. Why should they care?

That's the real problem. Not whether or not anyone deserves a raise or whether these companies can afford it (they all can, it's a fact). The real problem is that these companies have zero incentive to helping us make this a sustainable (sorry to use that word) business for contributors.

A raise will never happen, that's just how it is. So we can either struggle to keep up by constantly cranking out more content faster, or expect to be doing something else to make a living in the next several years.


+1 Dark side of microstock  :(

jbarber873

« Reply #94 on: August 13, 2013, 11:49 »
-2
Expenses don't matter. Our images are worth what people are willing to pay for them. No more, no less. Shutterstock pays me more for my images -- at least 10 times more -- than any other site out there. If a site comes up that can pay me more, I'd be happy to consider them.

And I'm not in this boat alone. The little chart to the right pretty much says it all. (I don't buy the iStock exclusive results either.)

You do not know what people are willing to pay for images because you have a leading site keeping prices down so that they can gain market share!

  Oh, the humanity! I can't believe people would undercut prices and drive out living wages for so many people! It's just not fair...
   Really, it makes me smile.People on a microstock site complaining about prices being too low. After so many years of sneering at "trad stock" photographers whining about microstock, you guys are whining about...microstock!  Well, ha ha. You made this bed, so sleep in it. The bottom line is, you have no choice. You can complain about inflation, you can bring up all the stats you want, but you aren't going to compete with someone who essentially has no cost basis. You're not. So get over it. No raises are coming, even if you hold your breath until you turn blue.
   I can tell you what people used to be willing to pay for images, before microstock, but you wouldn't believe me anyway. So why am I shooting microstock? Because I am in a business, and I go where the customers are. And I still make enough money to provide for my family. And i work just as hard as i ever did, because the key to being a "professional" ( remember that debate?) is to work as hard as it takes, not to just whine about how it should be.

Ron

« Reply #95 on: August 13, 2013, 11:54 »
+1
Expenses don't matter. Our images are worth what people are willing to pay for them. No more, no less. Shutterstock pays me more for my images -- at least 10 times more -- than any other site out there. If a site comes up that can pay me more, I'd be happy to consider them.

And I'm not in this boat alone. The little chart to the right pretty much says it all. (I don't buy the iStock exclusive results either.)

You do not know what people are willing to pay for images because you have a leading site keeping prices down so that they can gain market share!

  Oh, the humanity! I can't believe people would undercut prices and drive out living wages for so many people! It's just not fair...
   Really, it makes me smile.People on a microstock site complaining about prices being too low. After so many years of sneering at "trad stock" photographers whining about microstock, you guys are whining about...microstock!  Well, ha ha. You made this bed, so sleep in it. The bottom line is, you have no choice. You can complain about inflation, you can bring up all the stats you want, but you aren't going to compete with someone who essentially has no cost basis. You're not. So get over it. No raises are coming, even if you hold your breath until you turn blue.
   I can tell you what people used to be willing to pay for images, before microstock, but you wouldn't believe me anyway. So why am I shooting microstock? Because I am in a business, and I go where the customers are. And I still make enough money to provide for my family. And i work just as hard as i ever did, because the key to being a "professional" ( remember that debate?) is to work as hard as it takes, not to just whine about how it should be.

I believe the royalties were about 70-80-90% when it started. No one asked for 15% royalties, or 25 cent.

jbarber873

« Reply #96 on: August 13, 2013, 13:07 »
-3
Expenses don't matter. Our images are worth what people are willing to pay for them. No more, no less. Shutterstock pays me more for my images -- at least 10 times more -- than any other site out there. If a site comes up that can pay me more, I'd be happy to consider them.

And I'm not in this boat alone. The little chart to the right pretty much says it all. (I don't buy the iStock exclusive results either.)

You do not know what people are willing to pay for images because you have a leading site keeping prices down so that they can gain market share!

  Oh, the humanity! I can't believe people would undercut prices and drive out living wages for so many people! It's just not fair...
   Really, it makes me smile.People on a microstock site complaining about prices being too low. After so many years of sneering at "trad stock" photographers whining about microstock, you guys are whining about...microstock!  Well, ha ha. You made this bed, so sleep in it. The bottom line is, you have no choice. You can complain about inflation, you can bring up all the stats you want, but you aren't going to compete with someone who essentially has no cost basis. You're not. So get over it. No raises are coming, even if you hold your breath until you turn blue.
   I can tell you what people used to be willing to pay for images, before microstock, but you wouldn't believe me anyway. So why am I shooting microstock? Because I am in a business, and I go where the customers are. And I still make enough money to provide for my family. And i work just as hard as i ever did, because the key to being a "professional" ( remember that debate?) is to work as hard as it takes, not to just whine about how it should be.

I believe the royalties were about 70-80-90% when it started. No one asked for 15% royalties, or 25 cent.

   70-80-90% of $1.00 still values the file for peanuts, at a time when even RF was selling for $25.00 a shot, and a rights managed shot routinely sold for $1500- $5000 depending on use.  So you're drawing the line at 15% royalties and 25 cent? That's fine. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Ron

« Reply #97 on: August 13, 2013, 13:24 »
+1
I am not drawing a line anywhere, and your pricing of 5000 was artificially overpriced. There has been an excellent discussion about that between Baldrick and Shudderstock. I just made a point that it the royalties were higher once.

jbarber873

« Reply #98 on: August 13, 2013, 20:34 »
-1
I am not drawing a line anywhere, and your pricing of 5000 was artificially overpriced. There has been an excellent discussion about that between Baldrick and Shudderstock. I just made a point that it the royalties were higher once.

  No it isn't. I sold many licenses for those kind of numbers, but that was back when everything was film, and clients wanted unique images that a competitor couldn't use. The clients don't care anymore because there is no way to justify a high price for restricted use.
Right after 9/11, i sold an American flag image to a national publication to use in their masthead. They paid me $25,000. ( and they never even used it ). Prices were indeed higher once. But the genies' out of the bottle, and isn't going back in.

« Reply #99 on: August 14, 2013, 04:35 »
0
I've said this before the last time a raise came up - SS can keep the raise provided they continue to open up the BRIC countries and others - which is increasingly evident by the results on my download map and creating opportunities for me to earn larger royalties as with single/other downloads.

My only caveat would be that SS create a further earnings tier beyond $10,000


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
5687 Views
Last post September 30, 2007, 07:57
by Phil
35 Replies
12979 Views
Last post August 04, 2009, 03:41
by gostwyck
2 Replies
2725 Views
Last post September 29, 2010, 08:07
by BaldricksTrousers
10 Replies
3810 Views
Last post January 14, 2015, 19:45
by Mantis
11 Replies
4388 Views
Last post June 05, 2020, 03:58
by OM

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors