0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
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 wish them luck ofcourse and hope things wont change too drastically.
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 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.
Quote from: helix7 on May 14, 2012, 12:31I'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.
Quote from: gostwyck on May 14, 2012, 13:16I'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?
Quote from: gostwyck on May 14, 2012, 13:16Quote from: helix7 on May 14, 2012, 12:31I'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.
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?
Quote from: luissantos84 on May 14, 2012, 14:16sub 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 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.
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.
Author
Topic: SS IPO - It's Done (Read 36402 times)
