MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock, where to next ??  (Read 6316 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 21, 2014, 19:09 »
+10
Photographers are supposed to see the light,  I guess in the literal sense only.  Prices have gone down, down, down and special offers have poped up. Some photographers that said they would never  .....   actually did, others sold out, others changed, some quit.   The ever changing landscape of microstock keeps people asking why did they, how could they,  did they just do that.   Shutterstock was always the rock of gibraltor.   Going public made Oringer and others very rich.  It reminds me of young people with internet start ups that grew the business then sold out.  In an article by xconomy, Oringer says the reason for going public was to elevate Shutterstock.

  http://www.xconomy.com/new-york/2013/05/23/ceo-jon-oringer-speaks-about-deciding-to-take-shutterstock-public/

Now some of the profit goes to share holders,  will any more of it ever get to contributors??
Is the truth right there in front of everyone and no one wants to see it,  was there some true substance to going public?   

Everytime I see an article asking about unionizing photographers several people jump in and kill the thread and make the OP feel ashamed.  Then I saw that everyone had actually unionized after all,  It was called the dollar photo club union,  and it got results.   What is a union?  dues paying line picketing sign carrying auto workers that need a shave ??   Maybe there is more than one kind.
The ride from here on out is going to be rough, unlike mustard and ketchup that need to be manufactured, driven to the store and placed on the shelf,  digital images never go away.  Microstock photographers are being lead around by the nose, and the *B*****s* that are getting rich do not give a *d** about you.

Now can you see the light   ??????
« Last Edit: June 21, 2014, 19:18 by old crow »


« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2014, 19:40 »
+3
Prices at SS have been going ... down?!?

I just got a few $80+ SODs at Shutterstock this month. I'm pretty happy with that. Beats the snot out of sales at any other site I've ever been at.

Before I closed my account at IS I got to watch downloads as low as 9 cents.

Aaaand, if I wanted to buy Shutterstock stock I could.

Best month ever at Shutterstock this month. If I was going to "unionize" it certainly wouldn't be at SS. There are plenty of worse sites out there.


« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2014, 20:28 »
+4
The whole problem with Unions or collectives or whatever you want to call the organization is you have to be able to control the source of production.  The people who read this forum represent 1%? of the total images in micro stock.

The Dollar Photo Club still exists.... even if "we" don't have images there it still part of the market place.

For a collective to work, I think it has to offer something of value to the agencies...and I don't have a clue as to what this might be.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2014, 20:47 »
+16
The whole problem with Unions or collectives or whatever you want to call the organization is you have to be able to control the source of production.  The people who read this forum represent 1%? of the total images in micro stock.

I don't know. We were able to remove almost 25% of DPC's images in a month, so I would say we control a lot more than 1%. Following the Pareto Principle, about 20% of microstock contributors should control about 80% of all microstock content. So a relatively small number of people should be able to wield a significant amount of power.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2014, 20:50 by Shelma1 »

« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2014, 21:44 »
+4
The whole problem with Unions or collectives or whatever you want to call the organization is you have to be able to control the source of production.  The people who read this forum represent 1%? of the total images in micro stock.

I don't know. We were able to remove almost 25% of DPC's images in a month, so I would say we control a lot more than 1%. Following the Pareto Principle, about 20% of microstock contributors should control about 80% of all microstock content. So a relatively small number of people should be able to wield a significant amount of power.

true, but only IF those 20% are part of the movement -- just taking ANY 20% won't do the job

« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2014, 22:41 »
-2
Contributors are waking up and it is clear for Oringer we are not even an afterthought. He views us simply as a way to make bank. Notice that he never once considers nor mentions what would be best for contributors in this equation to acquire more wealth.

Snip

David Ethridge, senior vice president and head of capital markets for NYSE Euronext, tells Xconomy via e-mail that Oringer saw the potential to build his company via the public market rather than selling it.

The IPO on the NYSE provided him with access to capital, visibility, and brand support, Ethridge says. Since going public at $17 [per share] in fourth quarter 2012, Shutterstock has grown into a $1.6 billion market cap company with a $49 stock price. Currently $85

During a fireside chat Monday, Oringer said he had a variety of options on ways to elevate Shutterstock. I could have exited, I could have sold the company, I could have raised more capital from private equity,he said. Competitors, Oringer said, had also expressed interest in acquiring the company.

But he saw that Shutterstocks platform could scale up to something much bigger, making going public a viable option. We can build many things on top of it, he said. We dont have to stop at imagery and footage.

Any digital media we can sell in a high-value way. That includes the data weve collected along the way.


Oringer said he was ready to pull the trigger on going public when the company hit $100 million in sales last year. Thats the run rate it takes to go public, he said. All told, Shutterstock generated some $169.6 million in annual revenue in 2012 with $47.5 million in net income.

Snip
Oringer, a serial entrepreneur with a computer science background, founded Shutterstock in 2003 after his prior experiences launching other companies. Each time I went to create a new website, send out e-mail blasts, or anything to promote a product, I needed imagery, he said. The complex, expensive process of obtaining images and rights to use them prompted him to create a better way. Every business needs an image, Oringer said.

« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2014, 00:12 »
+7
Contributors are waking up and it is clear for Oringer we are not even an afterthought. He views us simply as a way to make bank. Notice that he never once considers nor mentions what would be best for contributors in this equation to acquire more wealth.

I hate to break it to you, but that's the whole industry. I sold more subs at iStock/Thinkstock last month than I did at Shutterstock. This after leaving IS because I thought it was going to be worse than Shutterstock. Guess what? I was right. I'm selling at even lower RPD there now with a higher volume. Wooyay! I wish there was another way, but it's hard to make a living doing this without all the players.

I'm all for helping out a project that wants to make a difference in the industry, but I'm skeptical that one will form. I think small victories can be won like DPC or that illustrators get 20% again at IS, but those are barely victories in my opinion. There is still so much more out there for contributors to earn. My hope is that one day most contributors will come to see that, but it could be just an illusion based on my own numbers. I hope that is not the case though.

« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2014, 00:30 »
0
The whole problem with Unions or collectives or whatever you want to call the organization is you have to be able to control the source of production.  The people who read this forum represent 1%? of the total images in micro stock.

I don't know. We were able to remove almost 25% of DPC's images in a month, so I would say we control a lot more than 1%. Following the Pareto Principle, about 20% of microstock contributors should control about 80% of all microstock content. So a relatively small number of people should be able to wield a significant amount of power.

Is DPC active?  It has 75% of the images left ( how many is that? )

I really would like to see some way we could control more about our destiny.  Maybe if the big players... the 20%... could band together. 

« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2014, 09:51 »
0
Contributors are waking up and it is clear for Oringer we are not even an afterthought. He views us simply as a way to make bank. Notice that he never once considers nor mentions what would be best for contributors in this equation to acquire more wealth.

I hate to break it to you, but that's the whole industry. I sold more subs at iStock/Thinkstock last month than I did at Shutterstock. This after leaving IS because I thought it was going to be worse than Shutterstock. Guess what? I was right. I'm selling at even lower RPD there now with a higher volume. Wooyay! I wish there was another way, but it's hard to make a living doing this without all the players.

I'm all for helping out a project that wants to make a difference in the industry, but I'm skeptical that one will form. I think small victories can be won like DPC or that illustrators get 20% again at IS, but those are barely victories in my opinion. There is still so much more out there for contributors to earn. My hope is that one day most contributors will come to see that, but it could be just an illusion based on my own numbers. I hope that is not the case though.

I agree and that is why we need to address the entire industry and not just the bottom of the barrel.

If we do not step up to the plate to protect our interest the micro owners will take full advantage of our failure to protect our assets.

The bottom line, if we do not take care of our interests, no one will.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2014, 10:28 »
+2
The whole problem with Unions or collectives or whatever you want to call the organization is you have to be able to control the source of production.  The people who read this forum represent 1%? of the total images in micro stock.

I don't know. We were able to remove almost 25% of DPC's images in a month, so I would say we control a lot more than 1%. Following the Pareto Principle, about 20% of microstock contributors should control about 80% of all microstock content. So a relatively small number of people should be able to wield a significant amount of power.

true, but only IF those 20% are part of the movement -- just taking ANY 20% won't do the job

Of course. But my point is that you don't need every single microstock contributor, or even a majority, to join in a "movement" (if there was one) to be successful. Get the top 20% or even 10% to come together and you'd have serious bargaining power. And I would guess that many of those contributors are involved with or at least read these forums, based on what happened with DPC. That makes sense, because those contributors would be more serious about microstock and, I would think, more likely to look for forums concerning the industry.

Tror

« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2014, 10:34 »
+8
Our joined action on DPC was impressive. Now lets take it further down the road. Start boycotts against sites which sell our images for subs below 25 cent. Boycott sites with lower royalties than 20%. Only submit mass market images to SS and dry them out of niche markets until they raise subs and royalties. Lets rock m!

« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2014, 11:58 »
+10
The first thing that must be done is to spread the word with a level head and a long lasting effort to create unity and slow change.. 

The community must come together with a vision,  then it cvan proceed forward. 

Attacks and anger will only disolve the hearts and cooperation of the community.  There must be a voice,  just like MSG has gathered this community..

« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2014, 15:48 »
+5
The first thing that must be done is to spread the word with a level head and a long lasting effort to create unity and slow change.. 

The community must come together with a vision,  then it cvan proceed forward. 

Attacks and anger will only disolve the hearts and cooperation of the community.  There must be a voice,  just like MSG has gathered this community..

+1

« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2014, 15:04 »
0
Contributors are waking up and it is clear for Oringer we are not even an afterthought. He views us simply as a way to make bank. Notice that he never once considers nor mentions what would be best for contributors in this equation to acquire more wealth.


I hate to break it to you, but that's the whole industry. I sold more subs at iStock/Thinkstock last month than I did at Shutterstock. This after leaving IS because I thought it was going to be worse than Shutterstock. Guess what? I was right. I'm selling at even lower RPD there now with a higher volume. Wooyay! I wish there was another way, but it's hard to make a living doing this without all the players.

I'm all for helping out a project that wants to make a difference in the industry, but I'm skeptical that one will form. I think small victories can be won like DPC or that illustrators get 20% again at IS, but those are barely victories in my opinion. There is still so much more out there for contributors to earn. My hope is that one day most contributors will come to see that, but it could be just an illusion based on my own numbers. I hope that is not the case though.


I thought about your post and agree that killing off sites is not the way to go. However as contributors we need to do our research. The sites have gone from being one man shows to a completely different animal and we need to switch gears so that we can face the reality of the situation. In short we need to address the new beasts we are currently dealing with.

Lets take Shutterstock for example. The wide perception is that Jon is in control of Shutterstock, when that is no longer the case. He gave up a large portion of control when he invited Insight Venture Partners into shutterstock as investors.

Take a good look at how much income and shutterstock stock Insight Venture Partners has been granted and has subsequently sold. We are no longer dealing with a single owner. We are dealing with wallstreet now and all that comes with it. http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1549346.htm

Insight Venture Partners
Creating a Successful IPO


http://tinyurl.com/mubpw4m

Re the Above Document Insight Venture Partners worked closely with Jon, to recruit a new executive team at Shutterstock, in particular the President, CFO, CTO, VPCD and other mid-level managers. http://www.insightpartners.com/assets/Uploads/SuccessStory/Shutterstock.pdf

Shutterstock Team At Insight Venture Partners: Jeff Lieberman, Jeff Horing, Hilary Gosher, Cian Cotter

Jeff Lieberman Board Director At Shutterstock, Inc.
Independent Director at Shutterstock, Inc. and a Managing Director at Insight Venture Management LLC. He is on the Board of Directors at Cvent, Inc., Shutterstock, Inc., Call24, Inc., HauteLook, Inc., Karmaloop, Inc., Ecova, Inc., Mimecast Ltd., and Tongal, Inc.
http://people.equilar.com/bio/jeffrey-lieberman-cvent--inc./salary/530332#.U6hBt7FRdeA

James Chou CTO
Chief Technology Officer at Shutterstock, Inc.
Insight Venture Partners Introduced James Chou to Shutterstock from Insights network
http://people.equilar.com/bio/james-chou-shutterstock--inc./salary/800789#.U6hB8LFRdeA

Thilo Semmelbauer President
President and Chief Operating Officer at Shutterstock, Inc.
http://people.equilar.com/bio/thilo-semmelbauer-shutterstock--inc./salary/723350#.U6hCVrFRdeA

Timothy E. Bixby CFO
Chief Financial Officer at Shutterstock, Inc.
http://people.equilar.com/bio/timothy-bixby-shutterstock--inc./salary/27954#.U6hCp7FRdeA

David Fraga VPCD
Vice President, Corporate Development at Shutterstock 
Previously an Insight Venture Partners Employee - Analyst at Insight Venture Partners
http://tinyurl.com/q4xdd6k

Insight Venture Partners Tech Support
Mentored and worked closely with shutterstocks existing technology development team prior to James Chou CTO joining Shutterstock

« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2014, 15:55 »
+6
I think people who are pinning their remaining hopes on SS will be disappointed.  That company now has just one product:  "shareholder value".   And in that list of new execs that gbalex posted, there's no one whose job description includes "care about contributors".


« Reply #15 on: June 23, 2014, 16:48 »
+11
I think people who are pinning their remaining hopes on SS will be disappointed...

I love Shutterstock as a company. I think they've done some amazing things, built a truly impressive business, and offer buyers an outstanding product. I've been an on-and-off subscriber at SS when I've had the workload to necessitate a subscription, and it is a really great deal. I can understand why so many people are regular customers and like what they receive.

As a contributor, though, Shutterstock's continued growth and success is a double-edged sword. Sure I do better with Shutterstock as the company does better. More customers means more people seeing my work, and hopefully more people buying it. But it also means that there is a lower best-case scenario for me long-term. Part of Shutterstock's growth has to include the existing market and buyers who currently work with other companies. They want to take customers away from their competitors, and rightly so. But Shutterstock isn't the best place for me to earn on a per-sale basis, so every time a buyer moves away from an agency that pays me more per sale and migrates their business over to Shutterstock, that means that my earnings potential shrinks.

Let's face it, Shutterstock isn't going to raise our pay any time soon, if ever. Even if they did, they can't match what we could potentially earn elsewhere. I get daily sales from places that pay me $8 or more per sale. I'll never see those kinds of sales on a daily basis at SS. The more people buy from places that pay better, the greater earnings potential I have and the increased likelihood that I might still be doing this in a few years. The more people move away from the agencies that pay better and migrate to Shutterstock, the more limited my earnings potential becomes.


Goofy

« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2014, 17:43 »
0
"Shutterstock, where to next??"

Exclusive on iStock  :D




« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2014, 18:18 »
0
The whole problem with Unions or collectives or whatever you want to call the organization is you have to be able to control the source of production.  The people who read this forum represent 1%? of the total images in micro stock.

I don't know. We were able to remove almost 25% of DPC's images in a month, so I would say we control a lot more than 1%. Following the Pareto Principle, about 20% of microstock contributors should control about 80% of all microstock content. So a relatively small number of people should be able to wield a significant amount of power.
True, but you forgot about image factories

« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2014, 13:13 »
+2
The whole problem with Unions or collectives or whatever you want to call the organization is you have to be able to control the source of production.  The people who read this forum represent 1%? of the total images in micro stock.

I don't know. We were able to remove almost 25% of DPC's images in a month, so I would say we control a lot more than 1%. Following the Pareto Principle, about 20% of microstock contributors should control about 80% of all microstock content. So a relatively small number of people should be able to wield a significant amount of power.
True, but you forgot about image factories

Yes, I think this is right.   I don't know for sure but it is my guess factories have special deals.  They won't likely be joining any boycotts or group actions.

« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2014, 13:33 »
+2
I no longer do any photos exclusively for microstock and haven't submitted anything in months. My small portfolio sits at SS, DT, GL and Alamy.

My earnings at SS are declining and it looks like ELs are a thing of the past. Alamy no longer fogs a mirror - exactly one sale in 2014.  But my earnings at DT continue to increase because of their 'levels' system.  I sell something at GL once in a while.

So for me, it's simple.  At the end of the year I'll close the Alamy account.  As soon as SS does something to really annoy me - like cut royalties in some weasel-y way, or announce a giveaway program - I'll close that account too.  My photos can stay at DT and GL.   


Valo

« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2014, 14:19 »
+1
The whole problem with Unions or collectives or whatever you want to call the organization is you have to be able to control the source of production.  The people who read this forum represent 1%? of the total images in micro stock.

I don't know. We were able to remove almost 25% of DPC's images in a month, so I would say we control a lot more than 1%. Following the Pareto Principle, about 20% of microstock contributors should control about 80% of all microstock content. So a relatively small number of people should be able to wield a significant amount of power.
True, but you forgot about image factories

Yes, I think this is right.   I don't know for sure but it is my guess factories have special deals.  They won't likely be joining any boycotts or group actions.
I am not sure why agencies would cut deals. The largest factory I believe has 400,000 images. Sure a lot of images, but if you have 30-40 million in your library, it is not as impacting as it used to be. Mostly these factories produce lifestyle images, which is the most crowded category in stock. It is not that these images cannot be replaced by others.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2014, 14:48 »
0
^^ Maybe they have rock-solid deals from back in the day (?)

Valo

« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2014, 14:56 »
+1
I agree, but if that is the case, I would like to think that agencies would rather get rid of them instead of hanging on to a cut throat deal. I think Yuri Arcurs leaving Shutterstock without causing a dent in their revenue shows everyone is replaceable. But that is food for thought in a separate thread.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Shutterstock down

Started by Greg Boiarsky Shutterstock.com

2 Replies
5771 Views
Last post March 24, 2006, 12:13
by leaf
11 Replies
10486 Views
Last post October 18, 2006, 15:32
by a.k.a.-tom
7 Replies
5922 Views
Last post January 21, 2007, 23:02
by ChrisRabior
4 Replies
4532 Views
Last post February 27, 2007, 19:48
by Kngkyle
12 Replies
3734 Views
Last post October 06, 2012, 13:13
by Poncke

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors