Quote from: zebra007 on August 03, 2017, 09:33
The boat is sinking....?

That's a nice income!  May I ask how many images you have on Shutterstock?

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 02, 2017, 22:33

Quote from: ShadySue on August 02, 2017, 21:49

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 02, 2017, 19:46
...and according to this phone conference, the number of subscription dls per buyer dropped and dls are down.

Isn't it better for them when the buyers take fewer dls from their subs, as they haven't had to pay out to contributors.
Unless they don't renew.
But I see they're going to start smaller packages, presumably charging more per dl. Are they going to share that with the contributors?

They're already offering smaller subs packs, which is what led to fewer dls per buyer. Whatever changes they're making aren't having positive results for anyone, it seems...not even them.

The drop in royalties would explain a lot via shifting the search to those with lower share (38 cents vs. newbies making 28 cents or whatever).  In fact based on the numbers presented here it makes the picture of "overnight" drop in sales much clearer as to what happened.

Just got an email from SS about what to shoot this month ....their management team no doubt is high on stockholder's lists

I received a mail from shutter and said to shot tons of isolated marijuana images...

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 02, 2017, 19:46
...and according to this phone conference, the number of subscription dls per buyer dropped and dls are down. So fewer dls and 57% more images means we're not crazy when we complain about a huge decrease in sales. Doesn't look good for the future.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4093753-shutterstocks-sstk-ceo-jonathan-oringer-q2-2017-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=3

So if downloads are down....where are the customers going?...another site(s)?

Quote from: wds on August 03, 2017, 14:59

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 02, 2017, 19:46
...and according to this phone conference, the number of subscription dls per buyer dropped and dls are down. So fewer dls and 57% more images means we're not crazy when we complain about a huge decrease in sales. Doesn't look good for the future.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4093753-shutterstocks-sstk-ceo-jonathan-oringer-q2-2017-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=3

So if downloads are down....where are the customers going?...another site(s)?

Thats what we don't know....is it an industry wide problem or are SS competitors taking market share? Personally I don't see much increase in competitors I believe others have

Quote from: wds on August 03, 2017, 14:59
So if downloads are down....where are the customers going?...another site(s)?

Customers are not going anywhere. They're canceling their subscriptions or stopped downloading on demand images.

There has been a number of factors recently that contributes to this. One is the recent demonetization of a lot of videos by Google on YouTube. Some of these content creators used to be customers and because of the demonetization, we lost quite a few downloaders. Second is the slowdown of technology startups in the last two year or so. Venture funding has dried up in Silicon Valley and other parts of the the US and a lot of startups are struggling to stay afloat.

Jawbone is dead. Fitbit is struggling. Snapchat is struggling. Blue Apron is struggling. Pebble is dead. A lot of darling companies that used to be high profile a couple years ago are struggling or on its deathbed. Without venture funding, there are lot of companies looking to cut budget.

Of course, we also have the advancement of cameras on smartphones. Who needs to buy every day images when you can take it with your phone?

QuoteCustomers are not going anywhere. They're canceling their subscriptions or stopped downloading on demand images.

Would you also say that it's a factor that since the images are RF, some clients choose to re-use some images for different projects and eventually they already have a large selection of images at their disposal that there's no real business need to purchase new licenses? Perhaps if they need a new type of image not found anywhere then they'll search but otherwise just look through their archives.

So when Trump reignites the US economy we can start rubbing our hands together and putting down a deposit on a Porsche 

Quote from: Brasilnut on August 03, 2017, 18:15

QuoteCustomers are not going anywhere. They're canceling their subscriptions or stopped downloading on demand images.

Would you also say that it's a factor that since the images are RF, some clients choose to re-use some images for different projects and eventually they already have a large selection of images at their disposal that there's no real business need to purchase new licenses? Perhaps if they need a new type of image not found anywhere then they'll search but otherwise just look through their archives.

That's also a factor. I took advantage of the 25 downloads a day to fill my archive on a number of occasions. There are still situations where I need to download new images, so we kept our subscription.

For a public company like SS, they need new customers, not just reduce churn. I think they're having a hard time with both.

Quote from: sharpshot on August 03, 2017, 07:22
It does seem highly likely that we will end up paying if they can't keep their shareholders happy.  The best case scenario might be for the share price to collapse and Oringer take the business private again.  Things like that never seem to happen to microstock sites.  My fear is that a hedge fund, possibly the same one that owns Getty, might see this as an opportunity.  SS was the one site that kept me motivated with microstock but that clanged when they took over BigStock and cut commissions and then announced their IPO.

yes, 2 scenarios possible ; one good for us, other tragic.
1) Oringer short the stock and waiting for the price to collapse then go back in to buy up everything, then declare SS private
2) Getty also short the stock and wait also for the price to collapse then become the main shareholder and we are all dead ducks ...
as money will not make us happy, because it 's money Getty intends to keep for themselves.

scenario on is unlikely, as Oringer already makes enough money , he does not need to own SS anymore as if already mention, micro is dead, why would he bother to keep ss???

Just forget Oringer buying back SS!  why should he? he is worth over a billion dollars and towards the end just before leaving he was totally exhausted and burnt out and thats according to himself.

Its exactly the same story as was with IS the beancounters moved in ( in the case of IS it was Getty) the rest is history. Some of us here remember the incredible difference around 2008-9 or something when they took over. Its no doom and gloom scenario but thats the way it goes.

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 03, 2017, 21:15

Quote from: sharpshot on August 03, 2017, 07:22
It does seem highly likely that we will end up paying if they can't keep their shareholders happy.  The best case scenario might be for the share price to collapse and Oringer take the business private again.  Things like that never seem to happen to microstock sites.  My fear is that a hedge fund, possibly the same one that owns Getty, might see this as an opportunity.  SS was the one site that kept me motivated with microstock but that clanged when they took over BigStock and cut commissions and then announced their IPO.

yes, 2 scenarios possible ; one good for us, other tragic.
1) Oringer short the stock and waiting for the price to collapse then go back in to buy up everything, then declare SS private
2) Getty also short the stock and wait also for the price to collapse then become the main shareholder and we are all dead ducks ...
as money will not make us happy, because it 's money Getty intends to keep for themselves.

scenario on is unlikely, as Oringer already makes enough money , he does not need to own SS anymore as if already mention, micro is dead, why would he bother to keep ss???

Getty are millions in debt they're buying nothing.

Quote from: derek on August 03, 2017, 21:45
Just forget Oringer buying back SS!  why should he? he is worth over a billion dollars and towards the end just before leaving he was totally exhausted and burnt out and thats according to himself.

. "I wasnt even aware of SS going public until I joined this forum  so steady on buddy. "

Quote from: Pauws99 on August 03, 2017, 21:57

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 03, 2017, 21:15

Quote from: sharpshot on August 03, 2017, 07:22
It does seem highly likely that we will end up paying if they can't keep their shareholders happy.  The best case scenario might be for the share price to collapse and Oringer take the business private again.  Things like that never seem to happen to microstock sites.  My fear is that a hedge fund, possibly the same one that owns Getty, might see this as an opportunity.  SS was the one site that kept me motivated with microstock but that clanged when they took over BigStock and cut commissions and then announced their IPO.

yes, 2 scenarios possible ; one good for us, other tragic.
1) Oringer short the stock and waiting for the price to collapse then go back in to buy up everything, then declare SS private
2) Getty also short the stock and wait also for the price to collapse then become the main shareholder and we are all dead ducks ...
as money will not make us happy, because it 's money Getty intends to keep for themselves.

scenario on is unlikely, as Oringer already makes enough money , he does not need to own SS anymore as if already mention, micro is dead, why would he bother to keep ss???

Getty are millions in debt they're buying nothing.

Getty are owned by a hedge fund, they would do the buying, not Getty.  They would probably saddle SS with debt like they did with Getty.  It wouldn't surprise me if it happened, just look how much money the hedge fund that originally bought Getty made.

Quote from: sharpshot on August 03, 2017, 22:06

Quote from: Pauws99 on August 03, 2017, 21:57

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 03, 2017, 21:15

Quote from: sharpshot on August 03, 2017, 07:22
It does seem highly likely that we will end up paying if they can't keep their shareholders happy.  The best case scenario might be for the share price to collapse and Oringer take the business private again.  Things like that never seem to happen to microstock sites.  My fear is that a hedge fund, possibly the same one that owns Getty, might see this as an opportunity.  SS was the one site that kept me motivated with microstock but that clanged when they took over BigStock and cut commissions and then announced their IPO.

yes, 2 scenarios possible ; one good for us, other tragic.
1) Oringer short the stock and waiting for the price to collapse then go back in to buy up everything, then declare SS private
2) Getty also short the stock and wait also for the price to collapse then become the main shareholder and we are all dead ducks ...
as money will not make us happy, because it 's money Getty intends to keep for themselves.

scenario on is unlikely, as Oringer already makes enough money , he does not need to own SS anymore as if already mention, micro is dead, why would he bother to keep ss???

Getty are millions in debt they're buying nothing.

Getty are owned by a hedge fund, they would do the buying, not Getty.  They would probably saddle SS with debt like they did with Getty.  It wouldn't surprise me if it happened, just look how much money the hedge fund that originally bought Getty made.

I stand corrected on that one ;-). Though Oringer still owns 46% of SS I believe and is CEO so hes hardly just walked off into the sunset. A more likely scenario to me is that SS continues to go on OKish with a more realistic stock price and expectations...boring I know.

Quote from: Pauws99 on August 03, 2017, 21:57

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 03, 2017, 21:15

Quote from: sharpshot on August 03, 2017, 07:22
It does seem highly likely that we will end up paying if they can't keep their shareholders happy.  The best case scenario might be for the share price to collapse and Oringer take the business private again.  Things like that never seem to happen to microstock sites.  My fear is that a hedge fund, possibly the same one that owns Getty, might see this as an opportunity.  SS was the one site that kept me motivated with microstock but that clanged when they took over BigStock and cut commissions and then announced their IPO.

yes, 2 scenarios possible ; one good for us, other tragic.
1) Oringer short the stock and waiting for the price to collapse then go back in to buy up everything, then declare SS private
2) Getty also short the stock and wait also for the price to collapse then become the main shareholder and we are all dead ducks ...
as money will not make us happy, because it 's money Getty intends to keep for themselves.

scenario on is unlikely, as Oringer already makes enough money , he does not need to own SS anymore as if already mention, micro is dead, why would he bother to keep ss???

Getty are millions in debt they're buying nothing.

Right Getty can't afford their own debt, and the interest, let alone buy more of the competition.

Jon still owns the company 51% last I looked. He still owns the company.

He gets paid in stock, salary is $1 a year. He doesn't need to spend to buy back anything.

    Revenue increased 8% to $134.0 million
    Income from operations decreased 69% to $3.3 million
    Net income decreased 58% to $3.1 million
    Adjusted EBITDA decreased 19% to $18.3 million
    Diluted EPS decreased 55% to $0.09 per share

Key Operating Metrics             

    Paid downloads decreased 2%
    Revenue per download increased 9%
    Image collection expanded 57% to 144.7 million images
    Video collection expanded 55% to 7.6 million clips

There's that RPD that almost everyone claims means something in Micro?
And there's why our sales are down, competition, 55 and 57% increase in competition. Of course we'll be selling less and making less.

The part SS is missing is trying to win the race to the bottom, by cutting staff, reducing advertising, slowing growth and cutting our commissions. They are investing and diversifying. This is long term growth unlike most of the rest who are just bailing water from their sinking ship, or treading water without a lifeboat in site.

It still points out, how the little ones can stay in business when they have almost no market share. They must be so happy to keep making money and paying salaries from the pittance we get and their larger cut. Otherwise the low earners and middle, would all have shut down years ago.

Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 03, 2017, 23:22
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

Could, but there's no proof or evidence that they do. They could have purple cows that give green milk. Show Me?

I liked your other idea better. Competition up 57% will hurt sales. 

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on August 03, 2017, 23:30

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 03, 2017, 23:22
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

Could, but there's no proof or evidence that they do. They could have purple cows that give green milk. Show Me?

I liked your other idea better. Competition up 57% will hurt sales. 

Well, i will gbe you one data pount. In a matter of a day, my income was cut in half....about a grand a mont to less than $500. Now on my third month of this. It was a search change. Search changes happen over night. This was not a slow, gradual, incremental change. So the question is why would they do that? My very logical hypothesis is that they are pushing lower royalty content to the top because it costsbthem less. It shows in their financial. Pretty easy to assess. Can i prove it? No but i sure can make a reasonable argument that its not easy to defelect by using a purple cow analogy.

Quote from: Pauws99 on August 03, 2017, 22:02

Quote from: derek on August 03, 2017, 21:45
Just forget Oringer buying back SS!  why should he? he is worth over a billion dollars and towards the end just before leaving he was totally exhausted and burnt out and thats according to himself.

. "I wasnt even aware of SS going public until I joined this forum  so steady on buddy. "

Tongue in cheek!  so steady on buddy!

Quote from: Mantis on August 04, 2017, 01:59

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on August 03, 2017, 23:30

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 03, 2017, 23:22
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

Could, but there's no proof or evidence that they do. They could have purple cows that give green milk. Show Me?

I liked your other idea better. Competition up 57% will hurt sales. 

Well, i will gbe you one data pount. In a matter of a day, my income was cut in half....about a grand a mont to less than $500. Now on my third month of this. It was a search change. Search changes happen over night. This was not a slow, gradual, incremental change. So the question is why would they do that? My very logical hypothesis is that they are pushing lower royalty content to the top because it costsbthem less. It shows in their financial. Pretty easy to assess. Can i prove it? No but i sure can make a reasonable argument that its not easy to defelect by using a purple cow analogy.

Its possible but I doubt it as I think the risk of losing customers who can't find the best images offsets it I think. I just think as they have said they are always tweaking the algorithm to maximise sales and sometimes this has unfortunate consequences for some contributors. If they are doing it maybe it does explain some of the drop in downloads and its not a smart move.

Quote from: Pauws99 on August 04, 2017, 06:42

Quote from: Mantis on August 04, 2017, 01:59

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on August 03, 2017, 23:30

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 03, 2017, 23:22
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

Could, but there's no proof or evidence that they do. They could have purple cows that give green milk. Show Me?

I liked your other idea better. Competition up 57% will hurt sales. 

Well, i will gbe you one data pount. In a matter of a day, my income was cut in half....about a grand a mont to less than $500. Now on my third month of this. It was a search change. Search changes happen over night. This was not a slow, gradual, incremental change. So the question is why would they do that? My very logical hypothesis is that they are pushing lower royalty content to the top because it costsbthem less. It shows in their financial. Pretty easy to assess. Can i prove it? No but i sure can make a reasonable argument that its not easy to defelect by using a purple cow analogy.

Its possible but I doubt it as I think the risk of losing customers who can't find the best images offsets it I think. I just think as they have said they are always tweaking the algorithm to maximise sales and sometimes this has unfortunate consequences for some contributors. If they are doing it maybe it does explain some of the drop in downloads and its not a smart move.

I been with them since the start Offset that is and they certainly have some top notch content but for buyers first searching 0.25c images at SS and then go over to offset searching images for sometimes hundreds of dollars??  thats a big step! too much! these kind of buyers probably go straight to these macro agencies prepared to pay decent money.

Quote from: derek on August 04, 2017, 07:26

Quote from: Pauws99 on August 04, 2017, 06:42

Quote from: Mantis on August 04, 2017, 01:59

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on August 03, 2017, 23:30

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 03, 2017, 23:22
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

Could, but there's no proof or evidence that they do. They could have purple cows that give green milk. Show Me?

I liked your other idea better. Competition up 57% will hurt sales. 

Well, i will gbe you one data pount. In a matter of a day, my income was cut in half....about a grand a mont to less than $500. Now on my third month of this. It was a search change. Search changes happen over night. This was not a slow, gradual, incremental change. So the question is why would they do that? My very logical hypothesis is that they are pushing lower royalty content to the top because it costsbthem less. It shows in their financial. Pretty easy to assess. Can i prove it? No but i sure can make a reasonable argument that its not easy to defelect by using a purple cow analogy.

Its possible but I doubt it as I think the risk of losing customers who can't find the best images offsets it I think. I just think as they have said they are always tweaking the algorithm to maximise sales and sometimes this has unfortunate consequences for some contributors. If they are doing it maybe it does explain some of the drop in downloads and its not a smart move.

I been with them since the start Offset that is and they certainly have some top notch content but for buyers first searching 0.25c images at SS and then go over to offset searching images for sometimes hundreds of dollars??  thats a big step! too much! these kind of buyers probably go straight to these macro agencies prepared to pay decent money.

not what I meant ;-). The money saved by prioritising lower cost images is not as much as the cost of losing customers.

Quote from: Pauws99 on August 04, 2017, 06:42

Quote from: Mantis on August 04, 2017, 01:59

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on August 03, 2017, 23:30

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 03, 2017, 23:22
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

Could, but there's no proof or evidence that they do. They could have purple cows that give green milk. Show Me?

I liked your other idea better. Competition up 57% will hurt sales. 

Well, i will gbe you one data pount. In a matter of a day, my income was cut in half....about a grand a mont to less than $500. Now on my third month of this. It was a search change. Search changes happen over night. This was not a slow, gradual, incremental change. So the question is why would they do that? My very logical hypothesis is that they are pushing lower royalty content to the top because it costsbthem less. It shows in their financial. Pretty easy to assess. Can i prove it? No but i sure can make a reasonable argument that its not easy to defelect by using a purple cow analogy.

Its possible but I doubt it as I think the risk of losing customers who can't find the best images offsets it I think. I just think as they have said they are always tweaking the algorithm to maximise sales and sometimes this has unfortunate consequences for some contributors. If they are doing it maybe it does explain some of the drop in downloads and its not a smart move.

I would be surprised if they weren't giving a boost to the people on a lower rate.  They are only really interested in maximising profits and that's an obvious way to do it.  It would explain why some people seem to have no problem selling new images but others find it almost impossible.