MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: SS IPO - It's Done  (Read 30893 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Yuri_Arcurs

  • One Crazy PhotoManic MadPerson
« Reply #125 on: May 22, 2012, 02:42 »
0
Did a quick read and just want to say for everyone to remember this!

IPO is a "SALE"!

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam
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).


drugal

    This user is banned.
« Reply #126 on: May 22, 2012, 03:03 »
0
Did a quick read and just want to say for everyone to remember this!

IPO is a "SALE"!

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam
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.

« Reply #127 on: May 22, 2012, 03:43 »
0
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.

Yuri_Arcurs

  • One Crazy PhotoManic MadPerson
« Reply #128 on: May 22, 2012, 04:06 »
0
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

drugal

    This user is banned.
« Reply #129 on: May 22, 2012, 04:46 »
0
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.

« Reply #130 on: May 22, 2012, 06:02 »
0
Did a quick read and just want to say for everyone to remember this!

IPO is a "SALE"!

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam
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.

« Reply #131 on: May 22, 2012, 08:21 »
0
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.

rubyroo

« Reply #132 on: May 22, 2012, 09:03 »
0
Another article on SS/FT here:

http://paidcontent.org/2012/05/16/microstock/

« Reply #133 on: May 22, 2012, 09:07 »
0

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 (The video's owner prevents external embedding)

« Reply #134 on: May 22, 2012, 09:21 »
0
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

'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
'Question:

Whats 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 cant 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.'

« Reply #135 on: May 22, 2012, 09:33 »
0
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.

lagereek

« Reply #136 on: May 22, 2012, 10:25 »
0
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.

wut

« Reply #137 on: May 22, 2012, 10:51 »
0
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

« Reply #138 on: May 22, 2012, 11:04 »
0
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...

lagereek

« Reply #139 on: May 22, 2012, 11:20 »
0
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.

drugal

    This user is banned.
« Reply #140 on: May 22, 2012, 13:30 »
0
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.

« Reply #141 on: May 22, 2012, 13:55 »
0
Unless he exclusively sells them his new site for some of that IPO money :)


lagereek

« Reply #142 on: May 22, 2012, 15:46 »
0
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. ::)

« Reply #143 on: May 22, 2012, 16:44 »
0
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.

drugal

    This user is banned.
« Reply #144 on: May 22, 2012, 16:59 »
0
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.

wut

« Reply #145 on: May 22, 2012, 18:18 »
0
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

lagereek

« Reply #146 on: May 23, 2012, 03:03 »
0
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. :)

« Reply #147 on: May 23, 2012, 17:15 »
0
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.

wut

« Reply #148 on: May 23, 2012, 17:45 »
0
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.

« Reply #149 on: May 24, 2012, 04:18 »
0
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?


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors