MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: blvdone on March 04, 2021, 19:37
-
This is very interesting. They have done massive cost cutting including Cost of Revenue (our commission payout?), Sales and Marketing and Product Development. However, General and Administrative (executive compensation?) was increased by about 3%. Net income and EPS more than tripled from 2019. Thus big jump in share price. The new commission tier system took effect on June 1, 2020. Quarter ending 6/30/2020 was the first quarter in many years for the first time to have negative growth (red bar in the first pic) in the Cost of Revenue. They've achieved their intended goal. Good job. Just by cutting the cost by $50 million, Shutterstock increased its market cap by $1.5 billion by doubling its stock price from 2019. It's the work of financial genius!! Notice the cost of revenue in Q4 went from 43% of revenue in 2019 to only 37% of revenue in 2020. It may not be entirely from contributor pay because our average pay must have been lower than 30% in Q4 2020. Also, Shutterstock cut its workforce by 13% in 2020. That may be a part of cost of revenue.
https://investor.shutterstock.com/news-releases/news-release-details/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2020-financial (https://investor.shutterstock.com/news-releases/news-release-details/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2020-financial)
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SSTK/shutterstock/cost-goods-sold (https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SSTK/shutterstock/cost-goods-sold)
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SSTK/shutterstock/number-of-employees (https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SSTK/shutterstock/number-of-employees)
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SSTK?p=SSTK (https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SSTK?p=SSTK)
-
So in lay terms, the sheet is gonna hit the fan for Suckerkok in 2021?
-
They are going to see an epic first quarter thanks to the reset and lower payments to contributors generally.
Longer term I don't think they have a clue what the next step will be. Share holders are going to want to see more growth and they are in a tail spin.
Revenue increases 2% in 2020 and 3% in 2019 compared to 11.9% in 2018 and 12.7% in 2017. They are in a tail spin and instead of reacting by coming up with innovative products they simply put their hands in our pockets and filled theirs.
-
They are going to see an epic first quarter thanks to the reset and lower payments to contributors generally.
Longer term I don't think they have a clue what the next step will be. Share holders are going to want to see more growth and they are in a tail spin.
Revenue increases 2% in 2020 and 3% in 2019 compared to 11.9% in 2018 and 12.7% in 2017. They are in a tail spin and instead of reacting by coming up with innovative products they simply put their hands in our pockets and filled theirs.
Yes, it's their cost cutting including cutting our commissions that propelled their stock price. $50 million cost cutting has created $1.5 billion in additional market cap value for Shutterstock last year. They are not growing.
-
They are going to see an epic first quarter thanks to the reset and lower payments to contributors generally.
Longer term I don't think they have a clue what the next step will be. Share holders are going to want to see more growth and they are in a tail spin.
Revenue increases 2% in 2020 and 3% in 2019 compared to 11.9% in 2018 and 12.7% in 2017. They are in a tail spin and instead of reacting by coming up with innovative products they simply put their hands in our pockets and filled theirs.
I agree, recent actions by Shutterstock are indicative of a company in trouble and reacting in panic. At best, unsustainable, at worst a concrete wall dead ahead.
-
They are going to see an epic first quarter thanks to the reset and lower payments to contributors generally.
Longer term I don't think they have a clue what the next step will be. Share holders are going to want to see more growth and they are in a tail spin.
Revenue increases 2% in 2020 and 3% in 2019 compared to 11.9% in 2018 and 12.7% in 2017. They are in a tail spin and instead of reacting by coming up with innovative products they simply put their hands in our pockets and filled theirs.
I agree, recent actions by Shutterstock are indicative of a company in trouble and reacting in panic. At best, unsustainable, at worst a concrete wall dead ahead.
I don't know about tailspin, but the revenue benefits from cutting our earnings are going to go flat. Investors want growth. The other key word mentioned above is innovation. Without innovation, growth will absolutely go flat and then cause the stock price to drop. One thing that works in their favor, competition isn't doing much to take away customers.
I don't think the company will fail or go under, but they won't be interesting to investors and the flat earnings will just mean flat share prices. Jon has been selling, he's smart. When Stan gets his big bonus that we provided from our losses, he should sell as soon as he can.
Back to $40 again and maybe lower by the end of 2021 if they don't come up with something better than steal from the poor to pay the rich.
The Microstock boom has run it's course.
-
They are going to see an epic first quarter thanks to the reset and lower payments to contributors generally.
Longer term I don't think they have a clue what the next step will be. Share holders are going to want to see more growth and they are in a tail spin.
Revenue increases 2% in 2020 and 3% in 2019 compared to 11.9% in 2018 and 12.7% in 2017. They are in a tail spin and instead of reacting by coming up with innovative products they simply put their hands in our pockets and filled theirs.
I agree, recent actions by Shutterstock are indicative of a company in trouble and reacting in panic. At best, unsustainable, at worst a concrete wall dead ahead.
I hope so. ;D
-
This is a company in trouble!! panic reactions just about everywhere!...the more contributors leaving the more trouble!
-
They are going to see an epic first quarter thanks to the reset and lower payments to contributors generally.
Longer term I don't think they have a clue what the next step will be. Share holders are going to want to see more growth and they are in a tail spin.
Revenue increases 2% in 2020 and 3% in 2019 compared to 11.9% in 2018 and 12.7% in 2017. They are in a tail spin and instead of reacting by coming up with innovative products they simply put their hands in our pockets and filled theirs.
I agree, recent actions by Shutterstock are indicative of a company in trouble and reacting in panic. At best, unsustainable, at worst a concrete wall dead ahead.
I don't know about tailspin, but the revenue benefits from cutting our earnings are going to go flat. Investors want growth. The other key word mentioned above is innovation. Without innovation, growth will absolutely go flat and then cause the stock price to drop. One thing that works in their favor, competition isn't doing much to take away customers.
I don't think the company will fail or go under, but they won't be interesting to investors and the flat earnings will just mean flat share prices. Jon has been selling, he's smart. When Stan gets his big bonus that we provided from our losses, he should sell as soon as he can.
Back to $40 again and maybe lower by the end of 2021 if they don't come up with something better than steal from the poor to pay the rich.
The Microstock boom has run it's course.
The comany is not in any trouble they are maximising short term gain as they see little future for the stock industry in terms of revenue growth. Contributors who take their photography business seriously should look to do the same and find more innovate/lucrative ways of using their skills.
-
They are going to see an epic first quarter thanks to the reset and lower payments to contributors generally.
Longer term I don't think they have a clue what the next step will be. Share holders are going to want to see more growth and they are in a tail spin.
Revenue increases 2% in 2020 and 3% in 2019 compared to 11.9% in 2018 and 12.7% in 2017. They are in a tail spin and instead of reacting by coming up with innovative products they simply put their hands in our pockets and filled theirs.
I agree, recent actions by Shutterstock are indicative of a company in trouble and reacting in panic. At best, unsustainable, at worst a concrete wall dead ahead.
I don't know about tailspin, but the revenue benefits from cutting our earnings are going to go flat. Investors want growth. The other key word mentioned above is innovation. Without innovation, growth will absolutely go flat and then cause the stock price to drop. One thing that works in their favor, competition isn't doing much to take away customers.
I don't think the company will fail or go under, but they won't be interesting to investors and the flat earnings will just mean flat share prices. Jon has been selling, he's smart. When Stan gets his big bonus that we provided from our losses, he should sell as soon as he can.
Back to $40 again and maybe lower by the end of 2021 if they don't come up with something better than steal from the poor to pay the rich.
The Microstock boom has run it's course.
The comany is not in any trouble they are maximising short term gain as they see little future for the stock industry in terms of revenue growth. Contributors who take their photography business seriously should look to do the same and find more innovate/lucrative ways of using their skills.
Oh sorry I forgot! the company is doing brilliant and shareholders are over the moon! The company is famous for treating contributors with respect and even increasing their royalty payments.
Thank God I joined this company in 2005! just couldnt get any better!.." Semper ama"
-
They are going to see an epic first quarter thanks to the reset and lower payments to contributors generally.
Longer term I don't think they have a clue what the next step will be. Share holders are going to want to see more growth and they are in a tail spin.
Revenue increases 2% in 2020 and 3% in 2019 compared to 11.9% in 2018 and 12.7% in 2017. They are in a tail spin and instead of reacting by coming up with innovative products they simply put their hands in our pockets and filled theirs.
I agree, recent actions by Shutterstock are indicative of a company in trouble and reacting in panic. At best, unsustainable, at worst a concrete wall dead ahead.
I don't know about tailspin, but the revenue benefits from cutting our earnings are going to go flat. Investors want growth. The other key word mentioned above is innovation. Without innovation, growth will absolutely go flat and then cause the stock price to drop. One thing that works in their favor, competition isn't doing much to take away customers.
I don't think the company will fail or go under, but they won't be interesting to investors and the flat earnings will just mean flat share prices. Jon has been selling, he's smart. When Stan gets his big bonus that we provided from our losses, he should sell as soon as he can.
Back to $40 again and maybe lower by the end of 2021 if they don't come up with something better than steal from the poor to pay the rich.
The Microstock boom has run it's course.
The comany is not in any trouble they are maximising short term gain as they see little future for the stock industry in terms of revenue growth. Contributors who take their photography business seriously should look to do the same and find more innovate/lucrative ways of using their skills.
Oh sorry I forgot! the company is doing brilliant and shareholders are over the moon! The company is famous for treating contributors with respect and even increasing their royalty payments.
Thank God I joined this company in 2005! just couldnt get any better!.." Semper ama"
You are confusing the way you are treated with the financial performance of the company. There is zero evidence that Shutterstock are in any difficulty.
-
Yeah, you can't really refute what somebody is saying by providing examples of incorrect things that somebody didn't say. That's not how it works! He said they're not in trouble... he didn't say they were doing brilliantly and shareholders are over the moon. And he didn't say, hint at or even insinuate that SS is 'famous for treating contributors with respect and even increasing their royalty payments'.
Their growth rates may have been slowing of late (like pretty much any agency who has been around for a while... or contributor for that matter), but they were still making a lot of money. And with the change to the royalty structures, they're now making more money than before. So while the shareholders may not be over the moon, they're probably pretty happy with how things are going, and SS definitely aren't 'in trouble'.
How long that lasts for remains to be seen.
-
The comany is not in any trouble they are maximising short term gain as they see little future for the stock industry in terms of revenue growth. Contributors who take their photography business seriously should look to do the same and find more innovate/lucrative ways of using their skills.
I would say the the section bolded by me demonstrates that they are in trouble. I would also point again to the big slow down in growth that predates the pandemic.
From my own personal experience they have gone from being my far and away top earner to just another one of the larger sites extremely fast. Other sites are continuing to grow in terms of my payouts and have made up for SS's drop (I stopped uploading new content to them when the new structure was announced).
I have also just done an interesting comparison for number of downloads/ year. For 2015-2020 my total number of DLs for AS(FL) + SS have been remarkably consistent @ approximately 80,000 total with AS taking up more of a chunk every year. Make of that what you will.
We will have to wait and see I guess.
-
The comany is not in any trouble they are maximising short term gain as they see little future for the stock industry in terms of revenue growth. Contributors who take their photography business seriously should look to do the same and find more innovate/lucrative ways of using their skills.
I would say the the section bolded by me demonstrates that they are in trouble. I would also point again to the big slow down in growth that predates the pandemic.
From my own personal experience they have gone from being my far and away top earner to just another one of the larger sites extremely fast. Other sites are continuing to grow in terms of my payouts and have made up for SS's drop (I stopped uploading new content to them when the new structure was announced).
I have also just done an interesting comparison for number of downloads/ year. For 2015-2020 my total number of DLs for AS(FL) + SS have been remarkably consistent @ approximately 80,000 total with AS taking up more of a chunk every year. Make of that what you will.
We will have to wait and see I guess.
For a business though the objective is to make money not shift units. Its only my opinion though but I think they are not expecting a growth in the market as a whole and are managing on that assumption. There is no hard evidence looking at SSs financials they are in any sort of "trouble".
-
This little growth is the contributors money that went straight down their pockets! nothing else. So whats next? how are they going to maintain their growth? by stealing from us yet again and again and again??
-
All this business about evil Shutterstock is getting silly. The fact is that the supply of photos available for download has increased by a significant amount. The demand for those photos has not increased at anything approaching the magnitude of the supply increase. When supply increases faster than demand the price drops--hence the reduction in artist commissions. To the degree that some artists drop out because it isn't worth their time at the new price level, well that is simply the mirror image of Shutterstock's commission cuts.
That's how prices are discovered in the market place and how an equilibrium point is reached. It has nothing to do with greed, or the black hats versus the white hats or any of that stuff. It is just supply and demand; thing more, nothing less.
To the degree that other players think that they can attract better returns by offering higher commissions to artists, perhaps for higher quality photos and a more exclusive customer base, they will do so. That's how competitive markets work.
Joe Benning
-
According to shutterstock these Consolidated Statements of Operations, balance sheets and so on is data unaudited.
This financial report could be better or worse. We will only see if this correct after audit certification. right?
-
Good news for us all. Shutterstock has increased its Free Cash Flow by nearly 100% yoy in 2020 after averaging about 20% yoy gain in previous years. Guess where they got that "Cash" from? Is your wallet missing some money you were supposed to have?
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SSTK/cash-flow?p=SSTK
-
And recently on 3/1/2021, Stan "the man" CEO cashed in nearly $8 million worth of SSTK stock. Nice!! Big pay day!!!
https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/sstk/insider-activity (https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/sstk/insider-activity)
-
The situation with Shutterstock is far from unique. This is just the latest example (and a small one at that) of the basic problem that plagues an economy based on the stock market. Investors demand increased profit year over year which is a physical impossibility. To make just the same massive profits as the previous year is seen as a failure. So they only way to achieve this constant growth, even in the short term, is to continuously cut costs. Of course they never think to cut executive salaries, so the only thing left is the low level employees.
This is why all of North America's manufacturing jobs started moving to Asia in the 1980's, followed quickly by customer service, printing, etc. The result was massive profit increases for company owners and investors but the slow erosion and evenutually complete destruction of the middle class. The fact that there was an immediate drop in the quality of the goods produced and that well-paid, skilled workers were replaced by sweat shops with appalling human rights abuses, including child labour and virtual slavery, were ignored in the race for ever-higher shareholder profits.
This is, of course, a short-sighted business plan, because when no-one has a job, who will buy the goods and services? Which is why Philip Morris, Mcdonalds, Walmart, etc. are trying to get kids around the world hooked on cigarrettes, fast food, and cheap disposable goods.
Time to break out the torches and pitchforks.
-
The situation with Shutterstock is far from unique. This is just the latest example (and a small one at that) of the basic problem that plagues an economy based on the stock market. Investors demand increased profit year over year which is a physical impossibility. To make just the same massive profits as the previous year is seen as a failure. So they only way to achieve this constant growth, even in the short term, is to continuously cut costs. Of course they never think to cut executive salaries, so the only thing left is the low level employees.
This is why all of North America's manufacturing jobs started moving to Asia in the 1980's, followed quickly by customer service, printing, etc. The result was massive profit increases for company owners and investors but the slow erosion and evenutually complete destruction of the middle class. The fact that there was an immediate drop in the quality of the goods produced and that well-paid, skilled workers were replaced by sweat shops with appalling human rights abuses, including child labour and virtual slavery, were ignored in the race for ever-higher shareholder profits.
This is, of course, a short-sighted business plan, because when no-one has a job, who will buy the goods and services? Which is why Philip Morris, Mcdonalds, Walmart, etc. are trying to get kids around the world hooked on cigarrettes, fast food, and cheap disposable goods.
Time to break out the torches and pitchforks.
Very thoughtful analysis!!
Our destiny is a sweatshop labor under Shutterstok sadly I guess.
-
Time to break out the torches and pitchforks.
(https://i.postimg.cc/288cGKYY/angrymob-composite-2012.jpg)
-
This little growth is the contributors money that went straight down their pockets! nothing else. So whats next? how are they going to maintain their growth? by stealing from us yet again and again and again??
Definitely the major part of their profit growth came from lowering our pay. They exactly knew what they were trying to do.
-
The situation with Shutterstock is far from unique. This is just the latest example (and a small one at that) of the basic problem that plagues an economy based on the stock market. Investors demand increased profit year over year which is a physical impossibility. To make just the same massive profits as the previous year is seen as a failure. So they only way to achieve this constant growth, even in the short term, is to continuously cut costs. Of course they never think to cut executive salaries, so the only thing left is the low level employees.
This is why all of North America's manufacturing jobs started moving to Asia in the 1980's, followed quickly by customer service, printing, etc. The result was massive profit increases for company owners and investors but the slow erosion and evenutually complete destruction of the middle class. The fact that there was an immediate drop in the quality of the goods produced and that well-paid, skilled workers were replaced by sweat shops with appalling human rights abuses, including child labour and virtual slavery, were ignored in the race for ever-higher shareholder profits.
This is, of course, a short-sighted business plan, because when no-one has a job, who will buy the goods and services? Which is why Philip Morris, Mcdonalds, Walmart, etc. are trying to get kids around the world hooked on cigarrettes, fast food, and cheap disposable goods.
Time to break out the torches and pitchforks.
The other result you fail to see is the much lower consumer prices you enjoyed, not to mention the overall progress driven by an open economy.
In a free market, you can always boycott products you don't consider moral. However, I'm pretty certain that a large majority of marxist activists, will instantly forget such moral dilemmas when it comes to their own wallet, choosing a good deal, ahead of more expensive locally manufactured alternatives.
So feel free to boycott those companies and products, but don't take the freedom to choose away (with your torches and pitchforks), from those who can't afford that luxury ;)
-
This little growth is the contributors money that went straight down their pockets! nothing else. So whats next? how are they going to maintain their growth? by stealing from us yet again and again and again??
Definitely the major part of their profit growth came from lowering our pay. They exactly knew what they were trying to do.
No it didn't.
You do realise that the lowered rates did not start until January 1st don't you? So the results of that won't be reported until the end of Q1 in 2021 - so all of the increased profits, etc are the results of actions taken other than cutting commission rates.
-
This little growth is the contributors money that went straight down their pockets! nothing else. So whats next? how are they going to maintain their growth? by stealing from us yet again and again and again??
Definitely the major part of their profit growth came from lowering our pay. They exactly knew what they were trying to do.
No it didn't.
You do realise that the lowered rates did not start until January 1st don't you? So the results of that won't be reported until the end of Q1 in 2021 - so all of the increased profits, etc are the results of actions taken other than cutting commission rates.
Are you with Shutterstock? Or just say no to my post?
"Starting on June 1st, 2020, your earnings for each license will be based on your Image Level or your Video Level. "
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/
-
You do realise that the lowered rates did not start until January 1st don't you? So the results of that won't be reported until the end of Q1 in 2021 - so all of the increased profits, etc are the results of actions taken other than cutting commission rates.
Not really true. The levels came in June 1st.
Things like sub cuts from 0.38 to 0.10 happened then.
Jan will give a bigger increase yes but the start of the reduction was June 2020.
-
You do realise that the lowered rates did not start until January 1st don't you? So the results of that won't be reported until the end of Q1 in 2021 - so all of the increased profits, etc are the results of actions taken other than cutting commission rates.
Not really true. The levels came in June 1st.
Things like sub cuts from 0.38 to 0.10 happened then.
Jan will give a bigger increase yes but the start of the reduction was June 2020.
True correction, and lets not forget that with the new year, ODs dropped into a deep pit as well. From $2.70 each, they are now down in the 40 cent range. Another source for more income.
Another detail for myself is, I won't be at level 4 by June this year, like I was last year. Sales volume is down.
-
You do realise that the lowered rates did not start until January 1st don't you? So the results of that won't be reported until the end of Q1 in 2021 - so all of the increased profits, etc are the results of actions taken other than cutting commission rates.
Not really true. The levels came in June 1st.
Things like sub cuts from 0.38 to 0.10 happened then.
Jan will give a bigger increase yes but the start of the reduction was June 2020.
Exactly. I don't think he/she is/was a contributor at the time.
-
All this business about evil Shutterstock is getting silly. The fact is that the supply of photos available for download has increased by a significant amount. The demand for those photos has not increased at anything approaching the magnitude of the supply increase. When supply increases faster than demand the price drops--hence the reduction in artist commissions. To the degree that some artists drop out because it isn't worth their time at the new price level, well that is simply the mirror image of Shutterstock's commission cuts.
That's how prices are discovered in the market place and how an equilibrium point is reached. It has nothing to do with greed, or the black hats versus the white hats or any of that stuff. It is just supply and demand; thing more, nothing less.
To the degree that other players think that they can attract better returns by offering higher commissions to artists, perhaps for higher quality photos and a more exclusive customer base, they will do so. That's how competitive markets work.
Joe Benning
Exactly! If one wants to remain viable in this changing market one has to adjust to changing conditions. Complaining about evil agencies won't increase your bottom line. One needs to decide whether one can still compete under these conditions or cut bait. There are ways to continue, one just needs to find them!
-
All this business about evil Shutterstock is getting silly. The fact is that the supply of photos available for download has increased by a significant amount. The demand for those photos has not increased at anything approaching the magnitude of the supply increase. When supply increases faster than demand the price drops--hence the reduction in artist commissions. To the degree that some artists drop out because it isn't worth their time at the new price level, well that is simply the mirror image of Shutterstock's commission cuts.
That's how prices are discovered in the market place and how an equilibrium point is reached. It has nothing to do with greed, or the black hats versus the white hats or any of that stuff. It is just supply and demand; thing more, nothing less.
To the degree that other players think that they can attract better returns by offering higher commissions to artists, perhaps for higher quality photos and a more exclusive customer base, they will do so. That's how competitive markets work.
Joe Benning
Exactly! If one wants to remain viable in this changing market one has to adjust to changing conditions. Complaining about evil agencies won't increase your bottom line. One needs to decide whether one can still compete under these conditions or cut bait. There are ways to continue, one just needs to find them!
Shutterstock would love contributor like you!!! You are model contributors!! ;D
-
Joebenning! No you got it wrong its not a matter of evil agencies. Its a matter of if you want to support a business that is going from bad to worse support a business who is surviving on the basis of robbing its suppliers.
You talk about supply and demand hahaha! that conclusion was on the agenda 10 years back but you wasn't here then.
Many people here you understand see their livelihood just fading away and see their portfolios of tens of thousands of images being virtually useless! not a pretty picture.
So to come here with lots of waffle and quasi philosophy isnt a good thing.
-
Joebenning! No you got it wrong its not a matter of evil agencies. Its a matter of if you want to support a business that is going from bad to worse support a business who is surviving on the basis of robbing its suppliers.
You talk about supply and demand hahaha! that conclusion was on the agenda 10 years back but you wasn't here then.
Many people here you understand see their livelihood just fading away and see their portfolios of tens of thousands of images being virtually useless! not a pretty picture.
So to come here with lots of waffle and quasi philosophy isnt a good thing.
youve been calling quits at shutterstock since 2015 and you still have your portfolio with them https://www.shutterstock.com/g/attorney2 (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/attorney2)