pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reports Q3 2014 Results  (Read 12479 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lightrecorder

« Reply #75 on: November 10, 2014, 11:25 »
0


It will be interesting to see what occurs once SS has the lions share of exclusive content and those new members reach $ .38.

I am at 38 cent and got some pretty good months, as in top 3 months, so that theory seems to be thin air.

Not IS exl though


Uncle Pete

« Reply #76 on: November 10, 2014, 11:37 »
0
Yes I am too and have found no drop in anything.

But for someone to promote the theory that SS is forcing buyers to take substandard images from new people, blocking old content, turning off zones or capping accounts, simply for the extra 3-5 cents, is kind of a reach?

Gbalex: Since this "specific date" when so many long time contributors found a sudden change, is often alluded to, what is that "specific date"?

Why does the date from many individuals, differ? To the point that some people say early 2012 and some Mid- 2013. Some seem to have just reached this in 2014? That's a sudden, drop, and targeting a group of long time contributors, because they earn too much.

What I'm getting at is this. How about some specific evidence? Instead of theories and claims which have nothing for proof other than "people have noticed" or someone has watched and has seen this.

Start with the specific date (month and year for example, not day) that the algorithm changed and all the people who dropped suddenly, had the same change at the same time. Is there one?




It will be interesting to see what occurs once SS has the lions share of exclusive content and those new members reach $ .38.

I am at 38 cent and got some pretty good months, as in top 3 months, so that theory seems to be thin air.

Not IS exl though

For reference: "Those of us who experienced large drops when they rolled out the new search have explained ad nauseam, that the income drops occurred overnight.

If these sudden overnight drops in income had occurred because of large quantities of new exclusive content the drops would have occurred slowly over time.  Do you actually believe that the majority of exclusive content was uploaded overnight and that all exclusives jumped ship together on the very day our earnings were slashed?

Most everyone I know who had large quantities of images in first pages experienced these drops. I do understand that if you did not have many images in first page searches to begin with, your sales would not have changed much."


ps I have images in the first pages of a number of very specific searches.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2014, 12:01 by Uncle Pete »

Photominer

« Reply #77 on: November 10, 2014, 11:59 »
0
I am more interested in something that says the algorithm changed specifically to target long time contributors as per his assertion that it is a planned strategy by a VC to enhance shareholder value at the expense of long time contributors.

« Reply #78 on: November 10, 2014, 12:06 »
+3
...simply for the extra 3-5 cents, ...

Without disagreeing with everything else you said, if a company can reduce the cost of sales for one item from 38 cents to 25 cents, that is about 30%.

Go to any big company and ask them what they would pay you if you had an idea how they could reduce their cost of sales by 30%.

That is not insignificant.

That being said, although I can see the motivation, that alone is no proof that they actually did/do punish specific portfolios.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #79 on: November 10, 2014, 12:24 »
-1
Yes and I'm forced to admit that investor pressures, could cause strange things and subterfuge. Yes cents from millions of DLs could add up to big dollars. You are correct.

But I don't really think SS would sink to that, and risk offending long time contributors by playing for pennies. I also can't see how they can force buyers to take substandard images, just because they cost the company less in commissions. SS wants the best and best matching images for the consumer, to appear first. It's totally illogical to think they would target us as individuals for lower rank, at the same time harming the image quality that buyers will see.

...simply for the extra 3-5 cents, ...

Without disagreeing with everything else you said, if a company can reduce the cost of sales for one item from 38 cents to 25 cents, that is about 30%.

Go to any big company and ask them what they would pay you if you had an idea how they could reduce their cost of sales by 30%.

That is not insignificant.

That being said, although I can see the motivation, that alone is no proof that they actually did/do punish specific portfolios.

shudderstok

« Reply #80 on: November 10, 2014, 13:32 »
0
Yes and I'm forced to admit that investor pressures, could cause strange things and subterfuge. Yes cents from millions of DLs could add up to big dollars. You are correct.

But I don't really think SS would sink to that, and risk offending long time contributors by playing for pennies. I also can't see how they can force buyers to take substandard images, just because they cost the company less in commissions. SS wants the best and best matching images for the consumer, to appear first. It's totally illogical to think they would target us as individuals for lower rank, at the same time harming the image quality that buyers will see.

...simply for the extra 3-5 cents, ...

Without disagreeing with everything else you said, if a company can reduce the cost of sales for one item from 38 cents to 25 cents, that is about 30%.

Go to any big company and ask them what they would pay you if you had an idea how they could reduce their cost of sales by 30%.

That is not insignificant.

That being said, although I can see the motivation, that alone is no proof that they actually did/do punish specific portfolios.

Once upon a time there was a company called Getty Images, and they became the darling of the stock industry and they would have never done any of the things suggested in this post. Then Getty Images went public and suddenly "contibutors" became financial "liabilities", they were our "agent" and not our "distributor", our photographs being our "images" and not our "assets". Publicly traded companies regardless of what the commodity will eventually do the very same thing. Each and every publicly traded company regardless of what they sell are all about the bottom line for the shareholders. To think any differently is to only fool yourself. The shareholders will get a raise before any of you, and if they lose money mark my words, so will you. Just sayin.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #81 on: November 10, 2014, 13:48 »
0
I have already agreed that investor groups and people like Hellman & Friedman were only interested in their short term gains, and we are the pawns.

Now about the question I actually asked for proof and evidence? Or is that conjecture, based on another company, and history, your factual proof?  ???

" income drops occurred overnight.

 sudden overnight drops in income had occurred...  very day our earnings were slashed?

Most everyone I know who had large quantities of images in first pages experienced these drops. I do understand that if you did not have many images in first page searches to begin with, your sales would not have changed much."


Hey wait, you aren't an SS contributor are you?


Yes and I'm forced to admit that investor pressures, could cause strange things and subterfuge. Yes cents from millions of DLs could add up to big dollars. You are correct.

But I don't really think SS would sink to that, and risk offending long time contributors by playing for pennies. I also can't see how they can force buyers to take substandard images, just because they cost the company less in commissions. SS wants the best and best matching images for the consumer, to appear first. It's totally illogical to think they would target us as individuals for lower rank, at the same time harming the image quality that buyers will see.

...simply for the extra 3-5 cents, ...

Without disagreeing with everything else you said, if a company can reduce the cost of sales for one item from 38 cents to 25 cents, that is about 30%.

Go to any big company and ask them what they would pay you if you had an idea how they could reduce their cost of sales by 30%.

That is not insignificant.

That being said, although I can see the motivation, that alone is no proof that they actually did/do punish specific portfolios.

Once upon a time there was a company called Getty Images, and they became the darling of the stock industry and they would have never done any of the things suggested in this post. Then Getty Images went public and suddenly "contibutors" became financial "liabilities", they were our "agent" and not our "distributor", our photographs being our "images" and not our "assets". Publicly traded companies regardless of what the commodity will eventually do the very same thing. Each and every publicly traded company regardless of what they sell are all about the bottom line for the shareholders. To think any differently is to only fool yourself. The shareholders will get a raise before any of you, and if they lose money mark my words, so will you. Just sayin.

shudderstok

« Reply #82 on: November 10, 2014, 14:02 »
0
I have already agreed that investor groups and people like Hellman & Friedman were only interested in their short term gains, and we are the pawns.

Now about the question I actually asked for proof and evidence? Or is that conjecture, based on another company, and history, your factual proof?  ???

" income drops occurred overnight.

 sudden overnight drops in income had occurred...  very day our earnings were slashed?

Most everyone I know who had large quantities of images in first pages experienced these drops. I do understand that if you did not have many images in first page searches to begin with, your sales would not have changed much."


Hey wait, you aren't an SS contributor are you?


Yes and I'm forced to admit that investor pressures, could cause strange things and subterfuge. Yes cents from millions of DLs could add up to big dollars. You are correct.

But I don't really think SS would sink to that, and risk offending long time contributors by playing for pennies. I also can't see how they can force buyers to take substandard images, just because they cost the company less in commissions. SS wants the best and best matching images for the consumer, to appear first. It's totally illogical to think they would target us as individuals for lower rank, at the same time harming the image quality that buyers will see.

...simply for the extra 3-5 cents, ...

Without disagreeing with everything else you said, if a company can reduce the cost of sales for one item from 38 cents to 25 cents, that is about 30%.

Go to any big company and ask them what they would pay you if you had an idea how they could reduce their cost of sales by 30%.

That is not insignificant.

That being said, although I can see the motivation, that alone is no proof that they actually did/do punish specific portfolios.

Once upon a time there was a company called Getty Images, and they became the darling of the stock industry and they would have never done any of the things suggested in this post. Then Getty Images went public and suddenly "contibutors" became financial "liabilities", they were our "agent" and not our "distributor", our photographs being our "images" and not our "assets". Publicly traded companies regardless of what the commodity will eventually do the very same thing. Each and every publicly traded company regardless of what they sell are all about the bottom line for the shareholders. To think any differently is to only fool yourself. The shareholders will get a raise before any of you, and if they lose money mark my words, so will you. Just sayin.

no i am not a SS contributor. i could not accept their terms and royalties back in 2006 and still don't. back then 0.25c seemed an insult compared to what was on offer then elsewhere which if memory serves correctly was the lowest royalty rate, also selling for subscription was a self destruct concept that i felt strongly against as it was a very real threat to the industry and the valuation of imagery, and i still feel the same way, granted i would be making 0.38c now, which still makes no sense to me.

and i was not referring to H&F, GI was publicly traded years earlier on NASDAQ as Getty Images in a similar fashion to SS currently.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #83 on: November 10, 2014, 14:41 »
0
Hey there pete!

For what it is worth you may as well crap in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up first!

Because no one here or on SS has the so called mysterious date you are and have been asking for or else they would  have already provided it to you.

It's a business and whenever a business finds a way to make more they make changes and if those submitting to them see their income drop it is up to them not SS to find out what to do differently and how to do it differently so they don't see this drop but instead of this they choose to come up with this mystery date you are talking about.

Sorry but the truth hurts and now lets have some popcorn and beer and watch as the show begins.


« Reply #84 on: November 10, 2014, 15:07 »
0
...simply for the extra 3-5 cents, ...

Without disagreeing with everything else you said, if a company can reduce the cost of sales for one item from 38 cents to 25 cents, that is about 30%.

Go to any big company and ask them what they would pay you if you had an idea how they could reduce their cost of sales by 30%.

That is not insignificant.

That being said, although I can see the motivation, that alone is no proof that they actually did/do punish specific portfolios.

Actually this will all play out in 10Q reports once shutterstock has assimilated the majority of IS exclusives and they have all hit $.38.  Once this occurs and has become stable we will be able to see the reality of the situation in Decreased Revenue and/or Decreased Revenue per download.

Typically return for the venture capitalist as a shareholder depends on the growth and profitability of the business. Venture capital funds are most interested in ventures with exceptionally high growth potential, as only such opportunities are likely capable of providing financial returns in the short window they require and thus offer a successful exit within the required time frame (typically 37 years) that venture capitalists expect.

« Reply #85 on: November 10, 2014, 15:52 »
+2
Actually this will all play out in 10Q reports once shutterstock has assimilated the majority of IS exclusives and they have all hit $.38.  Once this occurs and has become stable we will be able to see the reality of the situation in Decreased Revenue and/or Decreased Revenue per download.

You don't have to wait for reality, it's here, now. Tomorrow's reality may be a bit different, just as yesterday's was, but in the end you have to live with whatever today's reality is. Reality never "becomes stable".

« Reply #86 on: November 11, 2014, 10:05 »
-2
Actually this will all play out in 10Q reports once shutterstock has assimilated the majority of IS exclusives and they have all hit $.38.  Once this occurs and has become stable we will be able to see the reality of the situation in Decreased Revenue and/or Decreased Revenue per download.

You don't have to wait for reality, it's here, now. Tomorrow's reality may be a bit different, just as yesterday's was, but in the end you have to live with whatever today's reality is. Reality never "becomes stable".

Theoretically I agree, and personally I don't have to wait I can see it in my numbers and my friends numbers. I will be interested to see the changing ratios for Revenue per download once the majority of exclusives jump ship.

I think the fact that they want to lure IS exclusives to SS is one of the main reasons shutterstock answers contributor concerns here on MSG; while they refuse to answer them on shutterstocks own boards where the answers would reach all contributors. They want IS exclusives to see that they are responsive to contributor concerns when that is not the case at all.

They also fear that analyst will be watching this board.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2014, 10:38 by gbalex »

Uncle Pete

« Reply #87 on: November 11, 2014, 14:53 »
+2
Well contrary to another one of the false claims, SS has answered on their forum, the accusations of capping, blocking, and preferences for lower earning members. In fact (and I know you read it) Scott denied that any of that happens or that any of it is truth.

Of course for the conspiracy minded, the fact that SS openly denies it, must make it true?  :)

Yes, waiting for evidence and proof is like waiting for Santa Claus, except there's more evidence and proof that Santa exists, I mean people around the world believe in him and see him every year. He must be real!

There are photos of Nessie, Champ and the Yeti, but not a single strand of data for individual account manipulation, and targeting by SS?

Proof of the claims, that SS is somehow forcing inferior artists and images to the top of searches, has never been shown one bit. No evidence, just conjecture and anecdotal claims.

Why is that?


Hey there pete!

For what it is worth you may as well crap in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up first!

Because no one here or on SS has the so called mysterious date you are and have been asking for or else they would  have already provided it to you.

It's a business and whenever a business finds a way to make more they make changes and if those submitting to them see their income drop it is up to them not SS to find out what to do differently and how to do it differently so they don't see this drop but instead of this they choose to come up with this mystery date you are talking about.

Sorry but the truth hurts and now lets have some popcorn and beer and watch as the show begins.



« Reply #88 on: November 11, 2014, 18:45 »
+6
The people who had an unfair advantage because the search favored old pictures with more downloads count, lost that when SS changed the search to something fair. That's why gbalex and friends had long time pictures on the top of the search. Of course they are bitter, it gave somebody else like us a fair chance to get to the front of the search where all those old pictures held spots just because of age, total downloads and a bad set of algorithms. SS made it better and fairer for the rest of us to get higher search placement and make more money.

« Reply #89 on: January 18, 2015, 04:03 »
0
They don't need to sustain the growth in the collection. If they stopped accepting images today they could probably still keep growing the business for years.

sure, screwing their own suppliers which are also buyers in many cases, just like iStock did ... what could ever go wrong ?

besides, agencies are not a search engine, they're not google, they don't need to keep in store billions of images that never sold and never will, they can pretty much set a limit like 50 million pics on sale and periodically delete the non-sellers, if your image never sold once in 5 yrs what's the point of wasting time and storage space ?

claiming to have xxx millions of pics is just a marketing strategy after all, there's no technical reason to do that considering only 20% of the images are maybe selling decently and the remaining 80% could be wiped out and nobody would ever notice.

+10
« Last Edit: January 18, 2015, 04:24 by SSContributor »

« Reply #90 on: January 18, 2015, 12:27 »
0
Quote

On the other hand, I went to Venice once to shoot stock, that's a fairly high commercial value destination and my pictures sank almost instantly, without trace. It was an interesting trip but it's pretty clear it will never recoup its costs.  I've made quite a nice pile of cash from Santorini - but that's only because I was one of the very first microstockers to upload pictures of the famous churches.  I would say that breaking into a high-commercial-value area these days probably requires an absolutely extraordinary interpretation of the subject (which is then probably too good for the micros), if your pictures are just superb microstock HCV work then they are likely to be competing unsuccessfully against established, equally superb images and to be lost in the nether regions of the search before they've made an impact.  Yuri's HCV, high production cost, work now only seems to sell two or three times faster than my LCV, dirt-cheap, work; at one time he was outselling me 20 or 30-fold or more.

I have been surprised at the performance of several of my images of high commercial value, very well covered subjects.   I have a downtown shot of LA from the Hollywood Bowl overlook that there must be thousands of already on SS, yet mine has floated up to the first page to be a best seller for me.   (Of course, I live here, so it only cost me gas and the price of an In and Out burger to shoot).   I also have some Yosemite images (another well covered subject) that have also sold very well and are first page residents.     

I don't consider my takes of these subjects as any different than any other photogs, but I guess it is still possible to break into some of the well covered areas.  I expect there is a lot of luck involved though, so I wouldn't book a trip just to get stock shots or anything.     :)

The sheer numbers that the catalog is increasing by is very daunting though.  Think of how different SS was back in 07 when I joined.   In another 8 years, who knows what it will look like.  We will just all have to keep on our toes and move with the market. 

Rinderart

« Reply #91 on: January 18, 2015, 14:13 »
0
Current stock price close on friday 57.88.  And I for one DO believe in the conspiracy theory. I had Images that sold every single day since 2005. and on march 12th 2012. they never sold again. Last oct, Nov was fantastic. Dec fell over a cliff and still continues. the only thing Correct in my port is newist first. Thats it. And Im getting Mighty sick of it. 10 Years down the drain. I really am glad some are doing Fine..I have quite a few friends that said that also, Then Bam. things changed.

« Last Edit: January 18, 2015, 14:22 by Rinderart »


« Reply #92 on: March 13, 2015, 11:04 »
+1
Sudden increase in SS stock price, despite all markets being down.
About $7 (12-15%) up in last two days. Latest price over $64. No idea what is the cause for the extraordinary rise.
No new financial news available, could be due to purchases by insiders who know more than the shareholders.
   
« Last Edit: March 13, 2015, 11:09 by LesPalenik »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
90 Replies
14593 Views
Last post February 25, 2014, 12:56
by Batman
14 Replies
13061 Views
Last post May 10, 2014, 03:10
by BaldricksTrousers
52 Replies
8974 Views
Last post August 11, 2014, 12:16
by stryjek
126 Replies
28415 Views
Last post January 14, 2015, 15:09
by tickstock
7 Replies
2131 Views
Last post May 07, 2015, 14:17
by Semmick Photo

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results