MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2013 Financial Results  (Read 14431 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ron

« Reply #25 on: February 21, 2014, 03:24 »
0
are downloads per file going up? revenue per image, etc.

2012 - 169.6 M revenue - 23.3 M images - 7.27$ RPI - 76 M downloads - 2.23$ RPD - collection was downloaded 3.26 times

2013 - 235.5 M revenue - 32.2 M images - 7.31$ RPI - 100.1 M downloads  - 2.35$ RPD - collection was downloaded 3.10 times

Thats interesting


« Reply #26 on: February 21, 2014, 03:26 »
+2
yeah but the RPI increased

« Reply #27 on: February 21, 2014, 03:42 »
+1
2009 - 61 M revenue

2010 - 83 M revenue - 13.3 M images - 6.24$ RPI - 44.1 M downloads - 1.88$ RPD - collection was downloaded 3.31 times

2011 - 120.3 M revenue - 17.4 M images - 6.91$ RPI - 58.6 M downloads - 2.05$ RPD - collection was downloaded 3.36 times

2012 - 169.6 M revenue - 23.3 M images - 7.27$ RPI - 76 M downloads - 2.23$ RPD - collection was downloaded 3.26 times

2013 - 235.5 M revenue - 32.2 M images - 7.31$ RPI - 100.1 M downloads  - 2.35$ RPD - collection was downloaded 3.10 times

« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2014, 04:09 »
0

« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2014, 08:54 »
+3
I can predict the future-

shudderstok = shutterstock


 8)

i had to + you on that - good one but my fortune teller told me otherwise :)

Is your fortune teller LOBO?? :o

« Reply #30 on: February 21, 2014, 09:03 »
+10
Less work? I can upload 12 files to 8 different sites faster and easier than I can upload one file to istock. Even the worst sites out there have a more modern and simpler submission process.

« Reply #31 on: February 21, 2014, 09:07 »
+1
yeah but the RPI increased

Probably because of SODs. They've been a big boost for me, outpacing the EL category.

« Reply #32 on: February 21, 2014, 11:02 »
+4



Cool video. About the only thing I didn't like at all from 2013 was the BigStock subscriptions (or rather that they didn't let contributors opt out given the crappy royalties paid). I don't know what I think of offset and skillfeed because I have no clue how they're doing - anyone who contributes to either of them have a view on that?

Other than a slight nervousness at how big and dominant SS is becoming (because that often leads to treating suppliers badly) I'm very happy with how they are operating and growing.

« Reply #33 on: February 21, 2014, 11:24 »
+4
I'm very pleased that nobody has said "woot!"....which they used to say at that other place all the time.

All I need now to make my joy complete is for Laurin to pipe up over on SS with "how about a raise?"
« Last Edit: February 21, 2014, 11:29 by Red Dove »

« Reply #34 on: February 21, 2014, 11:37 »
-1
Less work? I can upload 12 files to 8 different sites faster and easier than I can upload one file to istock. Even the worst sites out there have a more modern and simpler submission process.

Oh,yeah. Sure.

No need to go ti this extremes to be a wooyayer.

« Reply #35 on: February 21, 2014, 12:00 »
+4
shares are up 16% this morning to around $96 as i write. Good news for the shareholders at least

« Reply #36 on: February 21, 2014, 12:19 »
+3
Less work? I can upload 12 files to 8 different sites faster and easier than I can upload one file to istock. Even the worst sites out there have a more modern and simpler submission process.

Oh,yeah. Sure.

No need to go ti this extremes to be a wooyayer.

Sorry, but it's true. No other site makes you piece together model releases into one file. So if you have a session with photos that have different people in each image, you have to create a whole batch of release files just for Istock. And you have to upload new model releases each time even though it's the same model. On every other site, you just click that model release out of the archive. The extra time it takes is too much. Every time I start to upload there, I just give up halfway through.

They clearly want more images submitted or they wouldn't have gotten rid of the upload cap. But they still haven't cleared the real hurdle, and that's their archaic uploading system that works like something out of 2004.

« Reply #37 on: February 21, 2014, 12:20 »
+3
All I need now to make my joy complete is for Laurin to pipe up over on SS with "how about a raise?"

 ;D ;D ;D (and refer once again that microstock is just a tiny % of his income)

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #38 on: February 21, 2014, 12:21 »
+2
http://seekingalpha.com/pr/9033813-shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2013-financial-results

- Fourth quarter revenue increases 38% from prior year, to $68.0 million
- Full year revenue increases 39% from prior year, to $235.5 million
- Adjusted EBITDA of $15.4 million in fourth quarter, increase of 37%
- Adjusted EBITDA of $53.4 million for full year, increase of 53%
- Quarterly paid image downloads reach record of 28.0 million
- Collection exceeds 33 million images and 1.5 million video clips
- Number of active customer accounts surpasses 940,000


It can't just be the 'Sean Effect' surely?

Professionals deal with professionals.


Probably it is the 'Yuri has gone' effect

wds

« Reply #39 on: February 21, 2014, 13:24 »
0
Did Shutterstock say anything about market-share or market-share trend?

lisafx

« Reply #40 on: February 21, 2014, 13:36 »
+3
Less work? I can upload 12 files to 8 different sites faster and easier than I can upload one file to istock. Even the worst sites out there have a more modern and simpler submission process.

Oh,yeah. Sure.

No need to go ti this extremes to be a wooyayer.

Sorry, but it's true. No other site makes you piece together model releases into one file. So if you have a session with photos that have different people in each image, you have to create a whole batch of release files just for Istock. And you have to upload new model releases each time even though it's the same model. On every other site, you just click that model release out of the archive. The extra time it takes is too much. Every time I start to upload there, I just give up halfway through.

They clearly want more images submitted or they wouldn't have gotten rid of the upload cap. But they still haven't cleared the real hurdle, and that's their archaic uploading system that works like something out of 2004.

You're absolutely right Rob.  Uploading to I stock is torturous, especially with multiple configurations of models.  So much so that I'm not sure its even worth uploading that type of shoot there, even though those type of shoots are big sellers.

 Overall sales volume is way down, and for Indies RPD is very low.  I only resumed uploading in the first place because of the great PP numbers in October, and we all know how that turned out.

« Reply #41 on: February 21, 2014, 14:06 »
+1
Did Shutterstock say anything about market-share or market-share trend?


Shutterstock operates an industry-leading global marketplace for commercial digital imagery. Commercial digital imagery consists of licensed photographs, illustrations and videos that companies use in their visual communications, such as websites, digital and print marketing materials, corporate communications, books, publications and video content. Demand for commercial digital imagery comes primarily from businesses, marketing agencies and media organizations. We estimate that the market for pre-shot commercial digital imagery will grow to approximately $6 billion in 2016, based on a study conducted on our behalf by L.E.K. Consulting LLC, or L.E.K.

(http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/edgar_conv_html%2f2013%2f03%2f01%2f0001047469-13-002091.html#FIS_BUSINESS)


« Reply #42 on: February 21, 2014, 14:08 »
+1
I'm not going to engage in debate over exclusive vs indie, but I don't think you're comparing apples to apples in thinking you do better than the poll

I think that there are a ton of newbie figures in everything but the IS exclusive poll. If you filtered those out I think you'd see something very different - earnings comparable with risk spread as an indie vs less admin work and all your eggs in one basket as exclusive

Yeah, I agree. I think that is part of the bias of the poll. The lower the number of contributors, the higher the average royalties tend to be. If you turned off the 50 vote limit, then Clipartof and Stocksy would probably be at the top of the poll above Shutterstock next month. But if everybody contributed to those sites, the average would drop significantly. Just as if everybody went exclusive tomorrow, the average for exclusive earnings would go down on the poll.

« Reply #43 on: February 21, 2014, 14:10 »
0
So when they post these numbers, does this include BigStock too? And Offset?

« Reply #44 on: February 21, 2014, 14:21 »
0
So when they post these numbers, does this include BigStock too? And Offset?

in the report

About Shutterstock

Shutterstock, Inc. (NYSE: SSTK) is a leading global provider of high-quality licensed photographs, vectors, illustrations and videos to businesses, marketing agencies and media organizations around the world. Working with its growing community of over 55,000 contributors, Shutterstock adds tens of thousands of images each week, and currently has available more than 33 million images and 1.5 million video clips.

Headquartered in New York City, with offices in Berlin, Chicago, Denver, London and San Francisco, Shutterstock has customers in more than 150 countries. The Company owns Bigstock, a value-oriented stock media agency; Offset, a high-end image collection; and Skillfeed, an online marketplace for learning.

Ron

« Reply #45 on: February 21, 2014, 19:18 »
-3
Where's debunkgbalex when you need him  ;)

« Reply #46 on: February 21, 2014, 20:13 »
-2
http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1902033

Snip

Revenue

Revenue for the fourth quarter was $68.0 million, a 38% increase from $49.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2012.  Revenue for the full year was $235.5 million, a 39% increase from $169.6 million in 2012.

Net Income

Net income for the fourth quarter of 2013 was $7.9 million as compared to $29.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2012. Net income available to common shareholders/members for the fourth quarter of 2013 was $7.8 million or $0.22 per share on a fully diluted basis as compared to $28.7 million or $0.88 per share on a fully diluted basis in the fourth quarter of 2012.

Net income for the full year 2013 was $26.5 million as compared to $47.5 million in 2012.  Net income available to shareholders/common members for the full year was $26.4 million or $0.77 per share on a fully diluted basis as compared to $42.6 million or $1.79 per share on a fully diluted basis in 2012.

Both net income and net income available to common shareholders/members for the fourth quarter of 2012 and the full year of 2012 include a one-time tax benefit of $28.8 million related to the Company's reorganization from an LLC to a C-corporation on October 5, 2012.



To put those numbers into perspective Net income at Shutterstock dropped by 21 million in 2013 compared to Net income in 2012, despite the fact that overall Revenue rose by 65.9 million in 2013 over revenue in 2012.

The analyst should love those numbers and will no doubt have questions.

« Reply #47 on: February 21, 2014, 20:21 »
+2
That's a good point. I'm sure they will want to know what all the money was spent on. Maybe Offset launch? Which for the life of me, I don't understand why Shutterstock is doing that. The quality of images on Offset aren't really any better than what's on Shutterstock already for a sliver of the price. It'd be like Walmart trying to open a high end store and charging top dollar for stuff they're selling for cheap in their regular stores. Stick to what you're good at.

« Reply #48 on: February 21, 2014, 20:47 »
-3
That's a good point. I'm sure they will want to know what all the money was spent on. Maybe Offset launch? Which for the life of me, I don't understand why Shutterstock is doing that. The quality of images on Offset aren't really any better than what's on Shutterstock already for a sliver of the price. It'd be like Walmart trying to open a high end store and charging top dollar for stuff they're selling for cheap in their regular stores. Stick to what you're good at.


That and the move to the new vanity location.

Shutterstock Inc: Insider Trading and Stock Options

Total insider sales $340,871,142  Total Insider Buys since 11/2012 $0

http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1549346.htm

Goofy

« Reply #49 on: February 21, 2014, 20:48 »
+1
That's a good point. I'm sure they will want to know what all the money was spent on. Maybe Offset launch? Which for the life of me, I don't understand why Shutterstock is doing that. The quality of images on Offset aren't really any better than what's on Shutterstock already for a sliver of the price. It'd be like Walmart trying to open a high end store and charging top dollar for stuff they're selling for cheap in their regular stores. Stick to what you're good at.

reason is Stocksy. Yes, Walmart has tried to be Target at times but fails horribly  8)



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
918 Views
Last post November 02, 2012, 20:48
by luissantos84
2 Replies
1987 Views
Last post November 09, 2013, 16:58
by Pauws99
14 Replies
12991 Views
Last post May 10, 2014, 03:10
by BaldricksTrousers
13 Replies
3112 Views
Last post February 13, 2015, 13:52
by etudiante_rapide
7 Replies
2108 Views
Last post May 07, 2015, 14:17
by Semmick Photo

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results