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

Quote from: shudderstok on February 22, 2014, 12:16

Quote from: gbalex on February 22, 2014, 11:49

Quote from: luissantos84 on February 22, 2014, 06:05

Quote from: gbalex on February 21, 2014, 23:21

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 we�re 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 haven�t 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.

Quote from: shudderstok on February 23, 2014, 03:15

i think it best as contributors that we don't support this type of outlet for selling our work, i only wish the buyers saw it this way too.

It's too late now, I sympathise totally but SS are winning the war in the short term at least.

What the SS fanboys don't realise is that the upward curve many are experiencing is exactly the same IS exclusives experienced a few years ago when they had the lions share of the market. The fanboys will be a lot, lot quieter when that market share plateaus and the flow starts the other way with IS exclusives contributors throwing in the towel and start dumping sizeable ports en masse.

The irony is you can't live without IS as an indy if you want a decent RPI. SS will never get to be a Getty which they so desperately want, their low price non-exclusive business model actively supports uploading to Thinkstock which will always hamper their growth.

Quote from: Red Dove on February 24, 2014, 07:03

You either deal with the market as it is or you go and do something else. Whining about the good old days or blathering on about a business model you do not like or cannot change is a waste of energy.

exactly, that is the hard truth and we haven't/won't change it, I would love to know why the 2 "biggest" contributors went exclusive, is the iStock success hidden somewhere?

You either deal with the market as it is or you go and do something else. Whining about the good old days or blathering on about a business model you do not like or cannot change is a waste of energy.

Besides which, the majority don't care since they probably have day jobs or enjoy additional revenue streams from other ventures they are constantly moving to and from - as they grow or decline.