Stefan Mokrzecki

This is from the ShutterStock Inc (SSTK) Q2 2020 Earnings Call Transcript: The report suggests that SS did better than was forecast with a higher revenue per download, That comes in part by turning to AI for ingesting the material supplied by contributors and also the huge reduction in what SS is now paying contributors. I do not see any reference in the report that SS is now paying contributors significantly less than what was paid out previously and that makes for a very distorted bottom line. That bottom line is not sustainable when a business shows no consideration for the suppliers of the material upon which the business was built. I have to wonder just how many contributors will be happy continuing to supply new material and have it return the minimum of just 10 cents. This is a temporary reprieve for SS and it seems to me that many shareholders would be well advised to take their money and run as the share price is not sustainable going forward. The Q3 Earnings Call will tell the true story.

A few hours ago I disabled my small portfolio. I have not uploaded any new images for months, as it was hard to find the motivation when the minimum amount sat at 25 cents. As a public listed company, ShutterStock has to meet shareholder expectations in terms of return on investment, however, the share price has been in decline. ShutterStock also reported an earnings decline in 2020 Q1, which in part was due to COVID-19. There has been a decline in Ad spend by large companies, but interestingly small business spend is up. It seems to me that ShutterStock in introducing the new "Earnings Structure", has scrambled to reduce costs to better align with the reduction in revenue generated. How best to do that, well that is an easy one, they chose to pay contributors less rather than review the subscription plans on offer to clients. I understand that some of the subscription plans meant that SS was actually losing money with the percentage that was paid to some contributors. That to me is a SS problem and yet we as contributors are being sacrificed. It all seems a short term solution, that is not sustainable in the long term. ShutterStock is is in the business of selling content and the success of the company rests on the supply of fresh quality content to meet client needs. If it is not sustainable for contributors, then the business model will not be sustainable for ShutterStock. Successful businesses know the importance of looking after the supply chain, so how is SS getting it so wrong? The phrase "A House Of Cards" comes to mind. The Q2 Earnings Call is getting close and I wonder how that and the later Q3 will look? A minimum payment amount of 10 cents might be enough for some contributors, that will of course depend upon how we value our time which is the ultimate commodity.

I agree with you and believe there is room for agencies offering carefully curated content rather than it just being a numbers game. I am new to Shutterstock, but not to stock photography photography. It seems to me that the success of any stock agency in this competitive market is all about attracting and keeping clients. Attracting clients is perhaps the easy part, but retaining them is all about client satisfaction. Clients need to be able to find the content that they need and at price which they deem to be fair. Our part is to supply that quality content, but that will only continue to happen if it continues to be worthwhile. As individuals we each have our own idea of what is "worthwhile".