pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock To Announce Third Quarter 2012 Earnings Release on Nov 15th  (Read 17052 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2012, 16:28 »
0
Hope we will have the same views on SS a year from now on.


rubyroo

« Reply #26 on: November 17, 2012, 16:29 »
0
Thank you, thank you, JSnover.  :D

I haven't had time to wade through all there is to read on this, so I'm very grateful for your positive synopsis.  Thank you for taking the time to share your take on it.

« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2012, 16:39 »
0
Hope we will have the same views on SS a year from now on.

All empires fade over time. I don't much care if SS is going to be around for 20 years (it'd be very nice, but I'm not betting on it). What's pleasant is to have some good news in a sea of almost unrelenting cr*p.

« Reply #28 on: November 17, 2012, 18:33 »
0
Hope we will have the same views on SS a year from now on.

My sentiments exactly.

« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2012, 20:48 »
0
Sooooo....where is our raise?

I doubt there will be a raise anytime soon.

Look when IS brought in  200M in sales a year an exclusive contributor ranked at 250 in sales made > $200 a day.  Exclusive at rank 100 made >$350 a day and anyone exclusive in the top ten made  >$20,000 a month.  Is this what they are paying at SS.  Or are they maximizing shareholder profit.  Which is their only objective now that that are a public traded company. 

Why pay more if you have contributors praising your CEO who made $400 million while paying you peanuts. Good for you.  Not smart. 

« Reply #30 on: November 17, 2012, 23:13 »
0
Sooooo....where is our raise?

I doubt there will be a raise anytime soon.

Look when IS brought in  200M in sales a year an exclusive contributor ranked at 250 in sales made > $200 a day.  Exclusive at rank 100 made >$350 a day and anyone exclusive in the top ten made  >$20,000 a month.  Is this what they are paying at SS.  Or are they maximizing shareholder profit.  Which is their only objective now that that are a public traded company. 

Why pay more if you have contributors praising your CEO who made $400 million while paying you peanuts. Good for you.  Not smart.

Or are they maximizing shareholder profit.  Which is their only objective now that that are a public traded company.
Why pay more if you have contributors praising your CEO who made $400 million while paying you peanuts. Good for you.  Not smart.

Wow-someone on here with his eys open!!!!
but you/we are casting pearls before swine here, most are just teen fan boys and girls.

they are dimwits, its obvious.

Stop praising these companys that are raping you.

I know and understand we r making some money but be real ppl, we are making a fraction of what we should.

unfortunetly the masses (you all) agreed to accept this meager pmt for your work, and the otheres who would never have gone for it....well had to..........a couple of sacks of potatoes are better then none.
 
BUT FOR THE LIFE IM ME I WILL NEVER PRAISE THEM AND BE THERE LAP DOG.

Grow a pair already!

dimwitted farmers make that share cropers!


« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2012, 23:45 »
+1
Sooooo....where is our raise?

I doubt there will be a raise anytime soon.

Look when IS brought in  200M in sales a year an exclusive contributor ranked at 250 in sales made > $200 a day.  Exclusive at rank 100 made >$350 a day and anyone exclusive in the top ten made  >$20,000 a month.  Is this what they are paying at SS.  Or are they maximizing shareholder profit.  Which is their only objective now that that are a public traded company. 

Why pay more if you have contributors praising your CEO who made $400 million while paying you peanuts. Good for you.  Not smart.

its hard to understand what you are trying saying when you are still happy with iStock as exclusive, they can drop in $ and downloads but you will continue to praise them ;D

that said my rpd at SS is around 60 cents, looking at SS announce (2.2$/download) they are paying me 27.2%, on the other hand iStock is paying me what? yes 16% :o

« Reply #32 on: November 18, 2012, 05:09 »
0
I'm concerned that SS are going to become too dominant and they will be concentrating so much on increasing profits that we will end up getting the same treatment we've had from several other sites.  But there's nothing I can do about it and anyone that thinks we have any power is fooling themselves.  After seeing how the vast majority carried on uploading to istock after they cut commissions below 20%, I just hope that SS don't eventually end up doing the same.

Perhaps the commission cuts of their rivals are part of the reason why SS is doing so well but I think the price rises and other poor policies are the real reason.  If SS ends up as the No.1 site with little competition and it's hard to sustain growth, it isn't difficult to see what's likely to happen.  At least it looks like we have some time to make a bit of money before that happens.

I would become a fan boy of SS if they guaranteed a minimum 30% commission for the next 10 years but without that, it's hard to be confident about the long term future for contributors.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 05:14 by sharpshot »

« Reply #33 on: November 18, 2012, 10:53 »
0
I'm concerned that SS are going to become too dominant and they will be concentrating so much on increasing profits that we will end up getting the same treatment we've had from several other sites.  But there's nothing I can do about it and anyone that thinks we have any power is fooling themselves.  After seeing how the vast majority carried on uploading to istock after they cut commissions below 20%, I just hope that SS don't eventually end up doing the same.

I have to say that I have similar concerns. There is the thought in the back of my head that they will eventually become this massive crowdsourced juggernaut where nobody gets a big enough slice to earn anything except SS.

As far as not being able to do anything about it, I disagree. While you will never shut down a site just by leaving (someone will always upload there), I do notice that buyers do seem to follow content. Not because of some loyalty to the artist, but they just find it. That's been my experience with leaving sites anyway. When you eliminate a site, another one tends to rise up.

« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2012, 11:54 »
+1
...I would become a fan boy of SS if they guaranteed a minimum 30% commission for the next 10 years but without that, it's hard to be confident about the long term future for contributors.

Any commission guarantee isn't worth anything unless it's a percentage of the gross. We've already seen the games played by others - iStock most recently - where they define your percentage as coming from a "net" that they get to calculate, thus making it completely flexible.

In the call to analysts, SS talked about a virtuous cycle - that contributors earning good money is what brings in more content for them. I think they get that if they stop feeding us well, their new content drops off as a direct result. If SS gets bought by H&F or the like, we're probably hosed. The bigger they get, the less likely things are to be good for contributors, but right now where they want to steal some corporate business from Getty, I think we could stand to make out very well over the next few years (assuming they're able to eat a part of Getty's lunch).

« Reply #35 on: November 18, 2012, 12:28 »
0
^^^ Well said JoAnn.

I find it bizarre that we have all these hand-wringing depressives on here who assume that SS will follow the path of IS and FT in reducing commissions, increasing prices, etc. Why would SS do that? Did such actions bring success and additional wealth to either IS or FT? Of course not. The opposite is true. Both agencies now have considerably reduced market-share and influence as a result of their ham-fisted greed.

With every day that passes, whilst they maintain their current courses, both IS and FT appear to be losing customers and revenue to SS. If I were in charge of either agency I would immediately engage reverse gear, simplify the pricing architecture, reduce prices and increase commissions/incentives to contributors. Why? Because it is the only way to compete against SS.

Oringer recognises that keeping both customers and contributors happy is the route to success. I feel it is far more likely that his competitors will eventually have to wake up, smell the coffee and follow his lead. Because if they don't they won't have much of business left.

« Reply #36 on: November 18, 2012, 12:47 »
0
I find it bizarre that we have all these hand-wringing depressives on here who assume that SS will follow the path of IS and FT in reducing commissions, increasing prices, etc. Why would SS do that?

Just to be clear, I don't think that at all. I think of it more from the perspective that as they get bigger and accept more and more contributors, it gets harder to get your files seen. Basically, their collection grows faster than their customers until it gets too hard to make money. They've done a good job of mitigating that so far by adding single sales and on demand, so you don't have to sell as many files to maintain or increase earnings.

I don't know if this will be the eventual outcome, but it seems like one of the more likely ones.

« Reply #37 on: November 19, 2012, 05:03 »
0
...I find it bizarre that we have all these hand-wringing depressives on here who assume that SS will follow the path of IS and FT in reducing commissions, increasing prices, etc. Why would SS do that?...
If they can't keep their shareholders happy in a few years time, because profit growth has slowed down, it would be an obvious solution.  If they're dominating the market by then, it will be easy for them.  And I think the other sites have suffered more from losing their buyers than they have from cutting contributors commissions.  Haven't they lost their buyers from raising prices too often, bringing in complicated price structures and general incompetence and bad decision making?

Most people used to love Ebay and never thought they would make life difficult for their sellers but talk to some of them now and its a different story.

I hope that never happens to Shutterestock but calling me a "hand-wringing depressive" is ridiculous.  Isn't that the kind of language the istock fan boys used to use a few years ago when anyone dared say anything other than a big compliment about them?

Yuri_Arcurs

  • One Crazy PhotoManic MadPerson
« Reply #38 on: November 20, 2012, 04:11 »
+1
16% is pretty bad. I think I will start to upload only Low res from now on. For 38 cents per download - that's the price of a a low res :)

« Reply #39 on: November 20, 2012, 06:26 »
0
I find it bizarre that we have all these hand-wringing depressives on here who assume that SS will follow the path of IS and FT in reducing commissions, increasing prices, etc. Why would SS do that?

Just to be clear, I don't think that at all. I think of it more from the perspective that as they get bigger and accept more and more contributors, it gets harder to get your files seen. Basically, their collection grows faster than their customers until it gets too hard to make money. They've done a good job of mitigating that so far by adding single sales and on demand, so you don't have to sell as many files to maintain or increase earnings.

I don't know if this will be the eventual outcome, but it seems like one of the more likely ones.

I think you are absoloutely right! and so does many market analysts here. I am sure that we will start seeing major changes within a year from now on. Shareholders will want to see profits and more profits and ultimately it just becomes a matter of just bleeding the whole thing.
If history has taught us anything during the last 7 years, its got to be that any take-overs, buy-outs, IPOs, in our business often result in negative changes for its members/contributors.
I am not painting evils on the wall just trying to be realistic, going by past track records. So, I have a good escape route out of it.

« Reply #40 on: November 20, 2012, 08:13 »
0
16% is pretty bad. I think I will start to upload only Low res from now on. For 38 cents per download - that's the price of a a low res :)

The "16%" you are quoting is what iSTOCK are paying Luis, not Shutterstock. SS are paying him over 27%.

« Reply #41 on: November 20, 2012, 08:15 »
0
16% is pretty bad. I think I will start to upload only Low res from now on. For 38 cents per download - that's the price of a a low res :)


The "16%" you are quoting is what iSTOCK are paying Luis, not Shutterstock. SS are paying him over 27%.


and here's the proof
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/what-does-shutterstock-actually-pay-out-i%27ve-figured-it-out!/


« Reply #42 on: November 20, 2012, 08:21 »
0
:

« Reply #43 on: November 20, 2012, 09:47 »
0
16% is pretty bad. I think I will start to upload only Low res from now on. For 38 cents per download - that's the price of a a low res :)

The "16%" you are quoting is what iSTOCK are paying Luis, not Shutterstock. SS are paying him over 27%.

exactly, thanks for pointing that out :)

« Reply #44 on: November 20, 2012, 09:53 »
0
16% is pretty bad. I think I will start to upload only Low res from now on. For 38 cents per download - that's the price of a a low res :)

The "16%" you are quoting is what iSTOCK are paying Luis, not Shutterstock. SS are paying him over 27%.

First, this is where stats get used to make an dishonest claim.  Percentages vs selling price.  Are you saying the selling price for images are the same at SS and IS. 

Second, You assume that SS can raise prices and commissions while selling a product that is not exclusive.  They don't sell anything that can't be bought on other sites.  This keeps prices low.. see walmart.
 
Third, A lot of independents did not go with IS because they did not want to give power to one company. But instead this has let the competition lower the value of work and now in the gutter it lays.

« Reply #45 on: November 20, 2012, 10:15 »
0
16% is pretty bad. I think I will start to upload only Low res from now on. For 38 cents per download - that's the price of a a low res :)

The "16%" you are quoting is what iSTOCK are paying Luis, not Shutterstock. SS are paying him over 27%.

I supposse Yuri is getting 20% at Istock, or, at least, 19%, not 16... Knowing exactly which the SS percentage is, it's not easy, but that doesn't change the fact that he's getting 0.38 dollar per download, regardless of size.

« Reply #46 on: November 20, 2012, 10:19 »
+1
16% is pretty bad. I think I will start to upload only Low res from now on. For 38 cents per download - that's the price of a a low res :)

The "16%" you are quoting is what iSTOCK are paying Luis, not Shutterstock. SS are paying him over 27%.

First, this is where stats get used to make an dishonest claim.  Percentages vs selling price.  Are you saying the selling price for images are the same at SS and IS. 

Second, You assume that SS can raise prices and commissions while selling a product that is not exclusive.  They don't sell anything that can't be bought on other sites.  This keeps prices low.. see walmart.
 
Third, A lot of independents did not go with IS because they did not want to give power to one company. But instead this has let the competition lower the value of work and now in the gutter it lays.

its a pretty statement, the problem is that SS is now bringing most of the dosh to "everybody" (not exclusives of course)

if the way to go is subscriptions, what can we do? leave and get the iStock money? become exclusive? ;D

whats the point of talking about prices when they have set us the lowest commission ever, yes back at iStock ;)

« Reply #47 on: November 20, 2012, 10:22 »
+1
16% is pretty bad. I think I will start to upload only Low res from now on. For 38 cents per download - that's the price of a a low res :)

The "16%" you are quoting is what iSTOCK are paying Luis, not Shutterstock. SS are paying him over 27%.

I supposse Yuri is getting 20% at Istock, or, at least, 19%, not 16... Knowing exactly which the SS percentage is, it's not easy, but that doesn't change the fact that he's getting 0.38 dollar per download, regardless of size.

he ain't getting 38 cents per download, how many times shall we repeat that it ain't our RPD :o most average/top contributor is getting over 75 cents, if we enter PP on iStock income it can get that too, when will you guys give up on defending iStock after screw up and screw up ;D

« Reply #48 on: November 20, 2012, 10:25 »
+2
First, this is where stats get used to make an dishonest claim.  Percentages vs selling price.  Are you saying the selling price for images are the same at SS and IS. 

Second, You assume that SS can raise prices and commissions while selling a product that is not exclusive.  They don't sell anything that can't be bought on other sites.  This keeps prices low.. see walmart.
 
Third, A lot of independents did not go with IS because they did not want to give power to one company. But instead this has let the competition lower the value of work and now in the gutter it lays.

Well actually iStock has something called the PP which pays us considerably less than SS and, even worse, independent contributors have had their choice of whether to participate in the PP removed.

I think we can both agree that IS has treated contributors disgracefully over the last couple of years. Imagine how much worse things could have been without competition for our work?

Your argument is destroyed by the fact that before DT, SS and CanStockPhoto arrived on the scene iStock paid nobody more than 20%. The exclusivity programme and the higher commissions were only introduced because of the competition. You have much to thank SS and DT for although I very much doubt you will acknowledge that.

I believe we have a much more sustainable and stable marketplace for our work with healthy competition. An iStock monopoly would not be good for either contributors or image buyers.

« Reply #49 on: November 20, 2012, 10:57 »
0
An iStock monopoly would not be good for either contributors or image buyers.

I probably would have made more money with an iStock monopoly, but it doesn't really matter. It's all hypothetical.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3295 Views
Last post November 09, 2013, 16:58
by Pauws99
90 Replies
33431 Views
Last post February 25, 2014, 12:56
by Batman
6 Replies
5136 Views
Last post July 25, 2020, 14:03
by Uncle Pete
2 Replies
3007 Views
Last post April 26, 2021, 12:37
by PixelsAway
6 Replies
3626 Views
Last post April 21, 2023, 22:12
by Sean Locke Photography

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors