pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Royalty Rates  (Read 3791 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 27, 2017, 09:46 »
+6
During the Shutterstock conference call today one questioner asked, Any quick thoughts on your royalty rate vs your competitors. Any changes there?

Steven Bern, the CFO and newly appointed Chief Operating Officer responded, What were trying to do is drive both the best contributors, to keep them on out platform and sustain their contribution of great quality imagery, to drive our customers to continue to use Shutterstock and that has been a successful model. We see the royalty rate as fair, and our contributors deem it the same, so we look at it from the outcome of the interests of both our customers and contributors. We see what our competitors are doing but we dont think cutting a single side of the marketplace is an effective mechanism for long term profitable, sustainable growth.

They paid out 28% of the $494.3 million in 2016 revenue in royalties. That comes to approximately $138.4 million in total royalties paid to contributors in 2016.

And as of December 31, 2016 they had $224,190,000 in cash and cash equivalents that they feel it is necessary to hold onto for future possible needs.

Which contributors are they talking to who deem the royalty rate fair?


« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2017, 09:56 »
+1
During the Shutterstock conference call today one questioner asked, Any quick thoughts on your royalty rate vs your competitors. Any changes there?

Steven Bern, the CFO and newly appointed Chief Operating Officer responded, What were trying to do is drive both the best contributors, to keep them on out platform and sustain their contribution of great quality imagery, to drive our customers to continue to use Shutterstock and that has been a successful model. We see the royalty rate as fair, and our contributors deem it the same, so we look at it from the outcome of the interests of both our customers and contributors. We see what our competitors are doing but we dont think cutting a single side of the marketplace is an effective mechanism for long term profitable, sustainable growth.

They paid out 28% of the $494.3 million in 2016 revenue in royalties. That comes to approximately $138.4 million in total royalties paid to contributors in 2016.

And as of December 31, 2016 they had $224,190,000 in cash and cash equivalents that they feel it is necessary to hold onto for future possible needs.

Which contributors are they talking to who deem the royalty rate fair?

The answer he gave you "the best contributors"

« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2017, 10:17 »
+1
Thats huge amount of royalty paid out, but it also says that its 28% of total so the question is where is the rest 72% being used?

« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2017, 10:25 »
0
So, i'm down the average ...

Shutterstock claims a 2,88 $ revenue per download in 2016 (3,02 $ in Q4 2016) ... I had an rpd of 0,72 $ in 2016 ...

So my royalty rate was 25% (0,72/2,88) ... 3% down from avg.

Anyone has higher rpd ?

« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2017, 10:44 »
0
They paid out 28% of the $494.3 million in 2016 revenue in royalties. That comes to approximately $138.4 million in total royalties paid to contributors in 2016.

How were they using the word "royalties" in this statement?  Was this a reference to all royalties collected and converted to U.S. Currency and BEFORE any kind of deduction?   Or do they take their deductions and then say they've kept 72% (when technically they've paid for their offices, massages, expense accounts but not shown us).    But wouldn't a company this size have several International entities that report individually?  Where do they fit in?

What about their receipt of "future" revenue for subscription purchases, and abandoned/expired subscription receipts - those monies should be other revenue, and not included in their definition of royalty revenue - so that would put SS pulling in a lot more than the royalties revenue they speak of.

« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2017, 10:49 »
+7
Hmm... It would be nice to get paid more. The earnings trend as a contributor seems to be going down and interest as a contributor has definitely waned. Just in case they want to hear it. There it is. :D

« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2017, 11:13 »
0
Meanwhile trading today 16% down


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2017, 12:02 »
+3
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/27/shutterstock-aims-to-become-a-premier-digital-plat.aspx

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/27/shares-of-shutterstock-dive-after-earnings-sales-miss.html

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/27/why-shutterstock-inc-stock-tumbled-today.aspx


The fact that the CFO will become COO on March 1st suggests at attempt to look serious about the money side of the business. Shame they've just taken their eye off the ball with their main collection (who knows what their premium-special-select stuff looks like). Stuffing it with dreck - allowing truly mind-bending image spam - is not a good long term move, but they just don't seem to care.

Earnings at SS are flat or falling for many contributors (again, no idea what the premium-special-select folks see, but it may be that they're doing fine for now), in large part because the SOD high royalty sales have vanished, but also because subscription volume is stagnant.

Adobe/FT seems to be doing well, but it'd be nice to have a few agencies growing robustly. 123rf appears to be stumbling; Stockfresh is on life support; I don't hear anything good about iStock (but as I have only 109 captive images left there I don't know much first hand); Dreamstime continues its downward trajectory.

All SS has done of late is cut royalties - why would they think anyone is happy with that situation?
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 14:09 by Jo Ann Snover »

« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2017, 12:43 »
0
There are some very interesting figures on www.microstock.top about who are the best contributors who have added the most images.

In addition they found 57 authors who I though were among the best and most successful microstock contributors. These authors had thousands of images a year ago and seem to have no images today. It is whether these images were actually removed or moved to another collection name.

« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2017, 12:56 »
+3
There are some very interesting figures on www.microstock.top about who are the best contributors who have added the most images.

In addition they found 57 authors who I though were among the best and most successful microstock contributors. These authors had thousands of images a year ago and seem to have no images today. It is whether these images were actually removed or moved to another collection name.


You maybe confusing those with more images with Shutterstock's view of best contributors.  When they introduced Premier Select they chose the top earners not those with the most images.

« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2017, 18:22 »
0
So, i'm down the average ...

Shutterstock claims a 2,88 $ revenue per download in 2016 (3,02 $ in Q4 2016) ... I had an rpd of 0,72 $ in 2016 ...

So my royalty rate was 25% (0,72/2,88) ... 3% down from avg.

Anyone has higher rpd ?


If you look at the earnings call transcript, the CFO says that the growth is because of the higher price of video and music downloads:

"We also saw revenue per download increase 6% on a reported base or 8% on a constant currency basis, primarily driven by continued growth in our enterprise video and music products, which operate at higher price points than our traditional e-commerce images offering."

« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2017, 09:21 »
0
...

Which contributors are they talking to who deem the royalty rate fair?

the whole remaining instead of leaving & erasing their portfolios & passing to symbiostock.

JimP

« Reply #12 on: March 02, 2017, 16:49 »
0
So, i'm down the average ...

Shutterstock claims a 2,88 $ revenue per download in 2016 (3,02 $ in Q4 2016) ... I had an rpd of 0,72 $ in 2016 ...

So my royalty rate was 25% (0,72/2,88) ... 3% down from avg.

Anyone has higher rpd ?

2016 year .76 rpd

I have no 4k video, no offset, nearly no EL.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
88 Replies
21489 Views
Last post September 29, 2010, 18:06
by traveler1116
35 Replies
6524 Views
Last post May 22, 2013, 06:29
by Microbius
44 Replies
10457 Views
Last post December 28, 2013, 06:50
by munrotoo
71 Replies
12764 Views
Last post May 22, 2015, 20:04
by Rinderart
11 Replies
2505 Views
Last post May 26, 2020, 17:03
by cathyslife

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle