pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Will Getty buy Shutterstock?  (Read 12935 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

H2O

« on: March 22, 2021, 07:00 »
0
This is really just a thought, all these moves by Oringer smack of cashing in, shareholders, commission cuts and really now he has shown his hand, I don't expect these commission cut to release as much cash as he wants.

So what are the alternatives for him?


« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2021, 07:16 »
+3
Shutterstock is doing well financially, especially so since they cut contributor's commissions with the new payment structure. Why would they sell it?

« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2021, 07:21 »
0
So what are the alternatives for him?

1. Continue to savage contributor commissions in the hope enough will hang in there to prop up profits.
2. Request Uncle Sam corporate bailout support package.
3. Quit the company and run off with tail between legs.
4. Declare bankruptcy.

« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2021, 07:40 »
+4
This is really just a thought, all these moves by Oringer smack of cashing in, shareholders, commission cuts and really now he has shown his hand, I don't expect these commission cut to release as much cash as he wants.

So what are the alternatives for him?
Shutterstock are in a very healthy financial position despite any wishful thinking otherwise. A more plausable question would be "What are Shutterstock going to acquire next"? They have liquid assets of over $400m.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2021, 08:46 »
+2
This is really just a thought, all these moves by Oringer smack of cashing in, shareholders, commission cuts and really now he has shown his hand, I don't expect these commission cut to release as much cash as he wants.

So what are the alternatives for him?
Shutterstock are in a very healthy financial position despite any wishful thinking otherwise. A more plausable question would be "What are Shutterstock going to acquire next"? They have liquid assets of over $400m.

The company has plenty of cash. The hateful thinking who ignore the facts, wishful but distorted thinking, the company is doing just fine. People, many others besides  Stan and Jon have been selling big blocks of stock. Easily documented for months and months because it has to be reported. Jon has millions if not a billion, he doesn't need to care. Stan gets his bonus shares from cutting our commissions, he's worth millions. He doesn't care.

Shutterstock is not failing or losing money. When the earnings from our loss, start to level off, the stock will drop down again. But by then, the people riding the wave, have sold millions of dollars of their shares for double what they paid or double the value when they were awarded them as compensation.

Here's part of who owns SSTK  https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/stockdetails/ownership/fi-a23mec

and  https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/stockdetails/ownership/nys-sstk/fi-a23mec?ownershipType=institutional

66% is owned by institutional entities. Jon used to own 55% himself.

"Jon Oringer (Shutterstocks Founder, Executive Chairman of the Board and largest stockholder) is selling 2,064,000 shares of common stock in this offering." August 2020. @ $48.50 a share. In very round numbers $1,000,000,000 of his shares were sold and he put that money into the bank or whatever else. Buying his new home for $42 million is nothing. He could pay cash for it, and still have $950,000,000 left!

@H2O how much cash do you think he needs or wants? I don't see any financial problems for Jon at all.  ;D

"I don't expect these commission cut to release as much cash as he wants."

Just a later thought... will Shutterstock buy iStock? Getty is a different business.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2021, 08:56 by Uncle Pete »

H2O

« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2021, 10:20 »
0
This is really just a thought, all these moves by Oringer smack of cashing in, shareholders, commission cuts and really now he has shown his hand, I don't expect these commission cut to release as much cash as he wants.

So what are the alternatives for him?
Shutterstock are in a very healthy financial position despite any wishful thinking otherwise. A more plausable question would be "What are Shutterstock going to acquire next"? They have liquid assets of over $400m.

The company has plenty of cash. The hateful thinking who ignore the facts, wishful but distorted thinking, the company is doing just fine. People, many others besides  Stan and Jon have been selling big blocks of stock. Easily documented for months and months because it has to be reported. Jon has millions if not a billion, he doesn't need to care. Stan gets his bonus shares from cutting our commissions, he's worth millions. He doesn't care.

Shutterstock is not failing or losing money. When the earnings from our loss, start to level off, the stock will drop down again. But by then, the people riding the wave, have sold millions of dollars of their shares for double what they paid or double the value when they were awarded them as compensation.

Here's part of who owns SSTK  https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/stockdetails/ownership/fi-a23mec

and  https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/stockdetails/ownership/nys-sstk/fi-a23mec?ownershipType=institutional

66% is owned by institutional entities. Jon used to own 55% himself.

"Jon Oringer (Shutterstocks Founder, Executive Chairman of the Board and largest stockholder) is selling 2,064,000 shares of common stock in this offering." August 2020. @ $48.50 a share. In very round numbers $1,000,000,000 of his shares were sold and he put that money into the bank or whatever else. Buying his new home for $42 million is nothing. He could pay cash for it, and still have $950,000,000 left!

@H2O how much cash do you think he needs or wants? I don't see any financial problems for Jon at all.  ;D

"I don't expect these commission cut to release as much cash as he wants."

Just a later thought... will Shutterstock buy iStock? Getty is a different business.

Well you have a point, maybe it was wishful thinking, but wishing never did any harm, though in this case I wish it would.

If it was the other way around with Getty being bought by SS, then all the scumbags would be in one basket as I am sure they would combine all the websites into one go to place for ripping artists off.





« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2021, 11:33 »
+3
Visual China Group would be more likely.  They bought Corbis... and distribute for Getty in China. 

farbled

« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2021, 11:34 »
+5
Well you have a point, maybe it was wishful thinking, but wishing never did any harm, though in this case I wish it would.

If it was the other way around with Getty being bought by SS, then all the scumbags would be in one basket as I am sure they would combine all the websites into one go to place for ripping artists off.

It would be a win for SS, since they could adopt IS's payout scheme and tank commissions even more.

« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2021, 15:01 »
0
The only reason why one of the two would buy each other is to eliminate competition. Now, I'm anything but an economist, but from my point of view both of them seem be too big to buy, and there's no real benefit or added value for them as both are more or less doing the same. None of them needs extra content, they are fed more than they need.

What I do see happening is Getty/Istock or Shutterstock buying a company or startup that actually has something to offer.
This can be a technology (AI?) or a userbase (social media or creative software) with strong engagement towards images and video's covering trends outside regular stock.

Horizon

    This user is banned.
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2021, 15:46 »
+5
Getty is SO incredibly in debt that the bailiffs are practically knocking on the door and they are living on other peoples money! how could they possibly buy SS?? end even so who would possibly want to buy SS?

« Reply #10 on: March 22, 2021, 20:52 »
0
...

The company has plenty of cash. The hateful thinking who ignore the facts, wishful but distorted thinking, the company is doing just fine. People, many others besides  Stan and Jon have been selling big blocks of stock. Easily documented for months and months because it has to be reported. Jon has millions if not a billion, he doesn't need to care. ...
 

and of course this is NORMAL for company officers after an IPO - those posting otherwise just show their ignorance of how IPO & laissez-faire capitalism in general work.  after the IPO, principals could not sell for a set # of years - looks  like that date has arrived & officers et al are able to realize $ for their stock.

just curious, but i wonder how many of the  'free market'  ranters (based in the US)  supported the republicans' massive tax cut for the <1%  and added $1-2 trillion to the national debt (the same Rs who voted against giving any support to those suffering economically from the pandemic - claiming it would raise the deficit!)

« Reply #11 on: March 22, 2021, 20:53 »
0
.. dupe...

« Reply #12 on: March 22, 2021, 20:54 »
+1
Getty is SO incredibly in debt that the bailiffs are practically knocking on the door and they are living on other peoples money! how could they possibly buy SS?? end even so who would possibly want to buy SS?

absolute nonsense (and wishful thinking)- where do you get your info? did you do ANY research?  they're struggling, like many other companies due to the pandemic.  learn how the world works!, large debt has never stopped companies from raiding larger, well funded companies, gutting them for profits & giving the leftovers to GoodWill!

they still show a (slight - single digit) increase in earnings each year

altho i had multiple discs licensed with the legacy company Photo-Disc that Getty bought many years ago, I have no connection w the company
« Last Edit: March 22, 2021, 21:00 by cascoly »

« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2021, 02:21 »
+1
The only reason why one of the two would buy each other is to eliminate competition. Now, I'm anything but an economist, but from my point of view both of them seem be too big to buy, and there's no real benefit or added value for them as both are more or less doing the same. None of them needs extra content, they are fed more than they need.

What I do see happening is Getty/Istock or Shutterstock buying a company or startup that actually has something to offer.
This can be a technology (AI?) or a userbase (social media or creative software) with strong engagement towards images and video's covering trends outside regular stock.
Shutterstock quite frequently acquire businesses mostly leading to failure. Remember "Flash Stock"? I would expect them to continue to invest/gamble on newly emerging companies.

Horizon

    This user is banned.
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2021, 05:17 »
0
Getty is SO incredibly in debt that the bailiffs are practically knocking on the door and they are living on other peoples money! how could they possibly buy SS?? end even so who would possibly want to buy SS?

absolute nonsense (and wishful thinking)- where do you get your info? did you do ANY research?  they're struggling, like many other companies due to the pandemic.  learn how the world works!, large debt has never stopped companies from raiding larger, well funded companies, gutting them for profits & giving the leftovers to GoodWill!

they still show a (slight - single digit) increase in earnings each year

altho i had multiple discs licensed with the legacy company Photo-Disc that Getty bought many years ago, I have no connection w the company

Well, hehe!  thats what I am saying above actually. You should have read that!...theyre all struggling!...I also used photodisc ages back and it was a complete waste of time!

« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2021, 12:00 »
0
Getty is SO incredibly in debt that the bailiffs are practically knocking on the door and they are living on other peoples money! how could they possibly buy SS?? end even so who would possibly want to buy SS?

absolute nonsense (and wishful thinking)- where do you get your info? did you do ANY research?  they're struggling, like many other companies due to the pandemic.  learn how the world works!, large debt has never stopped companies from raiding larger, well funded companies, gutting them for profits & giving the leftovers to GoodWill!

they still show a (slight - single digit) increase in earnings each year

altho i had multiple discs licensed with the legacy company Photo-Disc that Getty bought many years ago, I have no connection w the company

Well, hehe!  thats what I am saying above actually. You should have read that!...theyre all struggling!...I also used photodisc ages back and it was a complete waste of time!

you still havent the question of where you found the research supporting your claim of SS imminent demise

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2021, 14:31 »
+3
...

The company has plenty of cash. The hateful thinking who ignore the facts, wishful but distorted thinking, the company is doing just fine. People, many others besides  Stan and Jon have been selling big blocks of stock. Easily documented for months and months because it has to be reported. Jon has millions if not a billion, he doesn't need to care. ...
 

and of course this is NORMAL for company officers after an IPO - those posting otherwise just show their ignorance of how IPO & laissez-faire capitalism in general work.  after the IPO, principals could not sell for a set # of years - looks  like that date has arrived & officers et al are able to realize $ for their stock.


Yes there was full disclosure last year that Jon was selling some of his stock. Also that sale was handled by a third party, not himself. I had to go look, but the search says standard is 90 - 180 days. That's long gone.

Sorry about the second part, I don't do partisan politics anymore. Too many divisions and loaded questions also agendas and twisted party politic situations. I can summarize by saying, they are all crooks and cons and only care about their own power and influence. "How can you tell if a politician is lying" ANS: "Their lips are moving."

We need to work forward and together not keep splitting and dividing into sides and factions and extremist offshoots. Nothing is simple except people who follow the party line, without thinking or looking at the values and ideas of each position. Party people are usually dull and simple blind followers.

Another more positive way of saying this is, I see good on both sides, depending on the situation and the particular arguments. No party lines for me to toe, which means all sides will dislike me. Hopefully on an equal basis?  :)


Horizon

    This user is banned.
« Reply #17 on: March 24, 2021, 04:11 »
0
...

The company has plenty of cash. The hateful thinking who ignore the facts, wishful but distorted thinking, the company is doing just fine. People, many others besides  Stan and Jon have been selling big blocks of stock. Easily documented for months and months because it has to be reported. Jon has millions if not a billion, he doesn't need to care. ...
 

and of course this is NORMAL for company officers after an IPO - those posting otherwise just show their ignorance of how IPO & laissez-faire capitalism in general work.  after the IPO, principals could not sell for a set # of years - looks  like that date has arrived & officers et al are able to realize $ for their stock.


Yes there was full disclosure last year that Jon was selling some of his stock. Also that sale was handled by a third party, not himself. I had to go look, but the search says standard is 90 - 180 days. That's long gone.

Sorry about the second part, I don't do partisan politics anymore. Too many divisions and loaded questions also agendas and twisted party politic situations. I can summarize by saying, they are all crooks and cons and only care about their own power and influence. "How can you tell if a politician is lying" ANS: "Their lips are moving."

We need to work forward and together not keep splitting and dividing into sides and factions and extremist offshoots. Nothing is simple except people who follow the party line, without thinking or looking at the values and ideas of each position. Party people are usually dull and simple blind followers.

Another more positive way of saying this is, I see good on both sides, depending on the situation and the particular arguments. No party lines for me to toe, which means all sides will dislike me. Hopefully on an equal basis?  :)

Amen to that!  well said!

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #18 on: March 24, 2021, 08:56 »
+2

Amen to that!  well said!

I have enough former friends and frenemies without adding more from the forum. I'm officially a WWM = Wishy Washy Malcontent, when it comes to politics, movements and contrived social issues. Can't even talk about the weather anymore, without someone turning it into a political issue? And Covid, when did science and disease become a political issue?

Covid doesn't discriminate based on who you voted for, or your opinion of how it started, what to call it, or if it's real or not. Nearly 3 million people dead and it's been turned into everything from racial and ethnic to party politics. One person dies from a reaction to the vaccine and that's news. Hundreds of millions of people get vaccinated and no one is tracking that number very closely, except when someone complains they can't get the shots?

Politics SUCKS!

« Reply #19 on: March 24, 2021, 17:58 »
0
.

and of course this is NORMAL for company officers after an IPO - those posting otherwise just show their ignorance of how IPO & laissez-faire capitalism in general work.  after the IPO, principals could not sell for a set # of years - looks  like that date has arrived & officers et al are able to realize $ for their stock.


...
Sorry about the second part, I don't do partisan politics anymore. Too many divisions and loaded questions also agendas and twisted party politic situations. ....

didnt want a political discussion - but just commenting that too much whinging ignores the forest for the toothpicks - the complaints  are only a data point confirming a much larger reality

Horizon

    This user is banned.
« Reply #20 on: March 25, 2021, 01:50 »
0
.

and of course this is NORMAL for company officers after an IPO - those posting otherwise just show their ignorance of how IPO & laissez-faire capitalism in general work.  after the IPO, principals could not sell for a set # of years - looks  like that date has arrived & officers et al are able to realize $ for their stock.


...
Sorry about the second part, I don't do partisan politics anymore. Too many divisions and loaded questions also agendas and twisted party politic situations. ....

didnt want a political discussion - but just commenting that too much whinging ignores the forest for the toothpicks - the complaints  are only a data point confirming a much larger reality

 ::) ::) ::) ::)

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #21 on: March 25, 2021, 08:55 »
0
.

and of course this is NORMAL for company officers after an IPO - those posting otherwise just show their ignorance of how IPO & laissez-faire capitalism in general work.  after the IPO, principals could not sell for a set # of years - looks  like that date has arrived & officers et al are able to realize $ for their stock.


...
Sorry about the second part, I don't do partisan politics anymore. Too many divisions and loaded questions also agendas and twisted party politic situations. ....

didnt want a political discussion - but just commenting that too much whinging ignores the forest for the toothpicks - the complaints  are only a data point confirming a much larger reality

If we stopped printing dollar bills, we could easily recover a Billion Dollars in waste. $1 bills last four years tops, coins last 40 years. Pennies cost more to produce than they are worth. That's kind of budgets and deficits I like to talk about. Nothing about which dumb ass on a D or R side, made the latest stupid financial decisions about deep divided issues like taxes or welfare. Universal issues for the country as a whole, instead of special interest groups, classes or ethnic and racial groups.

NPR 2011:  https://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137394348/-1-billion-that-nobody-wants

It was 1 billion then and could be over 2 billion dollars now. We keep making the darn coins, that no one wants or uses.

But no, we get to argue about relief and tax the rich? Some things are non-partisan and would help the country, but it seems no one is willing to change just a tiny bit, to recover 2 Billion warehoused Dollars!

ps make a $2 coin with Harriet Tubman on it. Another political football deflated and nothing to kick around and stir up debate, opposition and divide people over contrived racial and social issues. No one uses a $2 bill, so why put her on some obscure bill that just sites in vaults. Be honorable and don't upset the apple cart, at the same time.


farbled

« Reply #22 on: March 25, 2021, 10:13 »
0

If we stopped printing dollar bills, we could easily recover a Billion Dollars in waste. $1 bills last four years tops, coins last 40 years. Pennies cost more to produce than they are worth. That's kind of budgets and deficits I like to talk about. Nothing about which dumb ass on a D or R side, made the latest stupid financial decisions about deep divided issues like taxes or welfare. Universal issues for the country as a whole, instead of special interest groups, classes or ethnic and racial groups.

NPR 2011:  https://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137394348/-1-billion-that-nobody-wants

It was 1 billion then and could be over 2 billion dollars now. We keep making the darn coins, that no one wants or uses.

But no, we get to argue about relief and tax the rich? Some things are non-partisan and would help the country, but it seems no one is willing to change just a tiny bit, to recover 2 Billion warehoused Dollars!

ps make a $2 coin with Harriet Tubman on it. Another political football deflated and nothing to kick around and stir up debate, opposition and divide people over contrived racial and social issues. No one uses a $2 bill, so why put her on some obscure bill that just sites in vaults. Be honorable and don't upset the apple cart, at the same time.

The coin idea is a good one and is something we successfully did here in Canada ages ago.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2021, 22:00 by farbled »

« Reply #23 on: March 25, 2021, 21:09 »
0
As other said above, I hardly see any reasons for SS to be bought by Getty.

Getty and SS are probably the two most stable guys in the stock market, even though the idea of Getty being soldagain to any random entity does not seem that unrealistic

That being said, if there were something to happen, I'd definitely see much more a move coming from a GAFA (especially Google) to enter the microstock market.

It could be a historical purchase (like Google buying Getty or SS for a historical amount of money), or one of the GAFAs simply starting to offer their users to monetize some content in a similar way microstock does. That would be a real game changer.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #24 on: March 26, 2021, 08:23 »
+1
As other said above, I hardly see any reasons for SS to be bought by Getty.

Getty and SS are probably the two most stable guys in the stock market, even though the idea of Getty being soldagain to any random entity does not seem that unrealistic

That being said, if there were something to happen, I'd definitely see much more a move coming from a GAFA (especially Google) to enter the microstock market.

It could be a historical purchase (like Google buying Getty or SS for a historical amount of money), or one of the GAFAs simply starting to offer their users to monetize some content in a similar way microstock does. That would be a real game changer.

True that could be possible. Big problem for Getty is they merged all of iStock onto the Getty servers when they introduced ESP and killed Thinkstock.


The coin idea is a good one and is something we successfully did here in Canada ages ago.


Yes I know that, we can look across the border and see how that all works very well.  :) Pretty much every country in the world, except the US has dropped the dollar bill.

I know the line is, everything is for sale, for the right price, but SS is still growing, the stock is going up. Getty has been much like they started, before Microstock, holding and preserving and archiving. I don't think either is "for sale" or on the market. That leaves maybe Dreamstime if someone big wanted to get in with an established agency, and DT is not healthy, unfortunately.

If one of the giants, wants to get into the market, they have the resources to start on their own and don't need some old worn out agency that's not on the top anymore.

My opinion, SS and IS and Adobe are not for sale and no one is buying either. If one of the group GAFA wants to get into a rather flat business concept, they can do that on their own. The growth period and expansion is in the past. Innovation will be the future of stock photos and video. Considering the free sites are taking some of that business, maybe someone looking for expansion into something new and profitable, would not care about Microstock?



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3392 Views
Last post April 21, 2009, 16:50
by RT
82 Replies
21697 Views
Last post May 05, 2012, 17:35
by luissantos84
72 Replies
17406 Views
Last post December 08, 2013, 00:16
by Uncle Pete
13 Replies
11134 Views
Last post June 14, 2014, 11:28
by onepointfour
6 Replies
5280 Views
Last post September 27, 2019, 06:55
by Lola Ginabrigeta

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle