MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2013 Financial Results  (Read 14440 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: February 21, 2014, 20:50 »
+1
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.


isn't the answer the 28.8 million "one-time tax benefit"?


« Reply #51 on: February 21, 2014, 21:21 »
+3
That's a good point. I'm sure they will want to know what all the money was spent on.

Pesky contributors?  ;)

« Reply #52 on: February 21, 2014, 21:34 »
0
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


That's because Oringer and (and Theo-whatever-his-name-is, if I remember correctly) released some of their personal shareholding due to massive demand from institutional investors.

It's a measure of the success of the IPO and the strength of the business ... not as some dodgy dealing as you are trying to paint it. Quite clearly they'd have made more money if they'd have kept hold of the stock.

I guess your bitterness at SS's success is because you didn't buy in when the stock was cheap? Or are you exclusive at IS?
« Last Edit: February 21, 2014, 21:38 by gostwyck »

« Reply #53 on: February 21, 2014, 21:45 »
+4
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)

Stocksy isn't a threat to Shutterstock.

Ron

« Reply #54 on: February 21, 2014, 22:18 »
-11
I guess your bitterness at SS's success is because you didn't buy in when the stock was cheap? Or are you exclusive at IS?
I think you are right and i think gbalex is a woman. I am getting closer to the identity. But gbalex is contributor at ss.

« Reply #55 on: February 21, 2014, 22:26 »
0
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


That's because Oringer and (and Theo-whatever-his-name-is, if I remember correctly) released some of their personal shareholding due to massive demand from institutional investors.

It's a measure of the success of the IPO and the strength of the business ... not as some dodgy dealing as you are trying to paint it. Quite clearly they'd have made more money if they'd have kept hold of the stock.

I guess your bitterness at SS's success is because you didn't buy in when the stock was cheap? Or are you exclusive at IS?


Did I say there was dodgy dealing?  Just noted that insiders did not add to their potions.

As I recall you are a proud stock holder.

« Reply #56 on: February 21, 2014, 22:39 »
0
Did I say there was dodgy dealing?  Just noted that insiders did not add to their potions.

As I recall you are a proud stock holder.

Being as the 'insiders' already owned more than 54% of the business they could hardly add to their holding could they? In fact they were under pressure to release some of their stock.

No, I don't own any SS stock, although I most certainly would have bought in if I'd had the funds available at the time. I did recommend them to a couple of close friends, who had plenty of spare cash when the stock was $22. Unfortunately neither took my advice.

« Reply #57 on: February 21, 2014, 23:15 »
+1
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.


isn't the answer the 28.8 million "one-time tax benefit"?


Revenue for the full year was $235.5 million, a 39% increase from $169.6 million in 2012. 

Net Income for the full year was $26.5 million, a -44.3 % decrease from $47.5 million in 2012. 

Lets say you gave the same one time tax benefit in 2013 $26.5 million + $28.8 million = $55.3 million

With an equal tax credit Net Income for the full year of 2013 would then be $55.3 million, a -16% increase from $47.5 million Net Income in 2012. 

Besides the relocation and new product expenses I have not been able to find increased spends, in fact they are a lower %.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2037843-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q4-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

Snip
Shifting now to operating expenses for the fourth quarter gross margin was 61.6% in line with the prior quarter. Contributor royalties, which make up approximately 28% of revenue, have remained fairly consistent over the past several quarters.

Snip
Sales and marketing expense were $16.5 million or roughly 24% of revenue. This was in line as a percent of revenue as compared to the prior year.

Snip
Product development expense was $6.5 million in the quarter, roughly 9.5% of revenue. This was down from 11.5% of revenue in the prior year

Snip
G&A expense in the fourth quarter was $6.5 million or about 9.5% of revenue. And we expect G&A to be approximately 11% of revenue in Q1 2014. As we continue to expand our operations and we will also incur approximately $1 million in a one-time expense related to the completion of the relocation of our headquarters office in New York City

Snip
Turning now to headcount, we ended the quarter and the year with a total of 345 employees worldwide, this is an increase of about 47% from a year ago

Snip
As noted previously, we had planned to spend approximately $10 million in total related to our office relocation in New York City, approximately $2 million of that will extend past the year-end of 2013 into the first quarter of 2014.

Snip
Tim Bixby - CFO
In terms of the leverage and the model, you're not seeing a leverage externally that we can see internally and that's really when we kind of pull apart the business a little bit and say what are we spending to drive and support the core as opposed to what are we spending to drive new products and innovations that aren't driving significant revenue. And you can see really anywhere from 3 to 5 percentage points of
spend going new areas that aren't yet driving a lot of revenue.


« Reply #58 on: February 21, 2014, 23:21 »
+12
I guess your bitterness at SS's success is because you didn't buy in when the stock was cheap? Or are you exclusive at IS?
I think you are right and i think gbalex is a woman. I am getting closer to the identity. But gbalex is contributor at ss.

How many times are you going to insult me in this thread? When does stating facts equate to bitterness. They are just facts that anyone can read.

There are plenty of SS groupies to present all the positives, I like to look at business objectively. But carry on with the put downs.

« Reply #59 on: February 21, 2014, 23:35 »
+2
Snip
And your next question comes from the line of Brian Fitzgerald with Jefferies. Please proceed.
Brian Fitzgerald - Jefferies

When you guys think of the rev share agreements with contributors, there are competitors out there that have more generous revenue shares. Can you -- would that tend to impact or take share from you guys over the course of time or can you talk about how that dynamic is panning out?

And then, it seems like guys have been driving down pricing among your major competitors. They're now trying to price match.

Have you seen any real impact from that thus far? Thanks.

Jon Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman
Yes, as far as our contributors go, we've had 30% of them and we've seen competitors come in and try to play with that number. What happens is if they payout more to contributors, they leave less room for marketing spend and that causes less sales in the long run and less payout to their contributors. So with this we really found the sweet spot over the past 10 years with the subscription plan, with the 30% payout, and competitors have come and gone and tried different things but we haven't seen much change.

Thilo Semmelbauer - President and COO
Yes, this is Thilo. May be I'll touch on the pricing topic a little bit. Obviously there's always lots of experimentation going on in this space. We ourselves are doing experimentation all the time. In the last 12 months we've launched and tested multiple different pricing plans. When you look at our offering, we really average, as you know about $2 per image, but for high volume users it could be a $1 or less and for lower volume users it could be significantly more including with our enterprises customers who are paying in the range of $20 and up. Sometimes hundreds per image depending on the licensing rights and so forth as we've talked about before.

At this point we are not seeing anything that is really changing the landscape from what it has been which is quite active in experimentation. As Jon mentioned, our acquisition costs are stable even as we increased our marketing spend, which is a great sign and our retention continues to be very, very strong. We haven't seen any degradation and we would continue to see positive movement there, so not much impact.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2037843-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q4-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

« Reply #60 on: February 22, 2014, 06:05 »
-1
I like to look at business objectively. But carry on with the put downs.

if SS is in deep trouble I wonder where all the other agencies are, I don't mind hearing about the facts regarding Net Income, this and that, in the end are you working with an agency with this kind of success year after year? do you think that 20$ from iStock so far this month are enough to pay my electricity bill?

shudderstok

« Reply #61 on: February 22, 2014, 06:54 »
+13
I like to look at business objectively. But carry on with the put downs.

if SS is in deep trouble I wonder where all the other agencies are, I don't mind hearing about the facts regarding Net Income, this and that, in the end are you working with an agency with this kind of success year after year? do you think that 20$ from iStock so far this month are enough to pay my electricity bill?

the writing is on the wall, and has been for a long time, primarily since the acceptance industry wide of all microstock sites. the complete abandon of quality control for the most part, total lack of editing, driving prices to all time lows etc, it spells bad news for all contributors. alas however, the bright side of things, all these agencies will continue to be incredibly profitable from a business point of view, they don't care one way or the other if the contributors do well, they only want profit for themselves, and they will continue to be profitable, but at a cost to us, the contributors. the agencies get a download regardless, we don't. this applies to all of us, IS, GI, SS, and the likes. there are simply too many images available at the lowest price points, the buyers have accepted this as the new normal, and pity us, we keep feeding the machine in hopes of paying our electricity bill. mark my words on this, my money says in 10 years or less of this feeding frenzy, most of us won't be making a living from stock photography, but the agencies will be still profitable in every way. just sayin.

a good example, 15 years ago, if i sold a photo for an in-flight magazine client direct i got on average 1k give or take, if i sold it via GI they got 1K+ give or take and i made $400. in today's world, if GI sells the image i might make $100 tops if it's RF, if i sell it client direct it's now $425 as the rates have gone down due to the microstock phenomena, now if i sell that same image via IS i am lucky to make tops $40 if the image is S+, but if i sold the same image on SS i'd make as low as 0.25c, which is the case of a good friend of mine who is on SS, he sold a cover to an in-flight magazine, and only got 0.25c as the print run was less than the required amount for the add on rates. now seriously, how can anyone make a living on this? not sure about you, but my cost of living is only going up, but from what i have seen industry wide, the prices are only going down and rapidly. this in the end will catch up with all of us. the industry is in complete shambles for all contributors, GI lover, SS lover, Stocksy lover, it will get us all in the end. but the agencies, oh yes, they will be profitable.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 07:13 by shudderstok »

« Reply #62 on: February 22, 2014, 07:19 »
+2
10 years? when I joined in 2009 people talked about 2 years, now its 10? ;D

drama drama drama, I just decided to quit!

« Reply #63 on: February 22, 2014, 09:51 »
+1
mark my words on this, my money says in 10 years or less of this feeding frenzy, most of us won't be making a living from stock photography, but the agencies will be still profitable in every way. just sayin.

I tend to agree, it does seem like it has to hit some critical density at some point. Although if contributors start failing to make money, I'm not sure if the companies will still be successful. That said, I'm always surprised when it all keeps chugging along in a fairly healthy manner.

shudderstok

« Reply #64 on: February 22, 2014, 11:14 »
+5
mark my words on this, my money says in 10 years or less of this feeding frenzy, most of us won't be making a living from stock photography, but the agencies will be still profitable in every way. just sayin.

I tend to agree, it does seem like it has to hit some critical density at some point. Although if contributors start failing to make money, I'm not sure if the companies will still be successful. That said, I'm always surprised when it all keeps chugging along in a fairly healthy manner.

there is no shortage of contributors who have dreams of paying their electricity bill via selling photos, we/they (contributors) are a dime a dozen nowadays, and the agencies are full aware of this fact. they win, we lose. not to be negative, but it's the cold hard truth. once upon a time stock photography was personal in nature and sustainable, now it's corporate, and corporations only care about one thing, profit, not the source of the product, especially if they know there is a never ending supply of the product. they are taking in millions of dollars per year in profit, and most of us are dreaming of paying an electricity bill and/or having a pissing contest on whether being exclusive or non-exclusive is better, they have us sorted out where they want us, and trust me when i say this, they could care less, cause they know we are replaceable expendable ++ sean.

we need to wake up, and it starts by never supporting a subscription site of any sort. this is the kiss of death for all of us.

we as contributors need to start thinking long term and sustainable, all of us, and taking action now because we all know the agencies won't.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 11:29 by shudderstok »

« Reply #65 on: February 22, 2014, 11:43 »
+3
we need to wake up, and it starts by never supporting a subscription site of any sort. this is the kiss of death for all of us.

I'm all for that (I wish it could happen), but nothing really exist like that for the vast majority of contributors. So, you are really just asking people to quit stock altogether.

« Reply #66 on: February 22, 2014, 11:49 »
+3
I like to look at business objectively. But carry on with the put downs.

if SS is in deep trouble I wonder where all the other agencies are, I don't mind hearing about the facts regarding Net Income, this and that, in the end are you working with an agency with this kind of success year after year? do you think that 20$ from iStock so far this month are enough to pay my electricity bill?

Did I ever say SS is in deep trouble?  It is clear they are not. As business people it is the contributors who are in deep trouble. As you know shutterstock unabashedly continues to drive the value of our assets down and they have admitted publicly that they plan to do so long term as a business strategy to gain market share.

As business people we should be asking the same questions firms like Jefferies are asking and we should not be supporting business's who employ strategies who hurt us in the long term or none of us will be able to pay our power bills.

The good news is that as buyers/contributors "if" we support stock sites who pay contributors larger revenue shares we will have a better chance of remaining profitable long term.

More good news is that other stock businesses can now easily see that they will be profitable and have room to pay contributors more while also increasing marketing spend; if they do not follow shutterstocks lead by spending x million going public, spending 10 million plus securing vanity office locations, etc., etc. etc. It is all there in black and white for competitors to read.

It is also time that we support business that support us and we could start by sending our best images to other firms.

Snip
And your next question comes from the line of Brian Fitzgerald with Jefferies. Please proceed.
Brian Fitzgerald - Jefferies

When you guys think of the rev share agreements with contributors, there are competitors out there that have more generous revenue shares.

Can you -- would that tend to impact or take share from you guys over the course of time or can you talk about how that dynamic is panning out?

And then, it seems like guys have been driving down pricing among your major competitors. They're now trying to price match.

Have you seen any real impact from that thus far? Thanks.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2037843-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q4-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

Snip

Duck Swartz

Talking about your present strategy longer term?

Timothy E. Bixby - CFO

We think we can raise the prices over the long term but were primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level. We havent raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.

Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board

It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last
« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 11:58 by gbalex »


« Reply #67 on: February 22, 2014, 11:53 »
+1
[snip]

we need to wake up, and it starts by never supporting a subscription site of any sort. this is the kiss of death for all of us.

we as contributors need to start thinking long term and sustainable, all of us, and taking action now because we all know the agencies won't.

ok, so no Getty, no Corbis, no SS, no DT, no FT, It looks like mostly relatively closed shops, Alamy (unless you consider NU to be like subs) boutique RM, and self hosting are the only options then? I am sure there are others, but it would be hard to do much more than pay the electric bill without managing to get into one of the semi closed shops.

(actually in general I agree with your basic thesis that the agencies will continue to do well and the photographers less so based on the basic principles of supply and demand). That makes much more sense than expecting the agencies to suddenly become unprofitable as was perhaps previously predicted.

shudderstok

« Reply #68 on: February 22, 2014, 11:55 »
+5
we need to wake up, and it starts by never supporting a subscription site of any sort. this is the kiss of death for all of us.

I'm all for that (I wish it could happen), but nothing really exist like that for the vast majority of contributors. So, you are really just asking people to quit stock altogether.

no i am not asking anyone to quit stock altogether, but what i am suggesting is that we all have choices of sustainability. i made mine, i will not support subscription sites of any sort. i am in this for the long term, not a quick buck. where do you stand?

shudderstok

« Reply #69 on: February 22, 2014, 12:08 »
+3
[snip]

we need to wake up, and it starts by never supporting a subscription site of any sort. this is the kiss of death for all of us.

we as contributors need to start thinking long term and sustainable, all of us, and taking action now because we all know the agencies won't.



ok, so no Getty, no Corbis, no SS, no DT, no FT, It looks like mostly relatively closed shops, Alamy (unless you consider NU to be like subs) boutique RM, and self hosting are the only options then? I am sure there are others, but it would be hard to do much more than pay the electric bill without managing to get into one of the semi closed shops.

(actually in general I agree with your basic thesis that the agencies will continue to do well and the photographers less so based on the basic principles of supply and demand). That makes much more sense than expecting the agencies to suddenly become unprofitable as was perhaps previously predicted.

you have a point, however i think GI and Corbis got into the game of subscription because they had no choice due to economic pressures forced upon them by the likes of subscription sites, contributors of certain sites enabled them (GI, IS and Corbis) to 'compete' as it became sink or swim, and i do believe that by pulling out of subscription sites that there can (utopia) be a reversal in the trend. again, what is you work worth? i will be a hard ass right till the end and not support subscription sites at all.

they are selling 'our 'work, apart from that none of these agencies really have a product unless we agree to their terms, and that is what they sell, our product, not theirs. so i choose to not enable them to sell my product for subscription prices and subscription royalties so they can make millions. i stand by my decision, do you?

shudderstok

« Reply #70 on: February 22, 2014, 12:16 »
+3
I like to look at business objectively. But carry on with the put downs.

if SS is in deep trouble I wonder where all the other agencies are, I don't mind hearing about the facts regarding Net Income, this and that, in the end are you working with an agency with this kind of success year after year? do you think that 20$ from iStock so far this month are enough to pay my electricity bill?

Did I ever say SS is in deep trouble?  It is clear they are not. As business people it is the contributors who are in deep trouble. As you know shutterstock unabashedly continues to drive the value of our assets down and they have admitted publicly that they plan to do so long term as a business strategy to gain market share.

As business people we should be asking the same questions firms like Jefferies are asking and we should not be supporting business's who employ strategies who hurt us in the long term or none of us will be able to pay our power bills.

The good news is that as buyers/contributors "if" we support stock sites who pay contributors larger revenue shares we will have a better chance of remaining profitable long term.

More good news is that other stock businesses can now easily see that they will be profitable and have room to pay contributors more while also increasing marketing spend; if they do not follow shutterstocks lead by spending x million going public, spending 10 million plus securing vanity office locations, etc., etc. etc. It is all there in black and white for competitors to read.

It is also time that we support business that support us and we could start by sending our best images to other firms.

Snip
And your next question comes from the line of Brian Fitzgerald with Jefferies. Please proceed.
Brian Fitzgerald - Jefferies

When you guys think of the rev share agreements with contributors, there are competitors out there that have more generous revenue shares.

Can you -- would that tend to impact or take share from you guys over the course of time or can you talk about how that dynamic is panning out?

And then, it seems like guys have been driving down pricing among your major competitors. They're now trying to price match.

Have you seen any real impact from that thus far? Thanks.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2037843-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q4-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

Snip

Duck Swartz

Talking about your present strategy longer term?

Timothy E. Bixby - CFO

We think we can raise the prices over the long term but were primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level. We havent raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.

Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board

It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last


sorry to rain on your parade, but publicly traded companies never pay their suppliers more. there energy is spent on paying their shareholders more and bonuses to the CEO's for being able to cut costs in order to make the company more profitable, and that never has any regards towards the suppliers profit. just sayin. SS does not care about you. maybe you have your stock confused. there is stock as in 'contributor' and there is stock as in 'shareholder' and one will certainly make more money ++ can you guess which stock holder that would be? :)
 

« Reply #71 on: February 22, 2014, 12:27 »
+4
no i am not asking anyone to quit stock altogether, but what i am suggesting is that we all have choices of sustainability. i made mine, i will not support subscription sites of any sort. i am in this for the long term, not a quick buck. where do you stand?

Last time I checked, iStock was a subscription site. That's why I left. I didn't want to be part of it. If everybody went exclusive or all the independents left, then guess where Thinkstock's content is going to come from. Just because you're insulated doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Like I said, I love the idea of the death of subs, but there is no REAL escape plan. Believe me. I've tried (even had modest success). But, to eliminate them altogether would require some new big player to enter the market. Even then, it would be tough.

« Reply #72 on: February 22, 2014, 12:37 »
+4

we need to wake up, and it starts by never supporting a subscription site of any sort. this is the kiss of death for all of us.

we as contributors need to start thinking long term and sustainable, all of us, and taking action now because we all know the agencies won't.

As a group, photographers are very independent... getting them to do anything is a difficult, if not impossible task.

Corporations have realized the money to be made for them in subscription sites.  Realistically the chances of these site closing due to photographers not submitting is very small...close to nil.

In this new and changed world of photography would it not be a better idea to think how you, as a photographer, can profit from the subscription sites.  They are here, and they will not go away.  I may be wrong, but I think you do well selling exclusively on one site.  I, as a newbie, don't have that option, so to survive and prosper I have to learn how to live with the world the way it is....not the way it was, and not the way I wish it was.

« Reply #73 on: February 22, 2014, 12:39 »
+5
I like to look at business objectively. But carry on with the put downs.

if SS is in deep trouble I wonder where all the other agencies are, I don't mind hearing about the facts regarding Net Income, this and that, in the end are you working with an agency with this kind of success year after year? do you think that 20$ from iStock so far this month are enough to pay my electricity bill?

Did I ever say SS is in deep trouble?  It is clear they are not. As business people it is the contributors who are in deep trouble. As you know shutterstock unabashedly continues to drive the value of our assets down and they have admitted publicly that they plan to do so long term as a business strategy to gain market share.

As business people we should be asking the same questions firms like Jefferies are asking and we should not be supporting business's who employ strategies who hurt us in the long term or none of us will be able to pay our power bills.

The good news is that as buyers/contributors "if" we support stock sites who pay contributors larger revenue shares we will have a better chance of remaining profitable long term.

More good news is that other stock businesses can now easily see that they will be profitable and have room to pay contributors more while also increasing marketing spend; if they do not follow shutterstocks lead by spending x million going public, spending 10 million plus securing vanity office locations, etc., etc. etc. It is all there in black and white for competitors to read.

It is also time that we support business that support us and we could start by sending our best images to other firms.

Snip
And your next question comes from the line of Brian Fitzgerald with Jefferies. Please proceed.
Brian Fitzgerald - Jefferies

When you guys think of the rev share agreements with contributors, there are competitors out there that have more generous revenue shares.

Can you -- would that tend to impact or take share from you guys over the course of time or can you talk about how that dynamic is panning out?

And then, it seems like guys have been driving down pricing among your major competitors. They're now trying to price match.

Have you seen any real impact from that thus far? Thanks.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2037843-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q4-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

Snip

Duck Swartz

Talking about your present strategy longer term?

Timothy E. Bixby - CFO

We think we can raise the prices over the long term but were primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level. We havent raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.

Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board

It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last


sorry to rain on your parade, but publicly traded companies never pay their suppliers more. there energy is spent on paying their shareholders more and bonuses to the CEO's for being able to cut costs in order to make the company more profitable, and that never has any regards towards the suppliers profit. just sayin. SS does not care about you. maybe you have your stock confused. there is stock as in 'contributor' and there is stock as in 'shareholder' and one will certainly make more money ++ can you guess which stock holder that would be? :)


Where did you get the idea that I thought a publicly traded company would pay their suppliers more? My point was it is not a wise long term business strategy; to support a publicly traded company who has stated publicly that they have deliberately devalued "our assets" by holding prices down long term to gain market share while publicly stating that they plan on doing so long term to gain greater market share.

I did suggest that we support, contribute and buy images from different stock photography sites who do not employ business strategy's that are as detrimental to contributors long tern.


farbled

« Reply #74 on: February 22, 2014, 12:47 »
+3
In this new and changed world of photography would it not be a better idea to think how you, as a photographer, can profit from the subscription sites.  They are here, and they will not go away.  I may be wrong, but I think you do well selling exclusively on one site.  I, as a newbie, don't have that option, so to survive and prosper I have to learn how to live with the world the way it is....not the way it was, and not the way I wish it was.
I want to frame this. Nicely put. :)


 

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