Jump to content

Shutterstock Founder And CEO Jon Oringer To Step Down In April


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Maxal Tamor said:

Thank you for posting this, it is exactly what I have posted in the OP…………………

The post I replied to said they didn't know who will take over. So I replied with a screenshot of the part that mentions who will take over. Wow... Amazing how a simple intention of trying to help a fellow out would actually cause more fuss in this thread. 😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Shutterstock is always welcome to set up office in my house in Mumbai if things are tough in Manhattan. I'll be happy to charge them the going market rate of 500$ a month. Maybe I'll even throw in a f

Didn't think it would happen so soon when I said this yesterday!

The post I replied to said they didn't know who will take over. So I replied with a screenshot of the part that mentions who will take over. Wow... Amazing how a simple intention of trying to help a f

Posted Images

5 hours ago, siridhata said:

The post I replied to said they didn't know who will take over. So I replied with a screenshot of the part that mentions who will take over. Wow... Amazing how a simple intention of trying to help a fellow out would actually cause more fuss in this thread. 😂

This is what the "fuss" is about.

Somebody asked a question that you answered in a not very nice and condescending way (accidentally or not and if you don't know why it wasn't nice, i would recommend a little bit of Google research)) . If I was the one who asked that question and I got an answer like you gave, I would not feel very good about myself. I called you out on it and instead of apologizing to the person you answered and change your post (since it wasn't intentionally), you got angry and offensive with presumptions about my lifestyle that make no sense whatsoever. Like it is my problem and not yours. The old adage that offense is the best defense is still true I guess.

If you would have said it was not intentionally and changed you post, I would have said, no problem and I would have deleted my post and life goes on, but that's not what happened

In the mean time, your post is still the same while you had plenty of opportunities to change it by now, but you didn't.........

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom of the problem is how  SS and Jon!  treats the contributors... few years ago this site was the hottest stock site. I remember Jon used to talk with us  "the old" guys almost on daily basis but then..... the "$$$" took over. Overall  can't complain. It was fun ride. I've made here  some nice money and still making few bucks but it's not the same anymore. Uploading new content is almost pointless these days. And Jon if you read this, and probably you are, good for you buddy. I admire your business skills and determination in achieving financial success. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rudy Umans said:

This is what the "fuss" is about.

Somebody asked a question that you answered in a not very nice and condescending way (accidentally or not and if you don't know why it wasn't nice, i would recommend a little bit of Google research)) . If I was the one who asked that question and I got an answer like you gave, I would not feel very good about myself. I called you out on it and instead of apologizing to the person you answered and change your post (since it wasn't intentionally), you got angry and offensive with presumptions about my lifestyle that make no sense whatsoever. Like it is my problem and not yours. The old adage that offense is the best defense is still true I guess.

If you would have said it was not intentionally and changed you post, I would have said, no problem and I would have deleted my post and life goes on, but that's not what happened

In the mean time, your post is still the same while you had plenty of opportunities to change it by now, but you didn't.........

I answered with a screenshot and a link to the source. I didn’t say anything else, how do you consider that “not very nice”? Then you decided to jump on my back with your sarcasm when all I tried to do was give a straight forward answer.

Yes, I haven’t changed my post because why would I? I did not say anything offensive. Every word of my two short sentences was regarding the question. Not one other word I said about anything else, not the person who asked, and not you definitely. How the heck do you get bothered by a screenshot that answers somebody else’s question? 😂

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my opinion. I don't see much will change because of this point of view. Stan Pavlovsky is a COO which means he is close to the decision making with the CEO Jon Oringer. Stan has been with the company for 11 months and throughout that time there could be so drastic changes but there weren't. I fact there were more to the benefit the contributors and the customers. If Stan truly wants to make some impact changes then he will lose his customers and his huge team of contributors. Would it benefit him and the company to make things worse? I highly dealt that. Some small changes may happen but nothing that will destroy this platform. But if you really want to ask him questions you can message him here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stan-pavlovsky-ab26181/ or here:  https://twitter.com/spavlovsky 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This quote from the article seems to indicate SS is experiencing the same pain its business model has inflicted on its contributors.... "Overall revenue increased by 4 percent compared to a year ago, but net income sank 63 percent and net income per share also declined by nearly 22 percent."  Our portfolios are growing, but our income is shrinking fast.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MSPhotographic said:

"Overall revenue increased by 4 percent compared to a year ago, but net income sank 63 percent and net income per share also declined by nearly 22 percent."

Reaching market saturation.  Not every company is going to survive the coming purge.  Too many providers chasing too few customers.  The companies best poised to succeed are those with low overhead.  Companies with high operating costs will not be able to survive, and will either be forced into mergers or bankruptcy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2020 at 6:08 PM, Sharkshock said:

 If you think 33 cents is frustrating, wait for a future commission structure that pays 4 cents. 

Sadly you are probably right.  Though things have inflated drastically since SS opened for business in 2004, contributors have seen only one MINOR increase in rates and that was a LONG time ago.... and we have seen many cuts in rates, such as the $1.50 and .60 cent video sales and SS has worked hard to bring in massive numbers of new contributors pushing our sales per image out the bottom.  I read in their annual report that they currently brag of having 640,000 contributors.  Problem is that as Shutterstock thinks MORE, it always means LESS for the people that made them rich.  While I want to invest in high quality shoots, it has reached a point where I know I'll never recover the money I spent producing the photos, much less make a profit or be able to pay myself for my time.  That makes me sad.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2020 at 7:12 PM, Phil Lowe said:

Reaching market saturation.  Not every company is going to survive the coming purge.  Too many providers chasing too few customers.  The companies best poised to succeed are those with low overhead.  Companies with high operating costs will not be able to survive, and will either be forced into mergers or bankruptcy. 

Market saturation was reached a LONG LONG time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2020 at 3:26 AM, Aaron of L.A. Photography said:

I don't see much will change because of this point of view. Stan Pavlovsky is a COO which means he is close to the decision making with the CEO Jon Oringer.

Something will change, you can bet on it. Every company I have ever worked for when a new manager took over they have to show what they are worth to the company, so changes have to be made to prove themselves. Example : Tim Cook was high in the ranking of Apple before Steve Jobs died, but when he took over Apple has changed quite a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MJD Graphics said:

Something will change, you can bet on it. Every company I have ever worked for when a new manager took over they have to show what they are worth to the company, so changes have to be made to prove themselves. Example : Tim Cook was high in the ranking of Apple before Steve Jobs died, but when he took over Apple has changed quite a bit.

True. Hopefully more for the consumers and contributors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2020 at 10:26 AM, MJD Graphics said:

Unfortunately changes are usually in the favour of the shareholders.

Agree 100%. We have been, are, and always will be the grunts on the front line. The cattle. The worker ants. Changes will benefit the company's bottom line, and by extension the shareholders. These changes will seek to increase incoming revenue (profits) while limiting payouts (commissions). The decrease in commissions has to be gradual enough, however, to avoid a mass exodus. Inevitably people will leave or quit uploading but the goal is probably to stop short of completely angering their contributors and instead "annoy" them with slightly lower payouts. When someone makes a little less they may not notice, assume it's a bad month, or even want to upload more. When someone makes a LOT less, they'll probably look elsewhere. I'm sure SS understands this very well. For every long time contributor that says "SCREW THIS!" there are hundreds of amateurs armed with entry level Canons and iPhones eager to take their place. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
18 hours ago, MJD Graphics said:

You got to be joking 🙂

Mostly it's down, the whole market is down because of the virus. SSTK is at $30 and last five years, averages $42 a share. Invest $3,000 and sell when it goes back up to $42 and you made $1,000 profit. Sure there are capitol gains taxes, commissions, and risks, but there might be dividends.

Also when people keep writing how

On 2/19/2020 at 9:26 AM, MJD Graphics said:

Unfortunately changes are usually in the favour of the shareholders.

then maybe they should become a shareholder?

Shareholders are investors, they expect to be paid back and make a profit. The stock sales isn't just because Jon wanted to get rich, the funding is supposed to finance expansion and make the business stronger. Stronger, diversifying, and new ideas, cost money. Then the theory also includes, we should benefit from that investing, and make more.

Investors are not the enemy.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

It's all about profit margins and falling into line, already happening with accounts being terminated without notice. 

5 minutes ago, GregDPhotos said:

Makes me tempted to leave. Not as much because of the policy - as abhorrent as I think it is - but because of the disregard for the company's ethically conscientious employees.

I wonder how Brady feels knowing he is earning money from a company that is appeasing the Chinese government for it's own financial gain? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, CH Digital Media said:

Although it is a situation not any company would like to be in, when it comes down to it the $$'s rule. I also remember a few months ago another country blocking SS until they removed an image of the country flag placed in a dog turd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Shutterstock regularly receives takedown notices from more than 20 countries, not including requests related to intellectual property, the spokesperson said. The countries are primarily in Europe, Australia and North America, with some in South America, and the company addresses hundreds or sometimes thousands of requests a year.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/chinese-censorship-or-work-elsewhere-inside-shutterstock-s-free-speech-n1144211

Those of us shooting wildlife and nature are probably way ahead of the curve, as that's probably all that's going to be left uncensored everywhere!  :D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...