I figured it would keep going up after iStock announced their new "screw over contributor" policy. 

Anyway, SS still looks overpriced for me at 93--price/earnings of over 100...might be a growth stock, but that's just too high.

Quote from: stockastic on March 07, 2014, 09:58

Many SS investors will now demand that SS do something similar to what Getty has just done.  And that pressure will only build.   They'll see it exactly the way Getty is promoting it - as a new way to monetize images with ads, without the cost of royalties - and be afraid that SS will be shut out of this new revenue stream if they don't act quickly. 

In the technology business there are no white hats or black hats and it's actually very rare for one of them to come up with a big new idea that hasn't already occurred to the others.  It's usually just a matter of who decides to move on it first.

Maybe Shutterstock has better ideas up their sleeves than what Getty does!?  Like the Shutterstock facebook deal.  Free photos to advertisers, photographers get paid, everyone wins.

Yes, I have no choice to admit that 38 cents - even as an unknown percentage of an unknown total amount paid by FB to SS - is better than nothing at all.   Apparently, in today's world, this amounts to a "good deal". 

You have won, Leaf.  But it's a Phyrric victory.

Quote from: leaf on March 07, 2014, 16:48

Quote from: stockastic on March 07, 2014, 09:58

Many SS investors will now demand that SS do something similar to what Getty has just done.  And that pressure will only build.   They'll see it exactly the way Getty is promoting it - as a new way to monetize images with ads, without the cost of royalties - and be afraid that SS will be shut out of this new revenue stream if they don't act quickly. 

In the technology business there are no white hats or black hats and it's actually very rare for one of them to come up with a big new idea that hasn't already occurred to the others.  It's usually just a matter of who decides to move on it first.

Maybe Shutterstock has better ideas up their sleeves than what Getty does!?  Like the Shutterstock facebook deal.  Free photos to advertisers, photographers get paid, everyone wins.

Yes, I have no choice to admit that 38 cents - even as an unknown percentage of an unknown total amount paid by FB to SS - is better than nothing at all.   Apparently, in today's world, this amounts to a "good deal". 

You have won, Leaf.  But it's a Phyrric victory.

You assume thats whats happened, but in reality you dont know, no one knows. It might be as straightforward as it is, or they might have brokered a deal. Unless you have proof, its all speculation, just for the sake of badmouthing an agency.

Hopefully we will not see too many of these.

http://tinyurl.com/kwmop6r

Short Shutterstock On Competitive Pressure From Getty Images

Snip

Summary

    SSTK's library of more than 30 million RF stock images is capitalized at $3.3 billion or $110 per image.

    Getty Images released 35 million images for free use on the internet this week.

    SSTK's forward P/E of 80x was supported by a thesis that Getty's move disproves.

    Short for 55% downside to $40 based on a fundamentally derived P/E of 45x consensus 2014e.

Shutterstock (SSTK) is a $3.3 billion market cap digital image marketplace. Its technology allows image buyers to browse its database of over 30 million images, vectors and video clips for purchase online, either individually or on a subscription basis. The images are uploaded on what amounts to a consignment basis by contributors who earn a portion of the royalty-free license fee for each download. The average price per image is about $3. SSTK is the largest pure-play microstock company, but there are plenty of competitors, many of which charge lower prices. For instance, see the front page results of a Google search for "royalty-free stock images".

Quote from: Ron on March 09, 2014, 06:20

Quote from: stockastic on March 07, 2014, 20:37

Quote from: leaf on March 07, 2014, 16:48

Quote from: stockastic on March 07, 2014, 09:58

Many SS investors will now demand that SS do something similar to what Getty has just done.  And that pressure will only build.   They'll see it exactly the way Getty is promoting it - as a new way to monetize images with ads, without the cost of royalties - and be afraid that SS will be shut out of this new revenue stream if they don't act quickly. 

In the technology business there are no white hats or black hats and it's actually very rare for one of them to come up with a big new idea that hasn't already occurred to the others.  It's usually just a matter of who decides to move on it first.

Maybe Shutterstock has better ideas up their sleeves than what Getty does!?  Like the Shutterstock facebook deal.  Free photos to advertisers, photographers get paid, everyone wins.

Yes, I have no choice to admit that 38 cents - even as an unknown percentage of an unknown total amount paid by FB to SS - is better than nothing at all.   Apparently, in today's world, this amounts to a "good deal". 

You have won, Leaf.  But it's a Phyrric victory.

You assume thats whats happened, but in reality you dont know, no one knows. It might be as straightforward as it is, or they might have brokered a deal. Unless you have proof, its all speculation, just for the sake of badmouthing an agency.

Like I just said, an "unknown percentage of an unknown total amount".

Assuming there is an amount/deal in the first place, which is my point, you dont know. Its made up gossip, its not even hearsay. We get a percentage of each image used, which is fact.

Same as the SS earnings schedule dependent on your level

.

Re:

Snip

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.


Jon fails to mention that if his competitors do not spend millions going public, 11 plus million for tenant improvements, 2.5 million on annual office rent etc. SS's competitors will have plenty to spend on sales and marketing as well as raises for their contributors.

I'm guessing at least in the short run going public has brought in a lot more money than they spent.

I am in no way saying that they couldn't pay more to contributors, but compared to some sites, like say - IS, they look pretty good in the percent department. Compared to P5 - not so good. They do seem to have volume though.

I welcome their competitors spending more on sales and marketing and raises for the contributors (but I am not holding my breath).

Ouch today!

Shutterstock Inc
NYSE: SSTK - Mar 11 4:01 PM ET
86.52-2.44 (-2.74%)

All that chart means is that investors have got cold feet over Getty's latest giveaway.  It doesn't mean SS is doing any worse than it was a week ago, just that stock market traders are having one of their panics. I doubt if any of them know more than we do about the market and where it is headed (and we've certainly been talking it down for a week, I bet that has an impact, too).

finally gbalex is happy!

Fretting about SStocks share price gives us something more to fret over which we have no control over. Does anyone in the businessreally think the shares are NOT overvalued? A weeks stockmarket trend does not tell us anything.

It's hard to say if they're overvalued when you look at the insane prices Getty keeps changing hands for.  And now people say Getty may instantly double its value by just saying "oh, we're not a boring stock agency, we're an exciting internet service company", or something like that.

To me it looks as if Getty is just a mountain of debts struggling to find  a way to stay afloat until reality kicks in, but Wall Street seems to think it's a multi-billion dollar asset full of fabulous and ever-increasing value. I guess that's why I'm not a big businessman, since where they apparently see solid reality I feel like I am looking at an illusionist's trick (but, yes, my ill-informed judgement would say that SS shares do look expensive considering what they were supposed to be worth when the company floated).

Nope, I agree. Some people were catching the wave and surfing along with the trend. This could just mark a settling point. Watch and see.

Fretting about SStocks share price gives us something more to fret over which we have no control over. Does anyone in the businessreally think the shares are NOT overvalued? A weeks stockmarket trend does not tell us anything.

Also true. People like my Mother used to read news that some stock was making money and they would jump on it. She didn't know the market or what it was about, just that it was a hot stock.  She had Worldcom and Enron when they went into the dumpster.

All that chart means is that investors have got cold feet over Getty's latest giveaway.  It doesn't mean SS is doing any worse than it was a week ago, just that stock market traders are having one of their panics. I doubt if any of them know more than we do about the market and where it is headed (and we've certainly been talking it down for a week, I bet that has an impact, too).

But what both have said is true. This has nothing to do with the financial stability of the company, just the perception. Watch the stock when the quarterly reports or annuals come out and that's where you see what's really behind it all.