MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The doom of the industry and Shutterstock is delayed  (Read 9700 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2015, 07:34 »
+1

« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2015, 09:58 »
+1
cutting our earnings have worked then, although they paid us more per download

FlowerPower

« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2015, 10:25 »
0
Shenk said in the memo that hell try to get the company to profitability by stabilizing the photo-licensing business, focusing on premium content and core customers, and by accelerating its push into branded entertainment.

Who do you see buying Corbis. SS or FT? Article mentions Getty but nothing about iStock.

« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2015, 10:41 »
+1
Paid downloads increased 22%
Image collection expanded 49%

Taking 100 as our exposure value for last year, we now have 81
To mantain our revenue, we had to increase our portfolio by ~23%

Of course, most new images are similar illustrations that never get sold.
So I would estimate about 15% increase in port to break even. Not so bad.

« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2015, 12:02 »
+1
Paid downloads increased 22%
Image collection expanded 49%

Taking 100 as our exposure value for last year, we now have 81
To mantain our revenue, we had to increase our portfolio by ~23%

Of course, most new images are similar illustrations that never get sold.
So I would estimate about 15% increase in port to break even. Not so bad.

I somehow think the math is not right... Since most of the downloads happen in the first couple of pages, we have to figure out what percentage of our portfolio we upload will get a shot at being in those pages where it matters. More images that is uploaded means your image you uploaded has less chance of being seen... your 15% increase in portfolio seems way off to me.

If your awesome shot of a cat competed with 100 other cat shots last year, your window of it being seen and bought by a buyer was 1/100. With a bit of luck, within a day or 2 a buyer would search cat when your cat picture enters library and would get a view. this year it is 1/150. so maybe last year your cat shot was 3rd page. this year it is most likely 5 page and those pages matter. In my eyes, it is a lot harder to attract views now.

« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2015, 12:05 »
+3
The maths is quite speculative and you have to make lots of assumptions but the conclusion seems to be you have to upload at a high rate to maintain earnings but its not the meltdown that some people suggest.

« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2015, 15:37 »
0
I think Shutterstock is a awful site and even worse market company. Plus they are near all time lowers even with the fluffy earnings news. I expect a drop in commissions within a year.  http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/SSTK
« Last Edit: November 05, 2015, 15:55 by MisterElements »

« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2015, 15:54 »
0
the stock is up 17% :) Wish i had bought more.

« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2015, 16:40 »
+3
I think Shutterstock is a awful site and even worse market company. Plus they are near all time lowers even with the fluffy earnings news. I expect a drop in commissions within a year.  http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/SSTK


I have no idea how you can reach this conclusion they are market leaders and have $282m sitting in the bank and for most contributors they generate the most income. Thats not a bad position to be in. Why is the earnings news "fluffy" its the anecdotal reports of individual contributors that is fluffy.

« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2015, 16:44 »
+1
I remember wonderful things about istock being "market leaders" years ago  ;) You hold on to that hope of the green place  :)
« Last Edit: November 05, 2015, 16:49 by MisterElements »

« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2015, 16:51 »
+2
They were market leaders they aren't now Shutterstock may not be in a few years. I'd rather live in the present than spending my time prophesying disaster based on zero evidence. I don't have to be exclusive to SS so if they are replaced by Adobe its no skin off my nose.

« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2015, 17:33 »
+3
I'm no statistician, the 2 college statistics courses I took were many years ago, but it is interesting to see some of the thoughts here about SS's numbers for the quarter.

"Image collection expanded 49%". In one quarter!!?? That was a shock to me. In simple terms, it looks like you would have to increase your port by 49% every three months just to keep keep up. So if you start out 2016 with 1000 images you will need to add 3000 during the year just to stay even with SS's increase in its image collection. Ouch  :P

« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2015, 17:40 »
+1
Not QUITE that bad as sales are going up too.....but if you stand still or have a big portfolio built over time that you can't grow fast because of its base size  you can expect income to go down. Hence the reason some of the more seasoned contributors are seeing falling revenue I suspect.

« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2015, 17:42 »
+1
The title of this thread is very funny and misleading. "The doom of the industry" Fotolia/Adobe is doing better for many as even more are seeming to be seeing loses at Shutterstock. Just sayin  ;) So who is making all that money...awwww Wall Street? a couple rich dudes at shutterstock?  :)

« Reply #15 on: November 05, 2015, 17:53 »
0
I'm no statistician, the 2 college statistics courses I took were many years ago, but it is interesting to see some of the thoughts here about SS's numbers for the quarter.

"Image collection expanded 49%". In one quarter!!?? That was a shock to me. In simple terms, it looks like you would have to increase your port by 49% every three months just to keep keep up. So if you start out 2016 with 1000 images you will need to add 3000 during the year just to stay even with SS's increase in its image collection. Ouch  :P

LOL, especially remarkable considering all of the "all 45 rejected" threads!

« Reply #16 on: November 05, 2015, 17:54 »
0
The title of this thread is very funny and misleading. "The doom of the industry" Fotolia/Adobe is doing better for many as even more are seeming to be seeing loses at Shutterstock. Just sayin  ;) So who is making all that money...awwww Wall Street? a couple rich dudes at shutterstock?  :)

yes, there is money to be made in Wall Street but it isn't by buying ss stocks;
there are truckloads , no... correct that, container  shiploads of better stocks
than ss ;)


« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2015, 17:56 »
+1
lol, I 100% agree!!!

« Reply #18 on: November 05, 2015, 18:03 »
0
If your awesome shot of a cat competed with 100 other cat shots last year, your window of it being seen and bought by a buyer was 1/100. With a bit of luck, within a day or 2 a buyer would search cat when your cat picture enters library and would get a view. this year it is 1/150. so maybe last year your cat shot was 3rd page. this year it is most likely 5 page and those pages matter. In my eyes, it is a lot harder to attract views now.

if i read understood you correctly, i have to disagree with your point.
as much as i do not like ss these days , been hating them since they went public.
but truth is truth, so let me clear this up.

no, your cat will not go from pg 3 to pg 5, if you gain dl almost daily from day 1.
my best earners are still on pg 1 no matter how many thousands other come in daily.
the way i see it is that ss does not shuffle your placement . the best sellers will always bring
in money if it was downloaded on the first day and almost daily the first month.
you can be sure it is still the best earner after 5 years.

even if there is a lapse of one month without any dl, you still will be seeing dl almost daily
from your cat on pg 1. it will not go to pg2 never mind 3 or even 5.
this is my own history.

which answers the other thread of why most of us are not leaving the sinking HMS ss
... our best sellers are giving us incentive to stay .

« Reply #19 on: November 05, 2015, 20:01 »
+4
I'm no statistician, the 2 college statistics courses I took were many years ago, but it is interesting to see some of the thoughts here about SS's numbers for the quarter.

"Image collection expanded 49%". In one quarter!!?? That was a shock to me. In simple terms, it looks like you would have to increase your port by 49% every three months just to keep keep up. So if you start out 2016 with 1000 images you will need to add 3000 during the year just to stay even with SS's increase in its image collection. Ouch  :P

no - you're assuming that all images sell equally -- it's probably the most common statistical error showing up in MSG (see the many threads asking how many images you need to make $100/mo

 instead it's more likely 20% of the images account for 80% of sales; since i don't know those exact numbers, and more importantly, i can't predict how my new images will do, I really can't know how many images I need to add to 'keep up'; and of course demand today is different from what it was 1 year ago

the only real option is to continue to work & submit for as long as the results are acceptable to me

« Reply #20 on: November 05, 2015, 20:27 »
+3
The maths is quite speculative and you have to make lots of assumptions but the conclusion seems to be you have to upload at a high rate to maintain earnings but its not the meltdown that some people suggest.

It's not a meltdown, more like a significant dilution of agency image collection. The golden advice of "uploading a higher rate" invariably leads to greater volume of similar images (more difficult and more time-consuming search for buyers), faster image production (which in turn often leads to lower quality), and remanufacturing many same old images with just a different lens or a new software plugin.

« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2015, 00:08 »
+1
If your awesome shot of a cat competed with 100 other cat shots last year, your window of it being seen and bought by a buyer was 1/100. With a bit of luck, within a day or 2 a buyer would search cat when your cat picture enters library and would get a view. this year it is 1/150. so maybe last year your cat shot was 3rd page. this year it is most likely 5 page and those pages matter. In my eyes, it is a lot harder to attract views now.

if i read understood you correctly, i have to disagree with your point.
as much as i do not like ss these days , been hating them since they went public.
but truth is truth, so let me clear this up.

no, your cat will not go from pg 3 to pg 5, if you gain dl almost daily from day 1.
You are not understanding my point. Since the library has grown 150% from previous quarter or year, the cat picture you uploaded last year might have been seen at page 3 when the buyer first bought the picture. The cat picture you upload this/next year might be placed in page 5 when a buyer searches for cat since there is much more cat picture uploads. I am not talking about best sellers at all here. I am talking about your recently uploaded files being buried before they get a chance to become best sellers. I am talking about chance and luck playing a bigger role when the library has grown over 50% because the window of time when a buyer searches your category becomes shorter as the library gets bigger to give each file a chance to be seen
my best earners are still on pg 1 no matter how many thousands other come in daily.
the way i see it is that ss does not shuffle your placement . the best sellers will always bring
in money if it was downloaded on the first day and almost daily the first month.
you can be sure it is still the best earner after 5 years.

even if there is a lapse of one month without any dl, you still will be seeing dl almost daily
from your cat on pg 1. it will not go to pg2 never mind 3 or even 5.
this is my own history.

which answers the other thread of why most of us are not leaving the sinking HMS ss
... our best sellers are giving us incentive to stay .

Bolded by me in red

« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2015, 01:14 »
+5
In case anyone has missed it the title is meant to be ironic :-\

« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2015, 01:32 »
+3
"Image collection expanded 49%". In one quarter!!??

It's a year on year comparison - 3Q 2014 to 3Q 2015.

« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2015, 04:25 »
+3
the conclusion is diluted earnings, yes more paid per download on avarage, but spread over more images and contributors thus less earnings per individual

if it wasnt for the big sales my earnings would be dire


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
91 Replies
20899 Views
Last post November 19, 2008, 17:04
by litifeta
7 Replies
2999 Views
Last post January 07, 2009, 12:34
by lisafx
60 Replies
14994 Views
Last post September 14, 2014, 16:05
by landbysea
5 Replies
2657 Views
Last post January 08, 2015, 15:39
by Uncle Pete
2 Replies
1213 Views
Last post January 05, 2019, 09:49
by BrunoG

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle