Author Topic: Shutterstock Third Quarter financials (Read 14474 times)

kuriouskat · « **on:** October 31, 2017, 06:10 »

https://seekingalpha.com/pr/16984811-shutterstock-reports-third-quarter-2017-financial-results

Ouch

'Paid downloads increased 2%'
'Image collection expanded 52%'

Pauws99 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 31, 2017, 06:36 »

Quote from: KuriousKat on October 31, 2017, 06:10

https://seekingalpha.com/pr/16984811-shutterstock-reports-third-quarter-2017-financial-results

Ouch

'Paid downloads increased 2%'
'Image collection expanded 52%'

Nail on the head....SS doing OK but very painful for contributors. Luckily a high proportion of that 52% seems unsellable as my sales are holding up better than I would expect given that growth in content.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 31, 2017, 09:10 »

But, "Income from operations of $5.6 million for the third quarter of 2017 decreased $5.7 million, or 51%, as compared to the third quarter of 2016, due primarily to increases in employee cash and non-cash compensation expenses and depreciation and amortization expense" and net income was down 47% compared to last year, which doesn't sound good to me. Now if income was down due to increased payout percentages to contributors I would be all for it, but it seems they are paying their employees more instead.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #3 on:** October 31, 2017, 09:21 »

But they've made Wall Street happy because the earnings beat expectations - lower profits, but they were slightly higher than the forecast. The earnings call transcript later should be interesting - although in general the analyst questions are so clueless and toothless that I shouldn't get too excited

Pauws99 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 31, 2017, 10:07 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 31, 2017, 09:21

But they've made Wall Street happy because the earnings beat expectations - lower profits, but they were slightly higher than the forecast. The earnings call transcript later should be interesting - although in general the analyst questions are so clueless and toothless that I shouldn't get too excited

Up 14% I'm very surprised tbh I just see a company whose growth is running out of steam

Artist · « **Reply #5 on:** October 31, 2017, 10:11 »

Share price increase by around 14% today and forecast... "Shutterstock expects full-year revenue in the range of $535 million to $545 million."

Shutterstock, Inc. (SSTK)
39.23+4.98 (+14.54%)

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-tops-street-3q-forecasts-111923608.html

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #6 on:** October 31, 2017, 11:18 »

Motley Fool story is generally upbeat

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/10/31/shutterstock-invests-for-the-future.aspx

Not comparing SS to amazon, but for years amazon lost masses amounts of money but sold a story to Wall St that they liked. At some point, if you can't produce results the stock will be punished, but investing for future growth is a line the financial folks will buy.

Analysts haven't looked at all the image spam in the collection...

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #7 on:** October 31, 2017, 11:30 »

Quote from: Artist on October 31, 2017, 10:11

Share price increase by around 14% today and forecast... "Shutterstock expects full-year revenue in the range of $535 million to $545 million."

Shutterstock, Inc. (SSTK)
39.23+4.98 (+14.54%)

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-tops-street-3q-forecasts-111923608.html

I see, the earnings are down, the site is full of spam images, and the price of the stock went up. This explains why I'm in stock and not the stock market. I can't understand why people would push the price up and buy shares, when the company growth is slowing. Oh the hype is there's a still untapped market for more sales. I say, there is a limit to the glut, worse is, we're the ones who suffer with less sales.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #8 on:** October 31, 2017, 11:59 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 31, 2017, 11:18

Motley Fool story is generally upbeat

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/10/31/shutterstock-invests-for-the-future.aspx

Not comparing SS to amazon, but for years amazon lost masses amounts of money but sold a story to Wall St that they liked. At some point, if you can't produce results the stock will be punished, but investing for future growth is a line the financial folks will buy.

Analysts haven't looked at all the image spam in the collection...

Amazon had massive cash flows though. They just reinvested the revenue to grow the business. They could have posted huge profits whenever they wanted just by not innovating as much.
Shutterstock, not so much.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #9 on:** October 31, 2017, 12:26 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 31, 2017, 11:18

Motley Fool story is generally upbeat

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/10/31/shutterstock-invests-for-the-future.aspx

Not comparing SS to amazon, but for years amazon lost masses amounts of money but sold a story to Wall St that they liked. At some point, if you can't produce results the stock will be punished, but investing for future growth is a line the financial folks will buy.

Analysts haven't looked at all the image spam in the collection...

Theres a lot of IT companies based on an assumption about future growth even Facebook and Mobile phone usage are beginning to show the party might be over. Expect some big falls.

derek · « **Reply #10 on:** October 31, 2017, 13:51 »

Bad for contributors! I guess this will be the norm! time to move on I recon.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #11 on:** October 31, 2017, 18:48 »

Jim Cramer actually described SS's Q3 as a "blowout" quarter. The interview is pretty hyperbolic, but only 3-ish minutes

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/shutterstock-ceo-were-going-see-225700888.html

Pauws99 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 01, 2017, 01:19 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 31, 2017, 18:48

Jim Cramer actually described SS's Q3 as a "blowout" quarter. The interview is pretty hyperbolic, but only 3-ish minutes

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/shutterstock-ceo-were-going-see-225700888.html

Hes been smoking some of the stuff one of their favourite contributors keeps producing

namussi · « **Reply #13 on:** November 01, 2017, 02:24 »

Downloads are up only slightly, but the revenue per download rose by 11%.

That's quite a big rise.

As for the massive increase in images in the collection: well, the problem for the company of that is mainly about the cost of storage. Does it cost 50% more to store 50% more images? Probably not.

Perhaps Shutterstock is spending less on inspecting images to reduce costs?

I don't think quality control is really an issue. Few people, I suspect, look beyond the first few pages of results. As long as there isn't too much keyword spamming, then I doubt the massive increase in images really makes much difference to customers -- other than being a selling point.

I wonder how long before we see the first billion-image agency.

namussi · « **Reply #14 on:** November 01, 2017, 02:30 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on October 31, 2017, 11:30

Quote from: Artist on October 31, 2017, 10:11
Share price increase by around 14% today and forecast... "Shutterstock expects full-year revenue in the range of $535 million to $545 million."

Shutterstock, Inc. (SSTK)
39.23+4.98 (+14.54%)

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-tops-street-3q-forecasts-111923608.html

I can't understand why people would push the price up and buy shares, when the company growth is slowing.

Firstly, look at the revenue per download. That rose by 11 per cent. So that's encouraging. If investors believe there's more of the same coming, then they'll push up the price in expectation.

Secondly, the stock market is pretty buoyant at the moment. SS shares may well be carried along with the rising tide that lifts all boats.

Thirdly, investors might be anticipating further share buybacks. Fewer shares on the market means, in general, higher prices.

namussi · « **Reply #15 on:** November 01, 2017, 02:35 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 31, 2017, 18:48

Jim Cramer actually described SS's Q3 as a "blowout" quarter. The interview is pretty hyperbolic, but only 3-ish minutes

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/shutterstock-ceo-were-going-see-225700888.html

Now that's a bad sign. Cramer makes great television, but gives poor investment advice.

If Cramer thinks something is doing well, then there's a good chance (based on his record) that the investment is about to tank.

A flavo(u)r of what investment professionals think about him.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-statistical-look-at-jim-cramers-skill-level/

namussi · « **Reply #16 on:** November 01, 2017, 02:36 »

Quote from: KuriousKat on October 31, 2017, 06:10

https://seekingalpha.com/pr/16984811-shutterstock-reports-third-quarter-2017-financial-results

Ouch

'Paid downloads increased 2%'
'Image collection expanded 52%'

And revenue per download rose 11%.

kuriouskat · « **Reply #17 on:** November 01, 2017, 03:14 »

Quote from: namussi on November 01, 2017, 02:36

Quote from: KuriousKat on October 31, 2017, 06:10
https://seekingalpha.com/pr/16984811-shutterstock-reports-third-quarter-2017-financial-results

Ouch

'Paid downloads increased 2%'
'Image collection expanded 52%'

And revenue per download rose 11%.

It's true that my RPD has increased by roughly this amount. Just a shame that increase doesn't come remotely close to compensating for the 40%+ drop in downloads that many of us have experienced over the last 18 months.

namussi · « **Reply #18 on:** November 01, 2017, 03:16 »

Quote from: KuriousKat on November 01, 2017, 03:14

It's true that my RPD has increased by roughly this amount. Just a shame that increase doesn't come remotely close to compensating for the 40%+ drop in downloads that many of us have experienced over the last 18 months.

Interesting. The overall number of downloads is up slightly, so that suggests that the number of contributors has increased, so the downloads are spread around among more people.

kuriouskat · « **Reply #19 on:** November 01, 2017, 07:16 »

Quote from: namussi on November 01, 2017, 03:16

Quote from: KuriousKat on November 01, 2017, 03:14

It's true that my RPD has increased by roughly this amount. Just a shame that increase doesn't come remotely close to compensating for the 40%+ drop in downloads that many of us have experienced over the last 18 months.

Interesting. The overall number of downloads is up slightly, so that suggests that the number of contributors has increased, so the downloads are spread around among more people.

I'm not disputing that, (although and increase of downloads suggest an increase in purchasers rather than contributors), just pointing out that despite an increase in RPD, a 52% increase in the image collection against a 2% increase in paid downloads can ultimately only translate into a downturn for contributors - hence my 'ouch' comment.

As a business model, this is unsustainable, so it's going to be interesting to see what their next strategy will be, (assuming they have one). I'm struggling to decide whether they are looking at the long game or are just fighting fires.

obj owl · « **Reply #20 on:** November 01, 2017, 12:25 »

Oringer said, "We executed well on our business strategy in the third quarter. The investments we continue to make in technology, operations, infrastructure and products, combined with more optimized pricing and packaging of our offerings are now beginning to positively impact our financial results.

He seems very proud of the fact that picking the pockets of contributors has paid off again.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #21 on:** November 01, 2017, 16:46 »

Quote from: KuriousKat on November 01, 2017, 07:16

Quote from: namussi on November 01, 2017, 03:16
Quote from: KuriousKat on November 01, 2017, 03:14

It's true that my RPD has increased by roughly this amount. Just a shame that increase doesn't come remotely close to compensating for the 40%+ drop in downloads that many of us have experienced over the last 18 months.

Interesting. The overall number of downloads is up slightly, so that suggests that the number of contributors has increased, so the downloads are spread around among more people.

I'm not disputing that, (although and increase of downloads suggest an increase in purchasers rather than contributors), just pointing out that despite an increase in RPD, a 52% increase in the image collection against a 2% increase in paid downloads can ultimately only translate into a downturn for contributors - hence my 'ouch' comment.

As a business model, this is unsustainable, so it's going to be interesting to see what their next strategy will be, (assuming they have one). I'm struggling to decide whether they are looking at the long game or are just fighting fires.

Unsustainable to who though? Sadly it works for SS

namussi · « **Reply #22 on:** November 02, 2017, 01:31 »

Quote from: obj owl on November 01, 2017, 12:25

Oringer said, "We executed well on our business strategy in the third quarter. The investments we continue to make in technology, operations, infrastructure and products, combined with more optimized pricing and packaging of our offerings are now beginning to positively impact our financial results.

He seems very proud of the fact that picking the pockets of contributors has paid off again.

You got it wrong. He means pricing and packaging for customers, not suppliers. And the amount per download has gone up by 11%.

derek · « **Reply #23 on:** November 02, 2017, 01:49 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on November 01, 2017, 16:46

Quote from: KuriousKat on November 01, 2017, 07:16
Quote from: namussi on November 01, 2017, 03:16
Quote from: KuriousKat on November 01, 2017, 03:14

It's true that my RPD has increased by roughly this amount. Just a shame that increase doesn't come remotely close to compensating for the 40%+ drop in downloads that many of us have experienced over the last 18 months.

Interesting. The overall number of downloads is up slightly, so that suggests that the number of contributors has increased, so the downloads are spread around among more people.

I'm not disputing that, (although and increase of downloads suggest an increase in purchasers rather than contributors), just pointing out that despite an increase in RPD, a 52% increase in the image collection against a 2% increase in paid downloads can ultimately only translate into a downturn for contributors - hence my 'ouch' comment.

As a business model, this is unsustainable, so it's going to be interesting to see what their next strategy will be, (assuming they have one). I'm struggling to decide whether they are looking at the long game or are just fighting fires.
Unsustainable to who though? Sadly it works for SS

Correct! we keep hearing the same old bull every quarter while contributors are just getting poorer. There used to be about 100 members keeping that site alive now theyre all gone or moved on and there is nobody courageous enough to point out that many of us built that site.

kuriouskat · « **Reply #24 on:** November 02, 2017, 02:37 »

Quote from: derek on November 02, 2017, 01:49

Quote from: Pauws99 on November 01, 2017, 16:46
Quote from: KuriousKat on November 01, 2017, 07:16
Quote from: namussi on November 01, 2017, 03:16
Quote from: KuriousKat on November 01, 2017, 03:14

It's true that my RPD has increased by roughly this amount. Just a shame that increase doesn't come remotely close to compensating for the 40%+ drop in downloads that many of us have experienced over the last 18 months.

Interesting. The overall number of downloads is up slightly, so that suggests that the number of contributors has increased, so the downloads are spread around among more people.

I'm not disputing that, (although and increase of downloads suggest an increase in purchasers rather than contributors), just pointing out that despite an increase in RPD, a 52% increase in the image collection against a 2% increase in paid downloads can ultimately only translate into a downturn for contributors - hence my 'ouch' comment.

As a business model, this is unsustainable, so it's going to be interesting to see what their next strategy will be, (assuming they have one). I'm struggling to decide whether they are looking at the long game or are just fighting fires.
Unsustainable to who though? Sadly it works for SS

Correct! we keep hearing the same old bull every quarter while contributors are just getting poorer. There used to be about 100 members keeping that site alive now theyre all gone or moved on and there is nobody courageous enough to point out that many of us built that site.

Ultimately, it's unsustainable for both in the long term. Contributors will only stay while it is worth it financially. Shutterstock will lose when all their quality contributors bail and they are left with just the holiday snaps and icons.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #25 on:** November 02, 2017, 03:15 »

“In the long run we are all dead” John Maynard Keynes. I don't see any evidence of that happening anytime soon. No business model lasts for ever.

namussi · « **Reply #26 on:** November 02, 2017, 07:10 »

Quote from: KuriousKat on November 02, 2017, 02:37

Ultimately, it's unsustainable for both in the long term. Contributors will only stay while it is worth it financially. Shutterstock will lose when all their quality contributors bail and they are left with just the holiday snaps and icons.

How long will that take?

Plenty of people upload to lots of sites.

iStock seems to piss off loads of people, but how much has that affected uploads?

So I suspect SS will continue to get good pix for a long time yet.

Even if there are fewer good contributions, remember it does still have 150m images.

Most customers, I suspect, aren't looking for amazing images. They're looking for competent images to fill space. They're much easier to satisfy than contributors.

Getting pricing and payment packages right to retain customers and make them spend more are much more important than worrying about contributors.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #27 on:** November 02, 2017, 07:30 »

"Most customers, I suspect, aren't looking for amazing images. They're looking for competent images to fill space. They're much easier to satisfy than contributors." I think that is a key point that people forget its all about "fit for purpose" not a photo/art competition. Many images are "consumed" in seconds

Mantis · « **Reply #28 on:** November 02, 2017, 08:02 »

Quote from: namussi on November 02, 2017, 07:10

Quote from: KuriousKat on November 02, 2017, 02:37

Ultimately, it's unsustainable for both in the long term. Contributors will only stay while it is worth it financially. Shutterstock will lose when all their quality contributors bail and they are left with just the holiday snaps and icons.

How long will that take?

Plenty of people upload to lots of sites.

iStock seems to piss off loads of people, but how much has that affected uploads?

So I suspect SS will continue to get good pix for a long time yet.

Even if there are fewer good contributions, remember it does still have 150m images.

Most customers, I suspect, aren't looking for amazing images. They're looking for competent images to fill space. They're much easier to satisfy than contributors.

Getting pricing and payment packages right to retain customers and make them spend more are much more important than worrying about contributors.

Correct. They have already proven that supply is not a strategic gap. Every business must look at those areas that drive revenue that satisfies customer needs. Product extensions such as Offset are one of the several ways they attract a specific customer base. To pull this kind of thing off they must have ample content. They have that. Let's be honest. The only role contributors currently play is how much they can peel back our commissions to boost margins. The reduction of EL royalties is but one example I can provide. In the end, it is what product/service offering can SS leverage to keep winning. They know most contributors have a strong tolerance for royalty hits because the game is either pull everything in protest or not. Most don't, and probably for good reason...personal reasons, but good reasons nonetheless.

kuriouskat · « **Reply #29 on:** November 02, 2017, 08:20 »

Quote from: Mantis on November 02, 2017, 08:02

Quote from: namussi on November 02, 2017, 07:10
Quote from: KuriousKat on November 02, 2017, 02:37

Ultimately, it's unsustainable for both in the long term. Contributors will only stay while it is worth it financially. Shutterstock will lose when all their quality contributors bail and they are left with just the holiday snaps and icons.

How long will that take?

Plenty of people upload to lots of sites.

iStock seems to piss off loads of people, but how much has that affected uploads?

So I suspect SS will continue to get good pix for a long time yet.

Even if there are fewer good contributions, remember it does still have 150m images.

Most customers, I suspect, aren't looking for amazing images. They're looking for competent images to fill space. They're much easier to satisfy than contributors.

Getting pricing and payment packages right to retain customers and make them spend more are much more important than worrying about contributors.

Correct. They have already proven that supply is not a strategic gap. Every business must look at those areas that drive revenue that satisfies customer needs. Product extensions such as Offset are one of the several ways they attract a specific customer base. To pull this kind of thing off they must have ample content. They have that. Let's be honest. The only role contributors currently play is how much they can peel back our commissions to boost margins. The reduction of EL royalties is but one example I can provide. In the end, it is what product/service offering can SS leverage to keep winning. They know most contributors have a strong tolerance for royalty hits because the game is either pull everything in protest or not. Most don't, and probably for good reason...personal reasons, but good reasons nonetheless.

But there has to be a breaking point, surely? Eventually, if you pay peanuts, you will only end up with monkeys.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #30 on:** November 02, 2017, 08:43 »

Quote from: KuriousKat on November 02, 2017, 08:20

...
But there has to be a breaking point, surely? ...

I think it's most likely to be when somewhere is is out-earning SS in the monthly tally (remember when iStock was routinely #1 for many independents?) and they pull some dumb royalty-reducing stunt.

For iStock exclusives, people started to leave after their IS totals dropped enough that the other sites plus reduced indie income from IS made financial sense.

As long as SS is doing much better than the other agencies in terms of monthly totals for contributors, they have a lot of leeway to be asshats and still keep decent content coming. Assuming their search engine keeps the dreck mostly out of buyers' sight, they can boast of collection totals to keep financial watchers happy and accept image spam as ballast - bilge water, you might say

namussi · « **Reply #31 on:** November 02, 2017, 09:17 »

Quote from: KuriousKat on November 02, 2017, 08:20

But there has to be a breaking point, surely? Eventually, if you pay peanuts, you will only end up with monkeys.

Just because there is a theoretical breaking point doesn't mean that it will ever be reached.

kuriouskat · « **Reply #32 on:** November 04, 2017, 05:35 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 02, 2017, 08:43

Quote from: KuriousKat on November 02, 2017, 08:20
...
But there has to be a breaking point, surely? ...

I think it's most likely to be when somewhere is is out-earning SS in the monthly tally (remember when iStock was routinely #1 for many independents?) and they pull some dumb royalty-reducing stunt.

For iStock exclusives, people started to leave after their IS totals dropped enough that the other sites plus reduced indie income from IS made financial sense.

As long as SS is doing much better than the other agencies in terms of monthly totals for contributors, they have a lot of leeway to be asshats and still keep decent content coming. Assuming their search engine keeps the dreck mostly out of buyers' sight, they can boast of collection totals to keep financial watchers happy and accept image spam as ballast - bilge water, you might say

I guess we have to wait and see how long it will take before Shutterstock get knocked off the podium then. It wasn't so long ago that they were the benchmark 100 in the poll, but now they are at 68, with Adobe starting to snap at their heels.

When Shutterstock were a long way ahead, many contributors concentrated solely on uploading to to them and, although not technically exclusive, the result was the same. With contributors experiencing significant drops in income, priorities are changing. I certainly never really bothered with Fotolia or Istock when it was financially advantageous to spend that time producing new content for Shutterstock. These days, I have to upload elsewhere to plug the income gap.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #33 on:** November 04, 2017, 13:39 »

That's awesome. Their pricing optimization changes made them 11% more per download without having to pay any increase to contributors per download.

How about passing a bit more of the rewards from that half a billion dollars in revenue and increases in profits on to the contributors?

obj owl · « **Reply #34 on:** November 04, 2017, 14:22 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on November 04, 2017, 13:39

That's awesome. Their pricing optimization changes made them 11% more per download without having to pay any increase to contributors per download.

How about passing a bit more of the rewards from that half a billion dollars in revenue and increases in profits on to the contributors?

Their pricing optimization changes will have contributed to the 15% increase in profits, but may well have kept the % per download down to 11% unless they sold a big increase in ELs, and would involve a decrease to contibutors per download. For instance, the package for 5 On Demand images is now the same price as 10 subscription images, therefore if buyers switch Shutterstock get half the price per download, allbeit at a substantial increase in profit. The main drivers for an increase in price per download will be better video and Enterprise sales. This quarter will be the last in which any benefits to Shutterstock of the changes in the way we get paid for ELs will feed through to their year on year increase in profits, so expect contributor earnings to be squeezed sometime soon.

Desintegrator · « **Reply #35 on:** November 04, 2017, 15:41 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on November 04, 2017, 13:39

That's awesome. Their pricing optimization changes made them 11% more per download without having to pay any increase to contributors per download.

How about passing a bit more of the rewards from that half a billion dollars in revenue and increases in profits on to the contributors?

Not really true, contributor RPD is noticeably high then 1-2 years ago, and way higher then it was in the past.
I agree that they could pay more to contributor, but i see RPD growth even higher than 11%

obj owl · « **Reply #36 on:** November 04, 2017, 16:10 »

Quote from: Desintegrator on November 04, 2017, 15:41

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on November 04, 2017, 13:39
That's awesome. Their pricing optimization changes made them 11% more per download without having to pay any increase to contributors per download.

How about passing a bit more of the rewards from that half a billion dollars in revenue and increases in profits on to the contributors?

Not really true, contributor RPD is noticeably high then 1-2 years ago, and way higher then it was in the past.
I agree that they could pay more to contributor, but i see RPD growth even higher than 11%

That would be the case if subscription sales were substantially reduced RPD will rise, which seems to be the situation, certainly by my numbers and would fit the quarterly returns.

Mantis · « **Reply #37 on:** November 04, 2017, 20:38 »

Quote from: KuriousKat on November 02, 2017, 08:20

Quote from: Mantis on November 02, 2017, 08:02
Quote from: namussi on November 02, 2017, 07:10
Quote from: KuriousKat on November 02, 2017, 02:37

Ultimately, it's unsustainable for both in the long term. Contributors will only stay while it is worth it financially. Shutterstock will lose when all their quality contributors bail and they are left with just the holiday snaps and icons.

How long will that take?

Plenty of people upload to lots of sites.

iStock seems to piss off loads of people, but how much has that affected uploads?

So I suspect SS will continue to get good pix for a long time yet.

Even if there are fewer good contributions, remember it does still have 150m images.

Most customers, I suspect, aren't looking for amazing images. They're looking for competent images to fill space. They're much easier to satisfy than contributors.

Getting pricing and payment packages right to retain customers and make them spend more are much more important than worrying about contributors.

Correct. They have already proven that supply is not a strategic gap. Every business must look at those areas that drive revenue that satisfies customer needs. Product extensions such as Offset are one of the several ways they attract a specific customer base. To pull this kind of thing off they must have ample content. They have that. Let's be honest. The only role contributors currently play is how much they can peel back our commissions to boost margins. The reduction of EL royalties is but one example I can provide. In the end, it is what product/service offering can SS leverage to keep winning. They know most contributors have a strong tolerance for royalty hits because the game is either pull everything in protest or not. Most don't, and probably for good reason...personal reasons, but good reasons nonetheless.

But there has to be a breaking point, surely? Eventually, if you pay peanuts, you will only end up with monkeys.

What is peanuts in the USA is a lot of money in other countries, of example. Breaking points will vary by each individual contributor and that breaking point will vary based on ones financial needs and tolerance for getting kicked in the sack. There are a lot of "Iron Balls McGynte's" out there, far more than there are "cotton ball jones's".

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock Third Quarter financials (Read 14474 times)

Justanotherphotographer

namussi

namussi

namussi

namussi

namussi

namussi

namussi

namussi

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors