MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Third Quarter financials  (Read 12355 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2017, 03:15 »
0
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 »
+1

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.


« Reply #27 on: November 02, 2017, 07:30 »
+2
"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

« Reply #28 on: November 02, 2017, 08:02 »
+1

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.


« Reply #29 on: November 02, 2017, 08:20 »
0

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.

« Reply #30 on: November 02, 2017, 08:43 »
+2
...
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 »
+1


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.

« Reply #32 on: November 04, 2017, 05:35 »
0
...
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

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #33 on: November 04, 2017, 13:39 »
0
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?

« Reply #34 on: November 04, 2017, 14:22 »
0
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.

« Reply #35 on: November 04, 2017, 15:41 »
0
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%

« Reply #36 on: November 04, 2017, 16:10 »
0
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.

« Reply #37 on: November 04, 2017, 20:38 »
0

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". 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2885 Views
Last post November 09, 2013, 16:58
by Pauws99
7 Replies
3671 Views
Last post May 07, 2015, 14:17
by Semmick Photo
36 Replies
10233 Views
Last post August 01, 2020, 09:39
by Uncle Pete
32 Replies
6280 Views
Last post November 06, 2021, 12:13
by For Real
50 Replies
6549 Views
Last post February 20, 2022, 20:25
by OM

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle