Are you saying that you make as much per image selling on your own site as you make from either iStock or Shutterstock? Or is the "particular agency" something like Canstock? And do you have clients who you can direct to your site or are you relying entirely on search engines?

I really do not see how simply through SEO someone can match the returns generated by Shutterstock. But, of course, I might be wrong, and if I am I would like to know how to perform that particular trick.

I'm not there yet, but I'm getting closer. This month could be real close. I usually either end up right above or below DT at about 10% of total income.

I don't really have a trick. You don't have to sell as much when you sell at reasonable prices and take 100% of it. Most of it is content generation and search traffic. I made a decision about two years ago that I was going to only upload my new images to a couple fair partner sites. This year I wanted to double my portfolio from 4000 images to 8000 to ensure that I had more unique content on my site. I'm a little over half way there.

I think this strategy is working too. I dumped IS and FT last year, but my income is pretty much back to where it was in 2010 BRC (Before Redeemed Credits). Now if I can just get my affiliate program humming, I might actually grow a little faster.

Quote from: Karimala on May 14, 2012, 23:59

Now we know for sure the agencies read MSG!   

From the Prospectus:

Quote

INDUSTRY AND MARKET DATA

        Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this prospectus concerning our industry and the markets in which we operate, including our general expectations and market position, market opportunity and market size, is based on information from various sources, on assumptions that we have made that are based on those data and other similar sources and on our knowledge of the markets for our products. These sources include BCC Research, Zenith Optimedia, BIA Kelsey, Microstock Group Forum, Cisco, IBISWorld, Netcraft and MagnaGlobal. These data involve a number of assumptions and limitations, and you are cautioned not to give undue weight to such estimates. We have not independently verified any third-party information and cannot assure you of its accuracy or completeness. While we believe the market position, market opportunity and market size information included in this prospectus to be generally reliable, such information is inherently imprecise and we cannot give you any assurance that any of the projected results will be achieved. In addition, projections, assumptions and estimates of our future performance and the future performance of the industry in which we operate is necessarily subject to a high degree of uncertainty and risk due to a variety of factors, including those described in "Risk Factors" and elsewhere in this prospectus. These and other factors could cause results to differ materially from those expressed in the estimates made by the independent parties and by us.

Cool! Where can we find the prospectus?

Gbalex posted a link.  http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ss-ipo-it%27s-done/msg255125/#msg255125

Quote from: Microbius on May 15, 2012, 05:22

Quote from: Karimala on May 14, 2012, 23:59

Now we know for sure the agencies read MSG!   

From the Prospectus:

Quote

INDUSTRY AND MARKET DATA

        Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this prospectus concerning our industry and the markets in which we operate, including our general expectations and market position, market opportunity and market size, is based on information from various sources, on assumptions that we have made that are based on those data and other similar sources and on our knowledge of the markets for our products. These sources include BCC Research, Zenith Optimedia, BIA Kelsey, Microstock Group Forum, Cisco, IBISWorld, Netcraft and MagnaGlobal. These data involve a number of assumptions and limitations, and you are cautioned not to give undue weight to such estimates. We have not independently verified any third-party information and cannot assure you of its accuracy or completeness. While we believe the market position, market opportunity and market size information included in this prospectus to be generally reliable, such information is inherently imprecise and we cannot give you any assurance that any of the projected results will be achieved. In addition, projections, assumptions and estimates of our future performance and the future performance of the industry in which we operate is necessarily subject to a high degree of uncertainty and risk due to a variety of factors, including those described in "Risk Factors" and elsewhere in this prospectus. These and other factors could cause results to differ materially from those expressed in the estimates made by the independent parties and by us.

Cool! Where can we find the prospectus?

Gbalex posted a link.  http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ss-ipo-it%27s-done/msg255125/#msg255125

Re: The Prospectus included in the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION FORM S-1REGISTRATION STATEMENT

"PROSPECTUS (Subject to Completion)
Issued               , 2012

The information in this prospectus is not complete and may be changed. We and the selling stockholders may not sell these securities until the registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission is effective. This prospectus is not an offer to sell these securities and we and the selling stockholders are not soliciting offers to buy these securities in any state where the offer or sale is not permitted."

Is the 45 million cost of revenue supposed to be what they paid out to contributors in that year?

In January 2011 kelly said istock was paying out 1.7 million a week, roughly 90 million a year.

This would mean that Shutterstock is paying out half of what istock is paying their contributors.

I hope I misunderstood that, I would find that very, very scary (from an istock exclusive perspective).

Is the 45 million cost of revenue supposed to be what they paid out to contributors in that year?

In January 2011 kelly said istock was paying out 1.7 million a week, roughly 90 million a year.

This would mean that Shutterstock is paying out half of what istock is paying their contributors.

I hope I misunderstood that, I would find that very, very scary (from an istock exclusive perspective).

The 45.5 million covers royalties paid to contributors, the office in New York, at least 70 employees salaries, the website, and the infrastructure among other things.

" Cost of Revenue.    Cost of revenue consists of royalties paid to contributors, credit card processing fees, image and video review costs, customer service expenses, the infrastructure costs related to maintaining our websites and associated employee compensation, facility costs and other supporting overhead costs. We expect that our cost of revenue will increase in absolute dollars in the foreseeable future as our revenue grows. "

Thanks traveller, so the royalties paid out will be much lower.

It's in The Atlantic article I linked to above Cobalt. A guesstimate at least.

I think 39.3 million in royalties is too high, that only leaves 6.2 million for 70 employees, infrastructure, renting an office in new york, plus other expenses.  The employees alone could cost more than that.

Quote from: bhr on May 15, 2012, 13:31

It's in The Atlantic article I linked to above Cobalt. A guesstimate at least.

I think 39.3 million in royalties is too high, that only leaves 6.2 million for 70 employees, infrastructure, renting an office in new york, plus other expenses.  The employees alone could cost more than that.

So do you think their contributors are earning less than $2.62 per portfolio image per year on average ? It seems a very small number.

I thought it was curious that they describe themselves as a "market place" but that Bigstock who they bought were an agency. I wonder what the difference is.

Quote from: traveler1116 on May 15, 2012, 13:50

Yep, probably a lot lower.  The costs they include are credit card transactions for 550,000 customers, image review for 6+ million of images, 70 or more employees salary, facilities, website, infrastructure, etc..  Hard to see how that could be paid for by 6.2 million dollars.

<sigh> Why don't you just read the report rather than invent your own figures? Here you go, I'll do it for you;

"Cost of Revenue.    Cost of revenue increased by $13.2 million, or 41%, to $45.5 million in 2011 compared to 2010. Royalties increased $10.8 million, or 47%, driven by an increase in downloads from existing and new customers. We anticipate royalties growing in line with revenues in 2012 and beyond, although royalties as a percentage of revenue may vary somewhat from period to period. Credit card charges remained substantially unchanged at $5.1 million as increasing card volume in 2011 was offset by significantly lower credit card processing fees per transaction as we switched the majority of our credit card processing to a new vendor in 2011. We anticipate credit card charges increasing in 2012 and beyond as credit card transaction volume increases. Employee-related costs increased $1.1 million, or 60%, driven by increased headcount in customer service, content and website operations to support increased customer volume and a more robust website infrastructure. "

I know they used to pay just 5-6c per review back in 2007, if I remember correctly. If we assume that might now be 10c then it still only accounts for about $1M.

The annual commission per revenue that we have derived can't be a million miles out anyway. My own port earned $3.40 per image at SS last year (on the highest rates). At IS it was $2.77 and the difference is widening on a monthly basis as earnings at IS have reduced whilst earnings at SS continue to grow.

What's the math on that?  Looks like 33.8 million in royalties to me which is much lower than 39.2 million in royalties?

10.8 / 13.2 x 45.5 = 37.227

Not sure how The Atlantic is getting their number.

I think royalties were $33.8M in 2011 (and $23M in 2010).

R + 10.8 = R x 1.47

I did it like this:
x=2010 royalties paid in millions
y=2011 royalties paid in millions
1)  x + .47x = y
     .47x = 10.8
2) x = 22.9
3) 22.9 + 10.8 = y
4)  33.7 = y

You two are clearly right. Thanks.