MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: w7lwi on May 14, 2012, 10:48
-
Jon announced this morning that SS has filed with the SEC intention to have an IPO.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=122922 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=122922)
-
Really cannot compare IS to SS on being public since they have a total different business models. Thus I think sales will be about the same as before without any major changes...
-
I'm not going to take much notice of this until the full details are revealed. Would be nice if they gave some free shares to their contributors who have done a lot to build up their business.
-
I think those of us without blinders, knew it was a given when the new board/key employees appeared and the IPO piece showed up in Reuters.
-
I wish them luck ofcourse and hope things wont change too drastically.
-
Hopefully, this is a positive thing. I guess my conference call grumblings a few weeks ago to the Morgan Stanley guys didn't scare them off. ;D
-
I'm not going to take much notice of this until the full details are revealed. Would be nice if they gave some free shares to their contributors who have done a lot to build up their business.
LOL
-
I don't like this a bit.
Soon SS is taken over by a group of suits, people who sees stock only as a commodity. Then they are going to maximize their profits. This has "iStock disaster" written all over it.
:(
-
Yes, I'm worried about that too. I always loved that SS took an 'If it ain't broke don't fix it' approach. Now we're in unchartered waters and I'm nervous. Nothing we can do but wait and see.
-
I'm nervous but hopeful. At the very least, I figure we've got at least a year before investors will try to put any pressure on the company to show a return on their investment. Meaning there's still plenty of time before we would even begin to see any possible negative effect of this.
So in the meantime, it's just business as usual for me, with fingers crossed that SS never has to take anything away from us to make investors happy.
-
I wish them luck ofcourse and hope things wont change too drastically.
Yes, this sums up my feelings too.
I share some of the concerns voiced here, but since there's absolutely nothing I can do about it either way, I guess I will just sit tight and hope for the best.
-
I'm nervous but hopeful. At the very least, I figure we've got at least a year before investors will try to put any pressure on the company to show a return on their investment. Meaning there's still plenty of time before we would even begin to see any possible negative effect of this.
So in the meantime, it's just business as usual for me, with fingers crossed that SS never has to take anything away from us to make investors happy.
I'm not overly worried. If Jon was looking to maximise short-term return then he would have jumped on the same price-increase and lower-commission bandwagon that other greedy b@stards have done. By doing so he might have made far more from the IPO. He hasn't done that and appears content to grow his business by doing the right thing and benefiting from the mistakes of others. I don't see that changing any time soon.
I'm sure Jon must also have had innumerous offers to sell the entire business outright over the years but again has refused to do so.
Don't forget that whilst the shareholders might collectively own the business they don't get to run it in any meaningful way. Provided that the business continues to grow then they should be kept content.
I think the ultimate objective of this move is to grow an image empire to rival or beat the traditional agencies such as Getty and Corbis both of which have been painfully slow to adapt to the threats of new technology and the interweb.
-
I'm not overly worried. If Jon was looking to maximise short-term return then he would have jumped on the same price-increase and lower-commission bandwagon that other greedy b@stards have done. By doing so he might have made far more from the IPO. He hasn't done that and appears content to grow his business by doing the right thing and benefiting from the mistakes of others. I don't see that changing any time soon.
I'm sure Jon must also have had innumerous offers to sell the entire business outright over the years but again has refused to do so.
Don't forget that whilst the shareholders might collectively own the business they don't get to run it in any meaningful way. Provided that the business continues to grow then they should be kept content.
I think the ultimate objective of this move is to grow an image empire to rival or beat the traditional agencies such as Getty and Corbis both of which have been painfully slow to adapt to the threats of new technology and the interweb.
You know shutterstock pays out UP TO 38 cents on an XXXL image and 20-30% on single image sales already, say what you will about other sites but that's not exactly paying out high commissions is it?
-
I think the ultimate objective of this move is to grow an image empire to rival or beat the traditional agencies such as Getty and Corbis both of which have been painfully slow to adapt to the threats of new technology and the interweb.
I don't contribute to macro, but yet this concerns me. If that happens, we're just going to see further decreases in prices, there will be no one left to point their finger to saying look at the prices those agencies are putting next to images, our prices are a fu*king bargain, a steal.
-
I'm nervous but hopeful. At the very least, I figure we've got at least a year before investors will try to put any pressure on the company to show a return on their investment. Meaning there's still plenty of time before we would even begin to see any possible negative effect of this.
So in the meantime, it's just business as usual for me, with fingers crossed that SS never has to take anything away from us to make investors happy.
I'm not overly worried. If Jon was looking to maximise short-term return then he would have jumped on the same price-increase and lower-commission bandwagon that other greedy b@stards have done. By doing so he might have made far more from the IPO. He hasn't done that and appears content to grow his business by doing the right thing and benefiting from the mistakes of others. I don't see that changing any time soon.
I'm sure Jon must also have had innumerous offers to sell the entire business outright over the years but again has refused to do so.
Don't forget that whilst the shareholders might collectively own the business they don't get to run it in any meaningful way. Provided that the business continues to grow then they should be kept content.
I think the ultimate objective of this move is to grow an image empire to rival or beat the traditional agencies such as Getty and Corbis both of which have been painfully slow to adapt to the threats of new technology and the interweb.
that was my initial thought as well but then, wait a second, inside the major 4 micro agencies are many, many Getty and Corbis photographers, hiding under all sorts of pseudos. I am not sure its even worth it? heck, I know its a big market but its hardly the Petrochemical-industries, is it.
As I can see it, the only way to even start to rival these outfits, well its the pricing policy yet again, isnt it. Package deals, lowering prices, this and that, in the end its nothing left at all for suppliers like us, I mean how many times can you split a buck.
-
I hope it doesn't lead to something like what happened with IS. Hopefully it doesn't, but who knows.
I don't see SS lowering prices, the only places really lowering prices are the small sites trying to elbow in. I do however see lots of the big sites lowering commissions - that is my bigger worry. SS commissions for subs are hard to really know since nobody knows the actual number of sales (and how do you calculate extra sales that never get used but wouldn't be bought without a sub plan). SS commissions for on demand types of sales are pretty poor, especially at the bottom end of things. They aren't as poor as IS and FT, but that doesn't say much at all. If some company is going to expand to rival Getty I'd like to see a site with better commissions. Then again they don't have a long history of dropping commissions. Unfortunately the yearly raises of the past are also a distant memory.
-
I'm not overly worried. If Jon was looking to maximise short-term return then he would have jumped on the same price-increase and lower-commission bandwagon that other greedy b@stards have done. By doing so he might have made far more from the IPO. He hasn't done that and appears content to grow his business by doing the right thing and benefiting from the mistakes of others. I don't see that changing any time soon.
I'm sure Jon must also have had innumerous offers to sell the entire business outright over the years but again has refused to do so.
Don't forget that whilst the shareholders might collectively own the business they don't get to run it in any meaningful way. Provided that the business continues to grow then they should be kept content.
I think the ultimate objective of this move is to grow an image empire to rival or beat the traditional agencies such as Getty and Corbis both of which have been painfully slow to adapt to the threats of new technology and the interweb.
You know shutterstock pays out UP TO 38 cents on an XXXL image and 20-30% on single image sales already, say what you will about other sites but that's not exactly paying out high commissions is it?
sub from 71.4% to 132.4%
od from 18.4% to 31.6%
el from 27.8% to 40.5%
is iStock paying more? ::)
-
I'm nervous but hopeful. At the very least, I figure we've got at least a year before investors will try to put any pressure on the company to show a return on their investment. Meaning there's still plenty of time before we would even begin to see any possible negative effect of this.
So in the meantime, it's just business as usual for me, with fingers crossed that SS never has to take anything away from us to make investors happy.
I'm not overly worried. If Jon was looking to maximise short-term return then he would have jumped on the same price-increase and lower-commission bandwagon that other greedy b@stards have done. By doing so he might have made far more from the IPO. He hasn't done that and appears content to grow his business by doing the right thing and benefiting from the mistakes of others. I don't see that changing any time soon.
I'm sure Jon must also have had innumerous offers to sell the entire business outright over the years but again has refused to do so.
Don't forget that whilst the shareholders might collectively own the business they don't get to run it in any meaningful way. Provided that the business continues to grow then they should be kept content.
I think the ultimate objective of this move is to grow an image empire to rival or beat the traditional agencies such as Getty and Corbis both of which have been painfully slow to adapt to the threats of new technology and the interweb.
that was my initial thought as well but then, wait a second, inside the major 4 micro agencies are many, many Getty and Corbis photographers, hiding under all sorts of pseudos. I am not sure its even worth it? heck, I know its a big market but its hardly the Petrochemical-industries, is it.
As I can see it, the only way to even start to rival these outfits, well its the pricing policy yet again, isnt it. Package deals, lowering prices, this and that, in the end its nothing left at all for suppliers like us, I mean how many times can you split a buck.
That is it exactly, SS was successful because it maintained low prices and overhead. In the last year we have seen a change in that overhead policy and the type of people SS is bringing into the company. Check out the stock options the new CFO was pulling in before SS brought him on board. And then there is the timing of the new search engine changes.
There are just so many unknown variables that "we can only guess". I hope that the greed bug has not overtaken SS at the cost of its contributors.
There have been no raises since 2008... companies like to go public in years where they have good revenue... especially if they know those revenues will not last. Timing an IPO at the peak of revenues can boost perceived value long enough to sell the company and get out before the downsides become visible.
The prospectus will be interesting and until we have more information we can only make haphazard guesses at the reasons SS is choosing to go public. Hopefully SS did not use vulture capitalist to grow, because venture capitalists have been known to use IPOs to cash in on successful companies that they helped start-up. IPO also may be used by founding individuals as an exit strategy.
A best case scenario would be that SS is looking to further the growth of the company and they are using the IPO as a way to generate the cheaper capital needed to expand. The upside is that IPO's can also generate publicity by making the company known to new groups of potential customers.
I guess we could take a look at the track records of the board members and key new employees for a clues into where SS may be headed.
-
"Greed is good." Gordon Gekko.
8)
-
sub from 71.4% to 132.4%
od from 18.4% to 31.6%
el from 27.8% to 40.5%
is iStock paying more? ::)
For me it is, PP sub sales are about 11% higher than at SS per sale (I didn't check sub plan pricing but I think they are about the same so IS would be paying a higher %). On Demand sales are probably on average about 25%, while single image OD are 20% which is the same or lower than a base level exclusive. And ELs (I doubt too many people buy the 25 EL packs) are probably closer to 30% on average which is the same or less than the majority of exclusives. The point was that SS is not giving really high commissions. In fact if your issue with IS is that they give too low commissions it would make more sense to be exclusive since SS gives lower commissions than they do.
But back on topic, my guess is SS will raise prices and keep commissions the same.
-
sub from 71.4% to 132.4%
od from 18.4% to 31.6%
el from 27.8% to 40.5%
is iStock paying more? ::)
For me it is, PP sub sales are about 11% higher than at SS per sale (I didn't check sub plan pricing but I think they are about the same so IS would be paying a higher %). On Demand sales are probably on average about 25%, while single image OD are 20% which is the same or lower than a base level exclusive. And ELs (I doubt too many people buy the 25 EL packs) are probably closer to 30% on average which is the same or less than the majority of exclusives. The point was that SS is not giving really high commissions. In fact if your issue with IS is that they give too low commissions it would make more sense to be exclusive since SS gives lower commissions than they do.
But back on topic, my guess is SS will raise prices and keep commissions the same.
But don't forget that IS's stated goal is 20% and at least so far SS hasn't said that.
-
But back on topic, my guess is SS will raise prices and keep commissions the same.
If they'll keep the commission % the same, they'll become the absolute #1, loved by every single indie ;)
-
But don't forget that IS's stated goal is 20% and at least so far SS hasn't said that.
Link please?
-
I don't like this a bit.
Soon SS is taken over by a group of suits, people who sees stock only as a commodity. Then they are going to maximize their profits. This has "iStock disaster" written all over it.
:(
Inevitable.
-
But don't forget that IS's stated goal is 20% and at least so far SS hasn't said that.
SS's goal is 25%. ;D
-
But don't forget that IS's stated goal is 20% and at least so far SS hasn't said that.
SS's goal is 25%. ;D
I don't know, by my calculations it's about 8%. 5 image pack for $49 = $9.8 per image. They pay 81 cents at the lowest for small multi on demand sales which is about 8% right? BTW what is the justification for paying different amounts for medium and large files when it looks like it costs the buyer the same amount to buy either?
-
But don't forget that IS's stated goal is 20% and at least so far SS hasn't said that.
SS's goal is 25%. ;D
I don't know, by my calculations it's about 8%. 5 image pack for $49 = $9.8 per image. They pay 81 cents at the lowest for small multi on demand sales which is about 8% right? BTW what is the justification for paying different amounts for medium and large files when it looks like it costs the buyer the same amount to buy either?
It was a joke. Both sites pay pretty low.
-
So much for low overhead
http://voices.yahoo.com/cfo-tim-bixby-announces-departure-7126822.html?cat=3 (http://voices.yahoo.com/cfo-tim-bixby-announces-departure-7126822.html?cat=3)
According to Forbes magazine, Bixby served as Vice President of Finance for Universal Music & Video Distribution, Inc., from 1994 until 1999. Prior to joining Universal in 1992 as Associated Director, Bixby worked for Credit Suisse.
Bixby holds an M.B.A. from Harvard and A.B. from Dartmouth. His position with LivePerson is estimated to be worth $4.8 million in stock options as of 2009.
-
sub from 71.4% to 132.4%
od from 18.4% to 31.6%
el from 27.8% to 40.5%
is iStock paying more? ::)
For me it is, PP sub sales are about 11% higher than at SS per sale (I didn't check sub plan pricing but I think they are about the same so IS would be paying a higher %). On Demand sales are probably on average about 25%, while single image OD are 20% which is the same or lower than a base level exclusive. And ELs (I doubt too many people buy the 25 EL packs) are probably closer to 30% on average which is the same or less than the majority of exclusives. The point was that SS is not giving really high commissions. In fact if your issue with IS is that they give too low commissions it would make more sense to be exclusive since SS gives lower commissions than they do.
But back on topic, my guess is SS will raise prices and keep commissions the same.
I understand your point BUT we cannot see exclusives %, we need to see what IS offer to indies (regular and pp) or it would be quite unfair
that said I believe that IS does have a nice RPD even for indies but with number of sales decreasing along time SS is becoming way more relevant to the majority of indies, we need to add to this equation that subs aren´t no longer the core of the SS sales, ODs are increasing and also new single sales which are quite big increasing the RPD
I hope that SS keep on doing the same stuff as before which is keeping buyers/contributors happy
-
But don't forget that IS's stated goal is 20% and at least so far SS hasn't said that.
SS's goal is 25%. ;D
I don't know, by my calculations it's about 8%. 5 image pack for $49 = $9.8 per image. They pay 81 cents at the lowest for small multi on demand sales which is about 8% right? BTW what is the justification for paying different amounts for medium and large files when it looks like it costs the buyer the same amount to buy either?
no, thats not correct
just spent a few minutes doing the contributor royalties % at SS (% between () from the lowest to the highest canister)
Subscription
a) 263$ for 750 downloads - 0.35$ each (71.4%, 94.2%, 102.8%, 108.5%)
b) 708$ for 2250 downloads - 0.314$ each (79.6%, 105%, 114.6%, 121%)
c) 1367$ for 4500 downloads - 0.303$ each (82.5%, 108.9%, 118.8%, 125.4%)
d) 2584$ for 9000 downloads - 0.287$ each (87.1%, 114.9%, 125.4%, 132.4%)
On Demand
- All sizes
a) 51$ for 5 downloads - 10.2$ each (18.4%, 24.3%, 26.4%, 27.9%)
b) 235$ for 25 downloads - 9.4$ each (20%, 26.3%, 28.7%, 30.3%)
- S and M sizes
a) 51$ for 12 downloads - 4.25$ each (18.9%, 25.1%, 27.5%, 29.1%)
b) 235$ for 60 downloads - 3.92$ each (20.6%, 27.3%, 29.8%, 31.6%)
EL
a) 201$ for 2 downloads - 100.5$ each (27.8%)
b) 455$ for 5 downloads - 91$ each (30.7%)
c) 1722$ for 25 downloads - 69$ each (40.5%)
P.S: a few minutes after posting this at SS forum it got removed
-
Eh, you guys and your "numbers". All those careful calculations, based on knowledge and history of the business, don't mean a thing. What you don't get is: you know vastly more about this business than do the guys who will be running it 6 months after the IPO. Within a year, they'll be announcing big changes that you will look at and think "huh?". And it will get progressively crazier after that. I'd say it takes something like 2 years - and a couple of major meltdowns - and a bunch of golden parachutes - to get back to something like reality after an IPO. And many businesses don't survive that transition.
Some of you who have seen startups/IPOs from the inside - as employees - might agree.
-
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/net-us-shutterstock-brief-idINBRE84D0N320120514?feedType=RSS&feedName=internetNews (http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/net-us-shutterstock-brief-idINBRE84D0N320120514?feedType=RSS&feedName=internetNews)
Reuters) - Online stock photography provider Shutterstock plans an initial public offering of common stock to raise up to $115 million.
Sources told Reuters earlier this month that Shutterstock, which competes with stock photo leader Getty Images, is close to filing for an IPO.
It owns a library of photographs and illustrations that customers can license and download through subscription deals.
Shutterstock is backed by entities affiliated with Insight Venture Partners and Pixel Holdings Inc. Shutterstock Chief Executive Jonathan Oringer is the sole shareholder of Pixel Holdings Inc, according to a regulatory filing with U.S. regulators on Monday.
Oringer — who hails from Westchester, New York — founded the company in 2003, uploading 30,000 stock photos to the site. The site currently has more than 19 million images.
It competes with other online marketplaces for imagery like iStockphoto, Fotolia and Dreamstime and traditional stock content providers such as Corbis Corp.
Getty Images was taken private by Hellman & Friedman for $2.4 billion in 2008.
For the year ended 2011, Shutterstock earned 21.8 million on a revenue of $120.2 million. More than 550,000 active, paying users contributed to revenue in 2011, representing an increase of 71 percent compared to the prior year.
The New York-based company told the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in a preliminary prospectus that Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank Securities and Jefferies were underwriting the IPO.
The filing did not reveal how many shares the company planned to sell or their expected price.
The company intends to list its common stock on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "SSTK".
The amount of money a company says it plans to raise in its first IPO filings is used to calculate registration fees. The final size of the IPO could be different.
(Reporting by Tanya Agrawal and Vidya P L Nathan in Bangalore; Editing by Joyjeet Das)
-
http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml (http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml)
5 image pack is $49
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml (http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml)
second box down is: Images:
Multi-Image On Demand $0.81 up to $1.24(once you make $10,000)
(Small/Med)
.81 is about 8% of $9.80 which is the price of 1 image in a 5 image pack while $1.24 is less than 13%.
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml[/url])
5 image pack is $49
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
second box down is: Images:
Multi-Image On Demand $0.81 up to $1.24(once you make $10,000)
(Small/Med)
.81 is about 8% of $9.80 which is the price of 1 image in a 5 image pack while $1.24 is less than 13%.
NOP! :D
12 and 60 downloads, 5 and 25 downloads are the ALL SIZES
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml[/url])
5 image pack is $49
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
second box down is: Images:
Multi-Image On Demand $0.81 up to $1.24(once you make $10,000)
(Small/Med)
.81 is about 8% of $9.80 which is the price of 1 image in a 5 image pack while $1.24 is less than 13%.
NOP! :D
12 and 60 downloads, 5 and 25 downloads are the ALL SIZES
I don't see that offered.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/idUS173640104520120514 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/idUS173640104520120514)
"Shutterstock’s total revenue has grown from $61.1 million in 2009 to $83.0 million in 2010 and $120.3 million in 2011 — representing a compound annual growth rate of 40.3 percent since 2009, according to the S-1 filing.
The company will use money from the IPO for operational purposes, as well as possibly acquiring other companies that are strategic to its current business."
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml[/url])
5 image pack is $49
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
second box down is: Images:
Multi-Image On Demand $0.81 up to $1.24(once you make $10,000)
(Small/Med)
.81 is about 8% of $9.80 which is the price of 1 image in a 5 image pack while $1.24 is less than 13%.
NOP! :D
12 and 60 downloads, 5 and 25 downloads are the ALL SIZES
I don't see that offered.
12 for expensive pack and 60 for cheaper, thats S and M sizes, check my maths above
-
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/idUS173640104520120514[/url] ([url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/idUS173640104520120514[/url])
"Shutterstock’s total revenue has grown from $61.1 million in 2009 to $83.0 million in 2010 and $120.3 million in 2011 — representing a compound annual growth rate of 40.3 percent since 2009, according to the S-1 filing.
The company will use money from the IPO for operational purposes, as well as possibly acquiring other companies that are strategic to its current business."
thanks for sharing ;D we do deserve a raise lol
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml[/url])
5 image pack is $49
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
second box down is: Images:
Multi-Image On Demand $0.81 up to $1.24(once you make $10,000)
(Small/Med)
.81 is about 8% of $9.80 which is the price of 1 image in a 5 image pack while $1.24 is less than 13%.
NOP! :D
12 and 60 downloads, 5 and 25 downloads are the ALL SIZES
I don't see that offered.
12 for expensive pack and 60 for cheaper, thats S and M sizes, check my maths above
I understand what you are saying but it doesn't look like they offer the s/m package, just the any size package so you would get the any size amount even if the image downloaded is small or medium. A little confusing huh? But I guess the percentages would be around 19-29% for that then.
-
I'm interested in buying a little. Maybe everyone should buy a little. It would be nice for contributors to have voice with ownership. Imagine the annual shareholders meeting if some of the more opinionated Microstockgroup denizens showed up.
-
But don't forget that IS's stated goal is 20% and at least so far SS hasn't said that.
Link please?
Hrmm. I can't exactly link to that. I seem to remember when the RC mess started it was stated that Getty's goal was 20% across the board and IS was moving towards being in line with the rest of the Getty family. If someone else does have that actually spelled out somewhere I too would like to see the link.
Sorry if I am contributing to misinformation.
-
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/idUS173640104520120514[/url] ([url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/idUS173640104520120514[/url])
"Shutterstock’s total revenue has grown from $61.1 million in 2009 to $83.0 million in 2010 and $120.3 million in 2011 — representing a compound annual growth rate of 40.3 percent since 2009, according to the S-1 filing.
The company will use money from the IPO for operational purposes, as well as possibly acquiring other companies that are strategic to its current business."
delete
-
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/idUS173640104520120514[/url] ([url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/idUS173640104520120514[/url])
"Shutterstock’s total revenue has grown from $61.1 million in 2009 to $83.0 million in 2010 and $120.3 million in 2011 — representing a compound annual growth rate of 40.3 percent since 2009, according to the S-1 filing.
The company will use money from the IPO for operational purposes, as well as possibly acquiring other companies that are strategic to its current business."
thanks for sharing ;D we do deserve a raise lol
"For the year ended 2011, Shutterstock earned 21.8 million on a revenue of $120.2 million. More than 550,000 active, paying users contributed to revenue in 2011, representing an increase of 71 percent compared to the prior year."
-
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/idUS173640104520120514[/url] ([url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/idUS173640104520120514[/url])
"Shutterstock’s total revenue has grown from $61.1 million in 2009 to $83.0 million in 2010 and $120.3 million in 2011 — representing a compound annual growth rate of 40.3 percent since 2009, according to the S-1 filing.
The company will use money from the IPO for operational purposes, as well as possibly acquiring other companies that are strategic to its current business."
thanks for sharing ;D we do deserve a raise lol
"For the year ended 2011, Shutterstock earned 21.8 million on a revenue of $120.2 million. More than 550,000 active, paying users contributed to revenue in 2011, representing an increase of 71 percent compared to the prior year."
ok double raise
-
http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/14/shutterstock-files-for-ipo-plans-to-raise-up-to-115-million/ (http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/14/shutterstock-files-for-ipo-plans-to-raise-up-to-115-million/)
"According to its S-1 filing, Shutterstock currently offers one of the largest content libraries in the commercial digital imagery industry with over 19 million photographs and illustrations and about 500,000 videos from more than 35,000 contributors. In 2011, the company delivered more than 58 million paid downloads. The average cost per image on the site in 2011 was around $3. Shutterstock says that it had more than 550,000 paying customers in 2011.
-
.81 is about 8% of $9.80 which is the price of 1 image in a 5 image pack while $1.24 is less than 13%.
I've never seen commissions that low. I'm almost always getting $2.85 for ODs. Maybe 1 in 100 is something less.
-
They have only announced an intention. So contrary to the title of this thread it is not done.
-
.81 is about 8% of $9.80 which is the price of 1 image in a 5 image pack while $1.24 is less than 13%.
I've never seen commissions that low. I'm almost always getting $2.85 for ODs. Maybe 1 in 100 is something less.
I was wrong about the % because the .81 cents is only for the lowest level (under $500) small/medium multi image packs which don't appear to be offered on the site, hence the confusion. Maybe they are offered in Europe or in a different part of the site that I couldn't find.
With knowing that SS gets about $3 per image sale though it should be easy to find out what percentage they pay out.
-
[url]http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/net-us-shutterstock-brief-idINBRE84D0N320120514?feedType=RSS&feedName=internetNews[/url] ([url]http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/net-us-shutterstock-brief-idINBRE84D0N320120514?feedType=RSS&feedName=internetNews[/url])
For the year ended 2011, Shutterstock earned 21.8 million on a revenue of $120.2 million. More than 550,000 active, paying users contributed to revenue in 2011, representing an increase of 71 percent compared to the prior year.
That's a pretty healthy profit but I still would love to know what they spent the $100M on. They have no inventory, don't have a ton of employees, no massive support call center, or anything else like that.
-
I don't like this a bit.
Soon SS is taken over by a group of suits, people who sees stock only as a commodity. Then they are going to maximize their profits. This has "iStock disaster" written all over it.
:(
Inevitable.
How I see it...
Jon wants to grow his business. The 800-lb gorilla (iStock) has stumbled and there's big potential to swoop in and gobble up market share. And/or he could have big plans to grow SS in some other significant way, such as a new product or service. In either event, Jon needs money to invest in the business, either for major marketing initiatives to grow his market share, or to build out some new element that will create a new revenue stream. These are the reasons companies do IPOs.
He surely has met with the investment community and described SS as a young business with nothing but growth in front of it. No investor is going to put money into a business already at the top of its game with no growth strategy. If Jon simply planned to cut contributor commissions and hope to deliver more profits through cost-cutting, the investment community would laugh him out of the room. Investors put their money in when they think a company can gain share and/or get big revenue in a market that is growing.
Increasing the bottom line through cost-cutting is what a desperate company does toward the end of its game. It's certainly not the strategy for a company that is about to do an IPO.
Of course, if SS gets a lot of capital through its IPO, and down the line it does not deliver on its promises of growth, then the investors will be out for blood, and Jon may have to resort to whatever he can do to make the profit picture look good, i.e. cutting commissions. But I think that's way down the road, and only if SS fails. Based on what we all know about Jon and SS, we have little reason to expect this.
-
That's a pretty healthy profit but I still would love to know what they spent the $100M on. They have no inventory, don't have a ton of employees, no massive support call center, or anything else like that.
Maybe $40M on commissions, 150+ employees (about 18 months ago when they were "recruiting like mad"), marketing, internet, NY office rental, etc, etc. Maybe massive bonus for JO? I'm surprised that they're not more profitable though.
-
[url]http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/net-us-shutterstock-brief-idINBRE84D0N320120514?feedType=RSS&feedName=internetNews[/url] ([url]http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/net-us-shutterstock-brief-idINBRE84D0N320120514?feedType=RSS&feedName=internetNews[/url])
For the year ended 2011, Shutterstock earned 21.8 million on a revenue of $120.2 million. More than 550,000 active, paying users contributed to revenue in 2011, representing an increase of 71 percent compared to the prior year.
That's a pretty healthy profit but I still would love to know what they spent the $100M on. They have no inventory, don't have a ton of employees, no massive support call center, or anything else like that.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm)
-
Increasing the bottom line through cost-cutting is what a desperate company does toward the end of its game. It's certainly not the strategy for a company that is about to do an IPO.
But what happens AFTER the IPO?
-
Some numbers in here don't match:
"For the year ended 2011, Shutterstock earned 21.8 million on a revenue of $120.2 million. More than 550,000 active, paying users contributed to revenue in 2011, representing an increase of 71 percent compared to the prior year.
"
"In 2011, the company delivered more than 58 million paid downloads. The average cost per image on the site in 2011 was around $3."
All quoted from some of the quotes in this thread. Either the revenue number is wrong (I doubt it...) or the cost per image is not $3 but closer to $2.
For those who want to take their own RPD to calculate their overall percentage....
-
[url]http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/net-us-shutterstock-brief-idINBRE84D0N320120514?feedType=RSS&feedName=internetNews[/url] ([url]http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/net-us-shutterstock-brief-idINBRE84D0N320120514?feedType=RSS&feedName=internetNews[/url])
For the year ended 2011, Shutterstock earned 21.8 million on a revenue of $120.2 million. More than 550,000 active, paying users contributed to revenue in 2011, representing an increase of 71 percent compared to the prior year.
That's a pretty healthy profit but I still would love to know what they spent the $100M on. They have no inventory, don't have a ton of employees, no massive support call center, or anything else like that.
I think one of the largest costs for these websites is the cost of online advertising. Driving customers to a website is expensive, but the pricing on keywords like "stock photo" is huge. The last time I looked it was in the $2.25 per click range. that's just to bring in a viewer, not a sale. Look at the placement of shutterstock in the google paid ad search and you will see that they are at the top. You have to buy that kind of exposure.
-
I'm interested in buying a little. Maybe everyone should buy a little. It would be nice for contributors to have voice with ownership. Imagine the annual shareholders meeting if some of the more opinionated Microstockgroup denizens showed up.
Well as a SS exclusive I've already been getting information on the IPO and purchasing stock. This is a smiley ---> :o Humor Alert!
-
Now we know for sure the agencies read MSG! ;D
From the Prospectus:
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.
-
sub from 71.4% to 132.4%
od from 18.4% to 31.6%
el from 27.8% to 40.5%
is iStock paying more? ::)
NO.
and what about the ridicolous 15% they pay to non exclusives ?
-
Some numbers in here don't match:
"For the year ended 2011, Shutterstock earned 21.8 million on a revenue of $120.2 million. More than 550,000 active, paying users contributed to revenue in 2011, representing an increase of 71 percent compared to the prior year.
"
"In 2011, the company delivered more than 58 million paid downloads. The average cost per image on the site in 2011 was around $3."
All quoted from some of the quotes in this thread. Either the revenue number is wrong (I doubt it...) or the cost per image is not $3 but closer to $2.
For those who want to take their own RPD to calculate their overall percentage....
It looks like the quoted article rounded up, there is more information located in SS's SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION FORM S-1 REGISTRATION STATEMENT
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm#da47301_business (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm#da47301_business)
Section 72
"We are the beneficiaries of significant network effects. As we have grown, our broadening audience of paying users has attracted more images from contributors. This increased selection of images has in turn helped to attract more paying users. The success of this network effect is facilitated by the trust that users place in Shutterstock to maintain the integrity of our branded marketplace. Every contributor in our marketplace and every image we make available must pass our proprietary screening process and meet our standards of quality. In addition, and unlike the significant majority of free images available online, our rigorous vetting process enables us to provide confidence and indemnification to our users that the images in our library have been appropriately licensed for commercial or editorial use.
We make image licensing affordable, simple and easy in order to encourage a high volume of purchases and downloads. Our customers' average cost per image in 2011 was less than $3.00. We are a pioneer of the subscription-based usage model in our industry, whereby subscribers can download and use a large number of images in their creative process without concern for the incremental cost of each download. The majority of our downloads come from subscription-based users, who contributed 59% of our revenue in 2011. We also offer simple and easy-to-use On Demand purchase options for users with less consistent needs. As a result of our simple and affordable licensing models, we believe that we have achieved the highest volume of commercial image downloads of any single brand in our industry. In addition to driving revenue, this high volume of download activity allows us to continually improve the quality and accuracy of our search algorithms, as well as to encourage the creation of new content to meet our users' needs.
Our revenue is diversified and predictable. More than 550,000 customers from more than 150 countries contributed to our revenue in 2011, with no single customer accounting for more than 1% of our revenue. We have historically benefitted from a high degree of revenue retention from both subscription-based and On Demand customers. For example, in 2009, 2010 and 2011, we retained 82%, 96%, and 102%, respectively, of the prior year's revenue from the same set of customers. Customers typically pay us upfront and then use their downloads in a predictable pattern over time, which results in favorable cash flow characteristics and has historically added predictability and stability to our financial performance.
We have achieved significant growth in the eight years since our company was founded. In 2010 and 2011, we generated revenue of $83.0 million and $120.3 million, respectively, representing year-over-year growth of 35.8% and 45.0%, respectively. In 2010 and 2011, we generated Adjusted EBITDA of $21.8 million and $26.5 million, respectively, and Free Cash Flow of $27.6 million and $36.1 million, respectively. See "Summary Consolidated Historical and Unaudited Pro Forma Financial Data—Non-GAAP Financial Measures." In 2010 and 2011, our net income was $18.9 million and $21.9 million, respectively. In 2011, 34% of our revenue came from North America, and 66% came from the rest of the world. "
-
How I see it...
Jon wants to grow his business. The 800-lb gorilla (iStock) has stumbled and there's big potential to swoop in and gobble up market share. And/or he could have big plans to grow SS in some other significant way, such as a new product or service. In either event, Jon needs money to invest in the business, either for major marketing initiatives to grow his market share, or to build out some new element that will create a new revenue stream. These are the reasons companies do IPOs.
He surely has met with the investment community and described SS as a young business with nothing but growth in front of it. No investor is going to put money into a business already at the top of its game with no growth strategy. If Jon simply planned to cut contributor commissions and hope to deliver more profits through cost-cutting, the investment community would laugh him out of the room. Investors put their money in when they think a company can gain share and/or get big revenue in a market that is growing.
Increasing the bottom line through cost-cutting is what a desperate company does toward the end of its game. It's certainly not the strategy for a company that is about to do an IPO.
Of course, if SS gets a lot of capital through its IPO, and down the line it does not deliver on its promises of growth, then the investors will be out for blood, and Jon may have to resort to whatever he can do to make the profit picture look good, i.e. cutting commissions. But I think that's way down the road, and only if SS fails. Based on what we all know about Jon and SS, we have little reason to expect this.
It's heartening to hear some positive views on the rationale behind all this, and I especially enjoyed this one.
I do hope you're right, Stockmarketer. Thanks for posting your anxiety-alleviating thoughts on this.
-
Now we know for sure the agencies read MSG! ;D
From the Prospectus:
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?
-
I'm interested in buying a little. Maybe everyone should buy a little. It would be nice for contributors to have voice with ownership. Imagine the annual shareholders meeting if some of the more opinionated Microstockgroup denizens showed up.
I would consider it when the shares hit the exchange. We wont be in the running for the IPO of course, unless there are a few millionaires/ billionaires hiding in the corner ;)
It would be great if the majority of the shares could eventually be bought by contributors, but try getting that organised!
-
The company will use money from the IPO for operational purposes, as well as possibly acquiring other companies that are strategic to its current business."
Hooray! They're going to buy iStock! There'll be lots of money left over, too, once all iStock's debts are factored into the deal.
-
For the year ended 2011, Shutterstock earned 21.8 million on a revenue of $120.2 million. More than 550,000 active, paying users contributed to revenue in 2011, representing an increase of 71 percent compared to the prior year.
If the shares are being sold to raise about $118m, that would be a five-times multiple over earnings. Isn't that far too low for the whole company? I'd be overjoyed to get a 20% earnings return instantly on a company growing 70% a year. It suggests to me that fewer than half the shares will be up for grabs.
-
[url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url])
This is fascinating stuff. It's the first time we've ever seen the financial details of a microstock agency.
Last year SS generated revenue of $120M and the 'Cost of revenue' was $45.5M. Assuming that that is the commissions paid out (and possibly referrals too?) it means that SS are paying an average commission of almost 38%. That's up from 35.7% in 2009.
I'm staggered just how much they spend on 'Sales and Marketing'. At nearly $32M it was 26% of their entire revenue. It's $2.7M every month!
I think this could be excellent for contributors and I will certainly be hoping to re-invest some of my earnings into SS stock. Might as well share in the profits of the business we are helping to build.
-
The marketing figure makes perfect sense. Why do we rely on agencies to represent us? Because as individuals we don't have the clout to market ourselves. Agencies are firts and foremost a marketing tool for photographers/image producers, the accounting function is secondary.
-
Increasing the bottom line through cost-cutting is what a desperate company does toward the end of its game. It's certainly not the strategy for a company that is about to do an IPO.
But what happens AFTER the IPO?
One of two things happen...
1. SS is successful in the growth strategy it promises to investors. The investors are happy and tell Jon to stay the course... keep the growth coming! Contributors stand to benefit greatly in this scenario through increased sales and commissions.
2. SS is unsuccessful in its growth efforts, and its investors are unhappy. Then it turns to Plan B, which probably combines a different growth strategy with some cost cutting, which could negatively affect us.
Let's just stop being paranoid about an IPO automatically being bad for us. Think about that logic... Jon raises (pick your number) $X million and says, "Great, now I can contributor commissions"? That makes no sense.
Step 1 is SS raising a nice sum of investment capital... Steps 2-99 are SS hopefully putting that money to great use in growing the business in ways that benefit them and probably us... Step 100 is when everyone looks back and says "It worked" or "Didn't work" and "What now?" Let's not all jump to Step 100 AND assume it will be a negative outcome.
-
[url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url])
This is fascinating stuff. It's the first time we've ever seen the financial details of a microstock agency.
Last year SS generated revenue of $120M and the 'Cost of revenue' was $45.5M. Assuming that that is the commissions paid out (and possibly referrals too?) it means that SS are paying an average commission of almost 38%. That's up from 35.7% in 2009.
I'm staggered just how much they spend on 'Sales and Marketing'. At nearly $32M it was 26% of their entire revenue. It's $2.7M every month!
I think this could be excellent for contributors and I will certainly be hoping to re-invest some of my earnings into SS stock. Might as well share in the profits of the business we are helping to build.
I thought the $32M was pretty interesting too. Goes to show how much money it takes to grow a successful microstock company these days and why all of these cashless startups that try to grow organically fail. That approach may have worked a few years ago but I doubt it's viable now.
Photoshelter burnt through a million in a year trying to jumpstart their stock offering. No wonder why they shut it down. They would have needed massive funding.
-
The marketing figure makes perfect sense. Why do we rely on agencies to represent us? Because as individuals we don't have the clout to market ourselves. Agencies are firts and foremost a marketing tool for photographers/image producers, the accounting function is secondary.
I guess so. From what I've heard marketing costs of 26% are comparitively low compared the expenditure on fizzy drinks and 'designer goods' which apparently can be 40%.
-
In 2011 the average number of images in the SS library was 15M (averaged over the entire year). Therefore SS generated annual revenue of $8 per image and paid out just over $3 in commission.
-
I'm nervous but hopeful. At the very least, I figure we've got at least a year before investors will try to put any pressure on the company to show a return on their investment. Meaning there's still plenty of time before we would even begin to see any possible negative effect of this.
So in the meantime, it's just business as usual for me, with fingers crossed that SS never has to take anything away from us to make investors happy.
[/quote]
[/quote]
That is it exactly, SS was successful because it maintained low prices and overhead. In the last year we have seen a change in that overhead policy and the type of people SS is bringing into the company. Check out the stock options the new CFO was pulling in before SS brought him on board. And then there is the timing of the new search engine changes.
A best case scenario would be that SS is looking to further the growth of the company and they are using the IPO as a way to generate the cheaper capital needed to expand. The upside is that IPO's can also generate publicity by making the company known to new groups of potential customers.
I guess we could take a look at the track records of the board members and key new employees for a clues into where SS may be headed.
[/quote]
This is funny. SS only product is "low prices" the only reason SS has not raised prices is they can't. When you have no exclusive products and only compete on price you can't raise your price without exposing your flank.
The definition of a public companies "mission statement" is to maximize shareholders profit. Once they go public it is the only mission. There will no giveaways here. Only cutthroat capitalism on display. That unfriendly Getty feeling will be at SS very soon without the high commission payouts.
-
In 2011 the average number of images in the SS library was 15M (averaged over the entire year). Therefore SS generated annual revenue of $8 per image and paid out just over $3 in commission.
I have not had time to go through the unaudited FORM S-1 in full, how are you arriving at $3 in commission?
-
The marketing figure makes perfect sense. Why do we rely on agencies to represent us? Because as individuals we don't have the clout to market ourselves. Agencies are firts and foremost a marketing tool for photographers/image producers, the accounting function is secondary.
You seem to like to promote this myth. It doesn't really cost that much to open up a shop and compete. When I say compete I mean my earnings on my site versus my earnings on a particular agency.
-
I have not had time to go through the unaudited FORM S-1 in full, how are you arriving at $3 in commission?
Halfway through 2011 they would have had about 15M images which I've used as an average figure for the full year. Dividing the annual revenue by the number of images gives $8 per image. I've since noticed that the 'Costs of revenue' includes more than just the commissions;
"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."
From the detail they've provided elsewhere on those other costs I'd estimate the actual average commission paid is more like 31% so the annual commission per image is probably a tad less than $2.50. Obviously the longer-term contributors can be expected to earn more and the newbies somewhat less than that average figure.
-
The marketing figure makes perfect sense. Why do we rely on agencies to represent us? Because as individuals we don't have the clout to market ourselves. Agencies are firts and foremost a marketing tool for photographers/image producers, the accounting function is secondary.
You seem to like to promote this myth. It doesn't really cost that much to open up a shop and compete. When I say compete I mean my earnings on my site versus my earnings on a particular agency.
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.
-
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.
-
the annual commission per image is probably a tad less than $2.50. Obviously the longer-term contributors can be expected to earn more and the newbies somewhat less than that average figure.
The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/how-shutterstock-made-120-million-last-year-selling-photos-on-the-internet/257172/) roughly agrees with your estimate:
39.3/15m = $2.62 per portfolio image per year
Atlantic:
my read of their SEC filing is that they paid out $39.3 million in royalties to 35,000 contributors. So the mean contributor is making something like $1,100 a year by posting their work on the site. (I don't know exactly what the distribution looks like; we only know that no entity received more than 10 percent of the royalties paid out.)
-
Now we know for sure the agencies read MSG! ;D
From the Prospectus:
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 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ss-ipo-it%27s-done/msg255125/#msg255125)
-
Not liking this quote from the Atlantic article...
From an investment perspective, the most obvious red flag, though, is that their revenues have more than doubled in the last several years, but their net income has been stagnant. They're having to spend a lot more money on sales and marketing than they did back in 2008. If that trend continues, something will have to change on the revenue side.
-
Now we know for sure the agencies read MSG! ;D
From the Prospectus:
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. [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ss-ipo-it%27s-done/msg255125/#msg255125[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ss-ipo-it%27s-done/msg255125/#msg255125[/url])
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."
-
Now we know for sure the agencies read MSG! ;D
From the Prospectus:
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.
I'm guessing they are particularly referring to the yearly microstock poll, which they've quoted and used a few times, most recently on their blog http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/microstock-survey (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/microstock-survey)
-
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).
-
How do I participate in the IPO? I'm located in Europe.
I could spare a few thousand dollars for some SS Stocks... :)
-
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. "
-
How do I participate in the IPO? I'm located in Europe.
I could spare a few thousand dollars for some SS Stocks... :)
Ya even I would like to participate in the IPO... but how...?
I discussed today from one of my share broker and he told that I cannot invest in the ipo since I am living on different country.
-
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.
-
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.
-
How do I participate in the IPO? I'm located in Europe.
I could spare a few thousand dollars for some SS Stocks... :)
Ya even I would like to participate in the IPO... but how...?
I discussed today from one of my share broker and he told that I cannot invest in the ipo since I am living on different country.
Yes, you can. According to this article on eHow, all you need to do is have an account with a US brokerage firm. http://www.ehow.com/how_5784383_buy-u_s_-stocks-internationally.html (http://www.ehow.com/how_5784383_buy-u_s_-stocks-internationally.html)
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Not arguing and you may well be right. Can you explain a little more ?
My thinking was this:
Revenue cost increased 13.2 of which 10.8 was royalties. Therefore I was assuming that royalties are 10.8/13.2 of total revenue cost.
Aren't the percentages are a red herring ?
-
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
-
Not arguing and you may well be right. Can you explain a little more ?
My thinking was this:
Revenue cost increased 13.2 of which 10.8 was royalties. Therefore I was assuming that royalties are 10.8/13.2 of total revenue cost.
Aren't the percentages are a red herring ?
I think it is irrelevant how much the total cost of revenue changed as there are too many variable factors within it. The only statement that gave us factual information about royalties was "Royalties increased $10.8 million, or 47%"
-
You two are clearly right. Thanks.
-
How do I participate in the IPO? I'm located in Europe.
I could spare a few thousand dollars for some SS Stocks... :)
Ya even I would like to participate in the IPO... but how...?
I discussed today from one of my share broker and he told that I cannot invest in the ipo since I am living on different country.
Often this won't matter, only big investors and insiders will get to buy into an IPO.
Find out who's handling the sale. Contact that brokerage firm.
That's how you get in on the initial offering.
-
So the average royalty rate (in 2011) at shutterstock is now official:
28%. (33,7 / 120,2)
How much above (higher levels) or below (beginners) that average anyone's individual percentage is, is still a little mystery...
-
So the average royalty rate (in 2011) at shutterstock is now official:
28%. (33,7 / 120,2)
How much above (higher levels) or below (beginners) that average anyone's individual percentage is, is still a little mystery...
If true, it wouldn't surprise me. I always assumed it was somewhere between 20-30%. My guess was always 25%.
-
If we want to buy stock we have to wait until it goes on the New York Stock Exchange NYSE. It'll be there with the symbol SSTK if it all works out.
If you are living in a country other than the US you can usually still buy US stocks through your local bank or through an investment firm.. at least you can in Norway.
-
If we want to buy stock we have to wait until it goes on the New York Stock Exchange NYSE. It'll be there with the symbol SSTK if it all works out.
If you are living in a country other than the US you can usually still buy US stocks through your local bank or through an investment firm.. at least you can in Norway.
Beat me to it. You won't be able to invest in the IPO unless you are a big time investor with millions to spend. The initial offerings are reserved for these sorts of people. We small fry will have to wait until the shares hit the exchange.
-
...We small fry will have to wait until the shares hit the exchange.
Anyone know how long after an IPO it typically takes for public shares to be made available?
-
...We small fry will have to wait until the shares hit the exchange.
Anyone know how long after an IPO it typically takes for public shares to be made available?
As soon as they're listed on the NYSE, basically immediately.
-
So when the agencies get all these huge money influxes, they dont need to squeeze us so much?
or what?
Or is it so that when they have a huge pile of money, they do not use them for marketing and improving IT, but pile them up in the corner of the bunker, and begin to imagine another pile next to it.
-
Did a quick read and just want to say for everyone to remember this!
IPO is a "SALE"!
Rudy said it already and they had it on the news this morning about what an IPO is because of Facebook going public and they said no matter what an IPO is a Sale.
First time offer to sell to the public.
Founders and Early investors are cashing out.
and it is a sale.
Here is what some of the investing companies from Wall Street say about IPO's.
Why does a company go public?
Companies issue stock to the public for many reasons including:
Needing growth capital for the business
Founding investors selling a portion of their original ownership
Paying off debt
Increasing exposure for the company
Improving company's ability to recruit upper management through stock options
Ability to issue further stock to facilitate takeovers using company stock
IPOs generally favor the brokerage firms that underwrite these issues and the companies that go public. A close second are institutional investors that buy the stock at its offering price and then sell it in the afternoon, profiting from the transaction. By pricing the shares below their real value, institutions are able to make a quick buck off unsuspecting individual investors. Unless you are a big institution, it's unlikely that you would be able to buy shares in an IPO even if you wanted to. Only those with the deepest pockets representing the widest interests get access to these opportunities. That's not such a bad thing for individual investors.
Sure, being in on the ground floor might mean a quick 15 to 20 percent return on your investment once it starts trading. However, studies have shown that many IPOs tend to trade below their offering price one year after going public. Investors might be better to focus on buying stocks that were IPOs a year earlier. Coca Cola went public in 1919 at $40 and was trading at $19 a year later. That is quite a difference.
IPOs do from time to time grow up to be extremely large companies and so, like any other investment vehicle, you should do careful research before investing. If it's a stock worth buying and holding for the long term, whether you buy it today or in a year is of little consequence in the end.
Why Go Public?
Going public raises cash, and usually a lot of it. Being publicly traded also opens many financial doors:
Because of the increased scrutiny, public companies can usually get better rates when they issue debt.
As long as there is market demand, a public company can always issue more stock. Thus, mergers and acquisitions are easier to do because stock can be issued as part of the deal.
Trading in the open markets means liquidity. This makes it possible to implement things like employee stock ownership plans, which help to attract top talent.
-
The Tao of Shutterstock: What Makes a Stock Photo a Stock Photo? (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/the-tao-of-shutterstock-what-makes-a-stock-photo-a-stock-photo/257280/) - The Atlantic
-
^^^ Good article. Thanks for posting.
-
Yes, great article. Thanks. Nice to know someone sees us as specialists. ;D
Interesting to learn that only 20% of applicants get in, and that around 40% of images are rejected.
-
The Tao of Shutterstock: What Makes a Stock Photo a Stock Photo? ([url]http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/the-tao-of-shutterstock-what-makes-a-stock-photo-a-stock-photo/257280/[/url]) - The Atlantic
For years, whenever any book or mainstream publication said anything about microstock or 'crowdsourcing' images, they only talked about iStock or mentioned other agencies only as an afterthought. Nice to see that changing.
-
Here's an interesting article from Gizmodo on the Facebook IPO. Even though it's written about Facebook I think it has quite a few applications to Shutterstock. Here is a quote which I'm afraid might be true.. switch out facebook for shutterstock in the bold part
But in the long term, Facebook being a public company has potentially huge repercussions. Private companies have the luxury of running themselves however they want. They can focus on long-term strategy instead of short-term gain. Public companies, though, have to march in front of their shareholders every three months and explain how and why they made—or lost—so much of other people's money.
That kind of pressure can make a company lose sight of what made it so successful in the first place. Facebook, in particular, will be immediately under fire for not doing more to monetize each individual user. Its earnings are dramatically below its projections; if it doesn't find a way to grow quickly, it'll have hell to pay. For a company that's already prone to overreaching, that anger could be the spark that lights a powder keg of privacy and Open Graph concerns.
http://gizmodo.com/5911275/reminder-the-facebook-ipo-wont-make-you-rich/ (http://gizmodo.com/5911275/reminder-the-facebook-ipo-wont-make-you-rich/)
-
Here's an interesting article from Gizmodo on the Facebook IPO. Even though it's written about Facebook I think it has quite a few applications to Shutterstock. Here is a quote which I'm afraid might be true.. switch out facebook for shutterstock in the bold part
But in the long term, Facebook being a public company has potentially huge repercussions. Private companies have the luxury of running themselves however they want. They can focus on long-term strategy instead of short-term gain. Public companies, though, have to march in front of their shareholders every three months and explain how and why they made—or lost—so much of other people's money.
That kind of pressure can make a company lose sight of what made it so successful in the first place. Facebook, in particular, will be immediately under fire for not doing more to monetize each individual user. Its earnings are dramatically below its projections; if it doesn't find a way to grow quickly, it'll have hell to pay. For a company that's already prone to overreaching, that anger could be the spark that lights a powder keg of privacy and Open Graph concerns.
[url]http://gizmodo.com/5911275/reminder-the-facebook-ipo-wont-make-you-rich/[/url] ([url]http://gizmodo.com/5911275/reminder-the-facebook-ipo-wont-make-you-rich/[/url])
These hype IPOs are a farse. They serve only one purpose: to line the pocket of financial executives and a few insiders managing the IPO. It's not about investment, it's about fees.... they have almost nothing to do with the company's or the investors interest. If there was rational price discovery mechanism at work here, the shares simply wouldn't sell at such an unreal price compared to working profits... and it wouldn't generate so much fee.
-
The Tao of Shutterstock: What Makes a Stock Photo a Stock Photo? ([url]http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/the-tao-of-shutterstock-what-makes-a-stock-photo-a-stock-photo/257280/[/url]) - The Atlantic
I like that line "with its value relying almost entirely on the enthusiasms of its contributors" ... lose the enthusiasm and you'll lose the enthusiasms. I hope they'll remember that.
-
These hype IPOs are a farse. They serve only one purpose: to line the pocket of financial executives and a few insiders managing the IPO. It's not about investment, it's about fees.... they have almost nothing to do with the company's or the investors interest. If there was rational price discovery mechanism at work here, the shares simply wouldn't sell at such an unreal price compared to working profits... and it wouldn't generate so much fee.
The Facebook IPO is the daddy of all farces. As I mentioned in another thread Apple, with all it's fantastic products and $100B of cash reserves, is currently trading at a price/earnings ratio of about 13. Google has a PE of 20. Facebook's earnings ratio is a staggering ... wait for it ... are you sitting down ... 125!!!!!! In other words, it's only going to take about 125 years for Facebook to eventually earn what it was priced at.
-
These hype IPOs are a farse. They serve only one purpose: to line the pocket of financial executives and a few insiders managing the IPO. It's not about investment, it's about fees.... they have almost nothing to do with the company's or the investors interest. If there was rational price discovery mechanism at work here, the shares simply wouldn't sell at such an unreal price compared to working profits... and it wouldn't generate so much fee.
The Facebook IPO is the daddy of all farces. As I mentioned in another thread Apple, with all it's fantastic products and $100B of cash reserves, is currently trading at a price/earnings ratio of about 13. Google has a PE of 20. Facebook's earnings ratio is a staggering ... wait for it ... are you sitting down ... 125!!!!!! In other words, it's only going to take about 125 years for Facebook to eventually earn what it was priced at.
So there was a dotcom bubble, it popped, disaster - they went from that to an enormous real estate bubble, popped, disaster - now they want another dotcom bubble? 0.o Talk about quick, forced loss of memories.... or learning from mistakes.. omg :)
-
These hype IPOs are a farse. They serve only one purpose: to line the pocket of financial executives and a few insiders managing the IPO. It's not about investment, it's about fees.... they have almost nothing to do with the company's or the investors interest. If there was rational price discovery mechanism at work here, the shares simply wouldn't sell at such an unreal price compared to working profits... and it wouldn't generate so much fee.
The Facebook IPO is the daddy of all farces. As I mentioned in another thread Apple, with all it's fantastic products and $100B of cash reserves, is currently trading at a price/earnings ratio of about 13. Google has a PE of 20. Facebook's earnings ratio is a staggering ... wait for it ... are you sitting down ... 125!!!!!! In other words, it's only going to take about 125 years for Facebook to eventually earn what it was priced at.
Boy you7 sure know it L
So there was a dotcom bubble, it popped, disaster - they went from that to an enormous real estate bubble, popped, disaster - now they want another dotcom bubble? 0.o Talk about quick, forced loss of memories.... or learning from mistakes.. omg :)
Boy, you sure know it all................
-
sub from 71.4% to 132.4%
od from 18.4% to 31.6%
el from 27.8% to 40.5%
is iStock paying more? ::)
For me it is, PP sub sales are about 11% higher than at SS per sale (I didn't check sub plan pricing but I think they are about the same so IS would be paying a higher %). On Demand sales are probably on average about 25%, while single image OD are 20% which is the same or lower than a base level exclusive. And ELs (I doubt too many people buy the 25 EL packs) are probably closer to 30% on average which is the same or less than the majority of exclusives. The point was that SS is not giving really high commissions. In fact if your issue with IS is that they give too low commissions it would make more sense to be exclusive since SS gives lower commissions than they do.
But back on topic, my guess is SS will raise prices and keep commissions the same.
SS is the only microsite (besides of IS) wich could raise prices safely.
-
SS is the only microsite (besides of IS) wich could raise prices safely.
I hope investors will take care of that and not cut the royalties at the same time
-
Does anyone know what the market share breakdowns are between shutterstock and istock?
-
Does anyone know what the market share breakdowns are between shutterstock and istock?
This is totally conjecture and whatever anyone guesses, will be argued and contradicted by someone else. Keeping that in mind, based on my super secret private research. MicroStock Only! It compares IS exclusive, and independent sales income to SS everyone sales income.
SS 33%
IS 22%
(ps the next top eight sites combined = 45%, none having more than 10% of the market.)
Easy to say from my personal view. There are only two sites to spend time supporting. SS and IS. Unless you want to be an IS exclusive, which is just fine. Option three is upload to every site in the world that will take your images, 50 if you can handle it.
Simply put, One Site (exclusive) Two sites (the two that sell and pay, optimize efforts) or Every site you can upload to and pick up some spare change.
-
These hype IPOs are a farse. They serve only one purpose: to line the pocket of financial executives and a few insiders managing the IPO. It's not about investment, it's about fees.... they have almost nothing to do with the company's or the investors interest. If there was rational price discovery mechanism at work here, the shares simply wouldn't sell at such an unreal price compared to working profits... and it wouldn't generate so much fee.
The Facebook IPO is the daddy of all farces. As I mentioned in another thread Apple, with all it's fantastic products and $100B of cash reserves, is currently trading at a price/earnings ratio of about 13. Google has a PE of 20. Facebook's earnings ratio is a staggering ... wait for it ... are you sitting down ... 125!!!!!! In other words, it's only going to take about 125 years for Facebook to eventually earn what it was priced at.
Boy you7 sure know it L
So there was a dotcom bubble, it popped, disaster - they went from that to an enormous real estate bubble, popped, disaster - now they want another dotcom bubble? 0.o Talk about quick, forced loss of memories.... or learning from mistakes.. omg :)
Boy, you sure know it all................
This is only news to babies.
-
These hype IPOs are a farse. They serve only one purpose: to line the pocket of financial executives and a few insiders managing the IPO. It's not about investment, it's about fees.... they have almost nothing to do with the company's or the investors interest. If there was rational price discovery mechanism at work here, the shares simply wouldn't sell at such an unreal price compared to working profits... and it wouldn't generate so much fee.
The Facebook IPO is the daddy of all farces. As I mentioned in another thread Apple, with all it's fantastic products and $100B of cash reserves, is currently trading at a price/earnings ratio of about 13. Google has a PE of 20. Facebook's earnings ratio is a staggering ... wait for it ... are you sitting down ... 125!!!!!! In other words, it's only going to take about 125 years for Facebook to eventually earn what it was priced at.
Boy you7 sure know it L
So there was a dotcom bubble, it popped, disaster - they went from that to an enormous real estate bubble, popped, disaster - now they want another dotcom bubble? 0.o Talk about quick, forced loss of memories.... or learning from mistakes.. omg :)
Boy, you sure know it all................
The posts of Drugal continue to serve as a reminder to us all of the purpose and value of the MSG Ignore option.
-
Did a quick read and just want to say for everyone to remember this!
IPO is a "SALE"!
Rudy said it already and they had it on the news this morning about what an IPO is because of Facebook going public and they said no matter what an IPO is a Sale.
First time offer to sell to the public.
Founders and Early investors are cashing out.
and it is a sale.
Here is what some of the investing companies from Wall Street say about IPO's.
Why does a company go public?
Companies issue stock to the public for many reasons including:
Needing growth capital for the business
Founding investors selling a portion of their original ownership
Paying off debt
Increasing exposure for the company
Improving company's ability to recruit upper management through stock options
Ability to issue further stock to facilitate takeovers using company stock
IPOs generally favor the brokerage firms that underwrite these issues and the companies that go public. A close second are institutional investors that buy the stock at its offering price and then sell it in the afternoon, profiting from the transaction. By pricing the shares below their real value, institutions are able to make a quick buck off unsuspecting individual investors. Unless you are a big institution, it's unlikely that you would be able to buy shares in an IPO even if you wanted to. Only those with the deepest pockets representing the widest interests get access to these opportunities. That's not such a bad thing for individual investors.
Sure, being in on the ground floor might mean a quick 15 to 20 percent return on your investment once it starts trading. However, studies have shown that many IPOs tend to trade below their offering price one year after going public. Investors might be better to focus on buying stocks that were IPOs a year earlier. Coca Cola went public in 1919 at $40 and was trading at $19 a year later. That is quite a difference.
IPOs do from time to time grow up to be extremely large companies and so, like any other investment vehicle, you should do careful research before investing. If it's a stock worth buying and holding for the long term, whether you buy it today or in a year is of little consequence in the end.
Why Go Public?
Going public raises cash, and usually a lot of it. Being publicly traded also opens many financial doors:
Because of the increased scrutiny, public companies can usually get better rates when they issue debt.
As long as there is market demand, a public company can always issue more stock. Thus, mergers and acquisitions are easier to do because stock can be issued as part of the deal.
Trading in the open markets means liquidity. This makes it possible to implement things like employee stock ownership plans, which help to attract top talent.
Excellent info.
This will be a huge game changer. I have been in a few boards myself and know the effect that they can have on a company. I predict that a board would immediately push for differentiated subscription models (for higher the end customers that Istock is currently taking all the sales from) and exclusive content to differentiate against Istock. Basically all the things that Jon was against in the start (2005), but that is market reality today. This could make Shutterstock the absolut go-to agency over Istock in couple of years if they do these changes. If they also continued to acquire a few smaller agencies here and there to serve as a mass-distribution platform such as with bigstockphoto.com they are in for a true winner and would have the basis for a tempting exclusive offering (from the perspective of the photographer).
-
Did a quick read and just want to say for everyone to remember this!
IPO is a "SALE"!
Rudy said it already and they had it on the news this morning about what an IPO is because of Facebook going public and they said no matter what an IPO is a Sale.
First time offer to sell to the public.
Founders and Early investors are cashing out.
and it is a sale.
Here is what some of the investing companies from Wall Street say about IPO's.
Why does a company go public?
Companies issue stock to the public for many reasons including:
Needing growth capital for the business
Founding investors selling a portion of their original ownership
Paying off debt
Increasing exposure for the company
Improving company's ability to recruit upper management through stock options
Ability to issue further stock to facilitate takeovers using company stock
IPOs generally favor the brokerage firms that underwrite these issues and the companies that go public. A close second are institutional investors that buy the stock at its offering price and then sell it in the afternoon, profiting from the transaction. By pricing the shares below their real value, institutions are able to make a quick buck off unsuspecting individual investors. Unless you are a big institution, it's unlikely that you would be able to buy shares in an IPO even if you wanted to. Only those with the deepest pockets representing the widest interests get access to these opportunities. That's not such a bad thing for individual investors.
Sure, being in on the ground floor might mean a quick 15 to 20 percent return on your investment once it starts trading. However, studies have shown that many IPOs tend to trade below their offering price one year after going public. Investors might be better to focus on buying stocks that were IPOs a year earlier. Coca Cola went public in 1919 at $40 and was trading at $19 a year later. That is quite a difference.
IPOs do from time to time grow up to be extremely large companies and so, like any other investment vehicle, you should do careful research before investing. If it's a stock worth buying and holding for the long term, whether you buy it today or in a year is of little consequence in the end.
Why Go Public?
Going public raises cash, and usually a lot of it. Being publicly traded also opens many financial doors:
Because of the increased scrutiny, public companies can usually get better rates when they issue debt.
As long as there is market demand, a public company can always issue more stock. Thus, mergers and acquisitions are easier to do because stock can be issued as part of the deal.
Trading in the open markets means liquidity. This makes it possible to implement things like employee stock ownership plans, which help to attract top talent.
Excellent info.
This will be a huge game changer. I have been in a few boards myself and know the effect that they can have on a company. I predict that a board would immediately push for differentiated subscription models (for higher the end customers that Istock is currently taking all the sales from) and exclusive content to differentiate against Istock. Basically all the things that Jon was against in the start (2005), but that is market reality today. This could make Shutterstock the absolut go-to agency over Istock in couple of years if they do these changes. If they also continued to acquire a few smaller agencies here and there to serve as a mass-distribution platform such as with bigstockphoto.com they are in for a true winner and would have the basis for a tempting exclusive offering (from the perspective of the photographer).
Imho shutterstock has been differentiating itself from istock by not doing any of that, and winning with a 'keep it simple' model.
-
It all depends on how much control Jon retains over the company. The board might just do whatever he wants, until growth falters. If Jon is the majority shareholder, he can fill the boardroom with yes men. SS might only be doing this to buy some of their rivals, not changing anything else. If it's making money, investors might not want to risk big changes in strategy.
Their strategy has worked so far, istock might be doing well with the higher paying buyers but how many of the ones that don't like the price hikes have they lost to SS?
It would surprise me if Jon lost control of the business and they started changing everything. They can do an IPO and keep their current strategy, buying out some of their rivals that are going nowhere, possibly because they have moved away from the ethos of microstock.
-
I know full design studios that only have a subscription to SS and that is it. They would and could easily spend about 10 times more on stock images, but they don't need to, because they got most of their demand covered with their subscription. SS has lured the customers in on a simple "as is" kind of business model. Now it is time to make the real money. They are sitting on a gold mine. I predict that if SS opens the opportunity for exclusive content in a premium subscription package they just doubled their revenue in a year or two's time. And further more. I will bet a that this will happen. Anybody want to bet?
Best Y
-
So it boils down to a question of brand loyalty. In microstock marketplaces I would say it's medium towards strong with most customers, they will only leave if there are real price hikes, but then they leave en masse. Jon's subscirption model is an excellent combination of math and basic psychology, he knows what he's doing.
-
Did a quick read and just want to say for everyone to remember this!
IPO is a "SALE"!
Rudy said it already and they had it on the news this morning about what an IPO is because of Facebook going public and they said no matter what an IPO is a Sale.
First time offer to sell to the public.
Founders and Early investors are cashing out.
and it is a sale.
Here is what some of the investing companies from Wall Street say about IPO's.
Why does a company go public?
Companies issue stock to the public for many reasons including:
Needing growth capital for the business
Founding investors selling a portion of their original ownership
Paying off debt
Increasing exposure for the company
Improving company's ability to recruit upper management through stock options
Ability to issue further stock to facilitate takeovers using company stock
IPOs generally favor the brokerage firms that underwrite these issues and the companies that go public. A close second are institutional investors that buy the stock at its offering price and then sell it in the afternoon, profiting from the transaction. By pricing the shares below their real value, institutions are able to make a quick buck off unsuspecting individual investors. Unless you are a big institution, it's unlikely that you would be able to buy shares in an IPO even if you wanted to. Only those with the deepest pockets representing the widest interests get access to these opportunities. That's not such a bad thing for individual investors.
Sure, being in on the ground floor might mean a quick 15 to 20 percent return on your investment once it starts trading. However, studies have shown that many IPOs tend to trade below their offering price one year after going public. Investors might be better to focus on buying stocks that were IPOs a year earlier. Coca Cola went public in 1919 at $40 and was trading at $19 a year later. That is quite a difference.
IPOs do from time to time grow up to be extremely large companies and so, like any other investment vehicle, you should do careful research before investing. If it's a stock worth buying and holding for the long term, whether you buy it today or in a year is of little consequence in the end.
Why Go Public?
Going public raises cash, and usually a lot of it. Being publicly traded also opens many financial doors:
Because of the increased scrutiny, public companies can usually get better rates when they issue debt.
As long as there is market demand, a public company can always issue more stock. Thus, mergers and acquisitions are easier to do because stock can be issued as part of the deal.
Trading in the open markets means liquidity. This makes it possible to implement things like employee stock ownership plans, which help to attract top talent.
Excellent info.
This will be a huge game changer. I have been in a few boards myself and know the effect that they can have on a company. I predict that a board would immediately push for differentiated subscription models (for higher the end customers that Istock is currently taking all the sales from) and exclusive content to differentiate against Istock. Basically all the things that Jon was against in the start (2005), but that is market reality today. This could make Shutterstock the absolut go-to agency over Istock in couple of years if they do these changes. If they also continued to acquire a few smaller agencies here and there to serve as a mass-distribution platform such as with bigstockphoto.com they are in for a true winner and would have the basis for a tempting exclusive offering (from the perspective of the photographer).
So you would envisage an SS-exclusive collection and an SS-elite collection alongside the SS-standard, with higher subscription prices for the first two? Say 3, 2 and 1 credit, much the way DT does it. But as soon as you do that you create an incentive to rig the search the way iStock has done. Or are you thinking of an SS Vetta arrangement, with very high prices for selected files/contributrors? I can see the advantage to these things from your perspective, but isn't the "market reality" that Jon's model has succeeded where others are starting to fail?
I'm pretty sure that SS customers would put up with some sort of price rise for subscriptions after so long without one but there is also a risk that a substantial rise would push customers to Thinkstock.
-
I know full design studios that only have a subscription to SS and that is it. They would and could easily spend about 10 times more on stock images, but they don't need to, because they got most of their demand covered with their subscription. SS has lured the customers in on a simple "as is" kind of business model. Now it is time to make the real money. They are sitting on a gold mine. I predict that if SS opens the opportunity for exclusive content in a premium subscription package they just doubled their revenue in a year or two's time. And further more. I will bet a that this will happen. Anybody want to bet?
I'd take that bet. SS are winning the greater share of the microstock market by not making the same mistakes as others (as Drugal also pointed out). 'Exclusivity' of images or artists has little or no value to most buyers and they'd prefer not to pay a premium for it. SS's business model does not allow for different price levels without destroying the simple formula that has proved so successful. Note that FT seems to spend most of it's time trying to reverse or minimise price differentials.
The 'acquisition' referred to in the IPO can only be targetted against either FT or DT. Any other lesser agency could be bought with existing cash. With Istock positioning themselves at the 'mid-stock' price level it should ensure that SS will enjoy total domination of the true microstock market. They don't need to do anything drastic as they are bound to win by default.
-
Another article on SS/FT here:
http://paidcontent.org/2012/05/16/microstock/ (http://paidcontent.org/2012/05/16/microstock/)
-
Excellent info.
This will be a huge game changer. I have been in a few boards myself and know the effect that they can have on a company. I predict that a board would immediately push for differentiated subscription models (for higher the end customers that Istock is currently taking all the sales from) and exclusive content to differentiate against Istock. Basically all the things that Jon was against in the start (2005), but that is market reality today. This could make Shutterstock the absolut go-to agency over Istock in couple of years if they do these changes. If they also continued to acquire a few smaller agencies here and there to serve as a mass-distribution platform such as with bigstockphoto.com they are in for a true winner and would have the basis for a tempting exclusive offering (from the perspective of the photographer).
Board Member Thomas Evans, Chief Executive Officer Of Bankrate Inc.
Bankrate's Evans Sees Growth, Acquisition Opportunities (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c_sN7oxTtQ#noexternalembed-ws)
-
I know full design studios that only have a subscription to SS and that is it. They would and could easily spend about 10 times more on stock images, but they don't need to, because they got most of their demand covered with their subscription. SS has lured the customers in on a simple "as is" kind of business model. Now it is time to make the real money. They are sitting on a gold mine. I predict that if SS opens the opportunity for exclusive content in a premium subscription package they just doubled their revenue in a year or two's time. And further more. I will bet a that this will happen. Anybody want to bet?
Best Y
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/04/01/8403372/index.htm?postversion=2007040409 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/04/01/8403372/index.htm?postversion=2007040409)
'But technology seems to favor his new competitors. "Our advantage is efficiency," says Shutterstock's Oringer. "And if Getty can use iStockphoto to upsell its customers, why we can't we use higher-priced photos to start moving into its market?" '
http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2007/12/shutterstock.html (http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2007/12/shutterstock.html)
'Question:
What´s your opinion on the midstock model? Is it possibly "already dead" (Alan Meckler) or is it the future (Bryan Zmijewski)?
Additionally, you said in April: "If Getty can use iStockphoto to upsell its customers, why can´t we use higher-priced photos to start moving into its market?"
Jon Oringer: There is a customer for every price point as long as the value proposition is there. The question is, which are the most important customers to target? And at what time? We are concentrating on our current subscription model as well as footage at this time.'
-
I know full design studios that only have a subscription to SS and that is it. They would and could easily spend about 10 times more on stock images, but they don't need to, because they got most of their demand covered with their subscription. SS has lured the customers in on a simple "as is" kind of business model. Now it is time to make the real money. They are sitting on a gold mine. I predict that if SS opens the opportunity for exclusive content in a premium subscription package they just doubled their revenue in a year or two's time. And further more. I will bet a that this will happen. Anybody want to bet?
Best Y
That makes sense to me. They already have been adding more higher priced content with the On Demand and Single Image prices. It seems like next logical step to add some sort of premium content. That said, I wonder if they can add that content and differentiate it without messing up the balance.
-
I know full design studios that only have a subscription to SS and that is it. They would and could easily spend about 10 times more on stock images, but they don't need to, because they got most of their demand covered with their subscription. SS has lured the customers in on a simple "as is" kind of business model. Now it is time to make the real money. They are sitting on a gold mine. I predict that if SS opens the opportunity for exclusive content in a premium subscription package they just doubled their revenue in a year or two's time. And further more. I will bet a that this will happen. Anybody want to bet?
I'd take that bet. SS are winning the greater share of the microstock market by not making the same mistakes as others (as Drugal also pointed out). 'Exclusivity' of images or artists has little or no value to most buyers and they'd prefer not to pay a premium for it. SS's business model does not allow for different price levels without destroying the simple formula that has proved so successful. Note that FT seems to spend most of it's time trying to reverse or minimise price differentials.
The 'acquisition' referred to in the IPO can only be targetted against either FT or DT. Any other lesser agency could be bought with existing cash. With Istock positioning themselves at the 'mid-stock' price level it should ensure that SS will enjoy total domination of the true microstock market. They don't need to do anything drastic as they are bound to win by default.
It doesnt have to be person-exclusivity, image-exclusivity would be enough. I mean, there is nothing wrong with exclusivity as long as its handled and done properly, not like the IS, example, thats been handled like a nightmare where just about everything has gone wrong.
I tend to agree, SS, is sitting on a gold mine and the world is an oyster. They wont do the same mistakes as others, not causing jealousy and anemosity between contributors, buyers, etc.
People behind it all are too shrewed.
-
I hope Yuri is right! I'd jump into exclusivity and higher priced collections wit both feet. I'm getting tired of diferent reviewing standards etc, constant hassle
-
I hope Yuri is right! I'd jump into exclusivity and higher priced collections wit both feet. I'm getting tired of diferent reviewing standards etc, constant hassle
(Image) exclusivity that is... Hopefully...
-
I hope Yuri is right! I'd jump into exclusivity and higher priced collections wit both feet. I'm getting tired of diferent reviewing standards etc, constant hassle
(Image) exclusivity that is... Hopefully...
yeah but it wont be, too hard to police and control, unfortunately.
-
I know full design studios that only have a subscription to SS and that is it. They would and could easily spend about 10 times more on stock images, but they don't need to, because they got most of their demand covered with their subscription. SS has lured the customers in on a simple "as is" kind of business model. Now it is time to make the real money. They are sitting on a gold mine. I predict that if SS opens the opportunity for exclusive content in a premium subscription package they just doubled their revenue in a year or two's time. And further more. I will bet a that this will happen. Anybody want to bet?
I'd take that bet. SS are winning the greater share of the microstock market by not making the same mistakes as others (as Drugal also pointed out). 'Exclusivity' of images or artists has little or no value to most buyers and they'd prefer not to pay a premium for it. SS's business model does not allow for different price levels without destroying the simple formula that has proved so successful. Note that FT seems to spend most of it's time trying to reverse or minimise price differentials.
The 'acquisition' referred to in the IPO can only be targetted against either FT or DT. Any other lesser agency could be bought with existing cash. With Istock positioning themselves at the 'mid-stock' price level it should ensure that SS will enjoy total domination of the true microstock market. They don't need to do anything drastic as they are bound to win by default.
In microstock an image is only worth anything if it keeps piling up the sales. That means it's subject and appeal has to be as broad as possible - that means generic content with little exception, and that means exclusivity is mostly pointless. Look thru istock exlusive stuff, you can find basically the same thing on SS anytime. Pointless. Yuri is the best proof: his stuff, by far the most appealing to customers, is everywhere.
-
Unless he exclusively sells them his new site for some of that IPO money :)
-
Funny this! all of a sudden this entire forum is full of half-assssed financial wizzkids and accountant. ::) soon we dont have to take pics, we just invest, right. ::)
-
I hope Yuri is right! I'd jump into exclusivity and higher priced collections wit both feet. I'm getting tired of diferent reviewing standards etc, constant hassle
(Image) exclusivity that is... Hopefully...
yeah but it wont be, too hard to police and control, unfortunately.
It would have to be image exclusivity. Other sites mange it, people have exclusive images with Getty, so why not? It can't be that difficult to police. Some people will always break the rules but then they get thrown out.
-
Funny this! all of a sudden this entire forum is full of half-assssed financial wizzkids and accountant. ::) soon we dont have to take pics, we just invest, right. ::)
Sure beats working for a living. Thats what the richest ppl int the world do too.
-
I hope Yuri is right! I'd jump into exclusivity and higher priced collections wit both feet. I'm getting tired of diferent reviewing standards etc, constant hassle
(Image) exclusivity that is... Hopefully...
yeah but it wont be, too hard to police and control, unfortunately.
It would have to be image exclusivity. Other sites mange it, people have exclusive images with Getty, so why not? It can't be that difficult to police. Some people will always break the rules but then they get thrown out.
I'd go for full exclusivity. It wouldn't change anythin or at least much for me otherwise (if you look at the reasons I stated). Hell I'd even go exclusive with IS if it would become my no1 earner (that's really a no-brainer earnjngs wise)
I'd
-
Funny this! all of a sudden this entire forum is full of half-assssed financial wizzkids and accountant. ::) soon we dont have to take pics, we just invest, right. ::)
Sure beats working for a living. Thats what the richest ppl int the world do too.
Oh definetely! just dont think photographers falls into that nieche. :)
-
I hope Yuri is right! I'd jump into exclusivity and higher priced collections wit both feet. I'm getting tired of diferent reviewing standards etc, constant hassle
(Image) exclusivity that is... Hopefully...
yeah but it wont be, too hard to police and control, unfortunately.
It would have to be image exclusivity. Other sites mange it, people have exclusive images with Getty, so why not? It can't be that difficult to police. Some people will always break the rules but then they get thrown out.
I'd go for full exclusivity. It wouldn't change anythin or at least much for me otherwise (if you look at the reasons I stated). Hell I'd even go exclusive with IS if it would become my no1 earner (that's really a no-brainer earnjngs wise)
I'd
I would be very wary, having seen what can happen with istock. There isn't much sense in going fully exclusive with a site to earn more and then find that they cut commissions and make so many changes that can be detrimental to earnings. Going fully exclusive is a hard decision to reverse. Having to upload again on the other sites if it goes wrong can't be much fun. Image exclusivity is much more attractive to me.
-
I hope Yuri is right! I'd jump into exclusivity and higher priced collections wit both feet. I'm getting tired of diferent reviewing standards etc, constant hassle
(Image) exclusivity that is... Hopefully...
yeah but it wont be, too hard to police and control, unfortunately.
It would have to be image exclusivity. Other sites mange it, people have exclusive images with Getty, so why not? It can't be that difficult to police. Some people will always break the rules but then they get thrown out.
I'd go for full exclusivity. It wouldn't change anythin or at least much for me otherwise (if you look at the reasons I stated). Hell I'd even go exclusive with IS if it would become my no1 earner (that's really a no-brainer earnjngs wise)
I'd
I would be very wary, having seen what can happen with istock. There isn't much sense in going fully exclusive with a site to earn more and then find that they cut commissions and make so many changes that can be detrimental to earnings. Going fully exclusive is a hard decision to reverse. Having to upload again on the other sites if it goes wrong can't be much fun. Image exclusivity is much more attractive to me.
You have a point. But then again, every single top 4 agency (other don't matter, to me at least) did it, save for SS. But with IPO around the corner you never know anyway. And like I said, if IS was my top earner it would be a no brainer (even though they have the worst possible reputation) and SS already is my top earner. FT and especially DT are representing just crumbs the fell of the table and the rest sound worse than a bad joke.
-
How many serious microstockers are in a position to offer themselves up for artist exclusivity these days? It was different in 2005, but today I have stuff all over the place, some of it with two-year lock-in deals. DT alone ties you up for six months, doesn't it?
-
How many serious microstockers are in a position to offer themselves up for artist exclusivity these days? It was different in 2005, but today I have stuff all over the place, some of it with two-year lock-in deals. DT alone ties you up for six months, doesn't it?
Yeah, six moths at DT. Come to think of it youre right. Almost a physical impossibility to get all the stuff together for any form of exclusivity. Funny, never thought about it from that angle.
-
Which site has a 2 year deal? I don't contribute do many sites anyway and espeacially not to the shady ones. I have a file on DP though, but I didn't know they're such a scam (scum?) Site since yesterday when someone opened that thread
-
How many serious microstockers are in a position to offer themselves up for artist exclusivity these days? It was different in 2005, but today I have stuff all over the place, some of it with two-year lock-in deals. DT alone ties you up for six months, doesn't it?
ME but that's because I've been reducing agencies, one by one and down to SS and IS (their step-children) and Alamy.
RF Photo exclusive would be fine with me. I have audio and video elsewhere and while it's not making me rich (or even buying lunch at Taco Bell) I like the places like Pond 5 that are selling it.
So yes, you are right, even someone limited, would have a problem becoming agency exclusive. Image exclusive, I'd find no problem. Alamy takes news editorial RM that Micro refuses. Heck, it's getting to the point where eight of my top ten sellers on SS were refused by IS. What's to lose?
Doesn't matter, all the agency conjecture and what's the future. We aren't included in the IPO because we aren't big inside traders. The dopes that bought Facebook are suckers and now they are bitter? Please give me a break. It was hyped and over valued, the people who wanted to get the exclusive early buy and screw the rest of us with their inside deals, got a little of their own. Now they want to sue Facebook? Stupid!
As long as SS keeps making money and selling my images, I don't care who owns it or what they do. If it means less sales or lower commissions, then I will care.
-
How many serious microstockers are in a position to offer themselves up for artist exclusivity these days? It was different in 2005, but today I have stuff all over the place, some of it with two-year lock-in deals. DT alone ties you up for six months, doesn't it?
There's some sites that I joined over 5 years ago that I've completely forgotten about. I sometimes have an email and I go and look and see that I uploaded a few photos. Going totally exclusive would be a nightmare and I really wouldn't want to do it, even if it was easy. Sites should only ask for image exclusivity. I don't want to feel like an employee again. I just can't see SS making the mistake of asking for total exclusivity. If they do, I know they're heading in the wrong direction and my confidence in them will evaporate.
-
Which site has a 2 year deal? I don't contribute do many sites anyway and espeacially not to the shady ones. I have a file on DP though, but I didn't know they're such a scam (scum?) Site since yesterday when someone opened that thread
It's not a micro, but it does handle RF work.
It's not only the difficulty of taking work down from sites we know we have subscribed to, there is also the problem of partner sites that agencies contribute to without our knowledge. I have a feeling some of the micros' terms about pulling work from partner sites are rather vague ... "make reasonable efforts" etc. etc. ... so it's pretty much impossible to know how long it would take to escape from everything.
-
I know full design studios that only have a subscription to SS and that is it. They would and could easily spend about 10 times more on stock images, but they don't need to, because they got most of their demand covered with their subscription. SS has lured the customers in on a simple "as is" kind of business model. Now it is time to make the real money. They are sitting on a gold mine. I predict that if SS opens the opportunity for exclusive content in a premium subscription package they just doubled their revenue in a year or two's time. And further more. I will bet a that this will happen. Anybody want to bet?
Best Y
[url]http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/04/01/8403372/index.htm?postversion=2007040409[/url] ([url]http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/04/01/8403372/index.htm?postversion=2007040409[/url])
'But technology seems to favor his new competitors. "Our advantage is efficiency," says Shutterstock's Oringer. "And if Getty can use iStockphoto to upsell its customers, why we can't we use higher-priced photos to start moving into its market?" '
[url]http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2007/12/shutterstock.html[/url] ([url]http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2007/12/shutterstock.html[/url])
'Question:
What´s your opinion on the midstock model? Is it possibly "already dead" (Alan Meckler) or is it the future (Bryan Zmijewski)?
Additionally, you said in April: "If Getty can use iStockphoto to upsell its customers, why can´t we use higher-priced photos to start moving into its market?"
Jon Oringer: There is a customer for every price point as long as the value proposition is there. The question is, which are the most important customers to target? And at what time? We are concentrating on our current subscription model as well as footage at this time.'
Along comes Offset.
http://thenextweb.com/media/2013/03/20/shutterstock-announces-plans-to-launch-offset-a-new-high-end-marketplace-for-stock-photos/ (http://thenextweb.com/media/2013/03/20/shutterstock-announces-plans-to-launch-offset-a-new-high-end-marketplace-for-stock-photos/)