Author Topic: What’s The Average Price Of A Shutterstock Enterprise Sale? (Read 10201 times)

Pickerell · « **on:** November 08, 2014, 10:45 »

Enterprise sales at Shutterstock are growing dramatically. About 500% in the last two years. I would like to get an idea of the average price per Enterprise download and how many total downloads they represent.

Based on the 3rd Quarter released on Thursday I estimate that total Enterprise revenue for 2014 will be around $60 million. A few Shutterstock contributors have told me that the average price-per-Enterprise-download come out to around $20.

On the other hand CFO Tim Bixby said Enterprise customers are “enthusiastic” about Shutterstock’s Offset product and most of those images are selling at the $500 price point. I also know that the several photographer’s images are being licensed in the $200 to $350 range.

If the average is $20 that would mean that about 3 million of the 125 million 2014 downloads are Enterprise sales. That would also mean that there are not many of those $500 and $350 sales and there are a lot of sales for less than Image On Demand prices. On the other hand if the average price is $40 or higher then there may be Offset and higher priced sales, but the total Enterprise sales annually would be 1.5 million or less.

For purposes of comparison it may be worth looking at Getty’s RM and traditional RF numbers for 2013. Earlier this years I analyzed the sales of several of Getty’s major contributors and came to the conclusion that overall Getty licensed about 502,159 RM images and 1,126,126 RF for a total of 1,632,285 in 2013. They will probably license less in 2014. One wonders how many of the customers of Getty and other traditional sellers have turned to Shutterstock and how many “New Users” at the Enterprise price points there are left to find.

What do you think? What are the average prices of your Enterprise sales?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1 on:** November 08, 2014, 11:03 »

SS doesn't report a category of Enterprise to contributors. There is SOD, Single and Other Downloads, which may be mostly corporate customers. My range there is 38 cents to $102 (the Facebook deal are the 38 cent items, I think). I'm not part of Offset

On Demand is higher volume than SOD, but fixed royalties of $1.24 and $2.85. I have no idea if those are part of Enterprise or not

gostwyck · « **Reply #2 on:** November 08, 2014, 11:10 »

Jim,

As you probably know Shutterstock are now a publicly quoted company and as such contributors have been requested to not divulge too many details on their earnings. This could be considered 'inside information' and as such might not be available to the entire market.

It is also the case that SS are fairly guarded about releasing the details of their licensing terms on SOD's (I assume that's what you mean by 'Enterprise' sales?) as they regard it as 'commercially sensitive'.

I'd suggest the information you are requesting might compromise either one or both of these objectives.

bunhill · « **Reply #3 on:** November 08, 2014, 12:29 »

Quote from: gostwyck on November 08, 2014, 11:10

As you probably know Shutterstock are now a publicly quoted company and as such contributors have been requested to not divulge too many details on their earnings.

What does "as such" actually mean in this context ?

Quote

This could be considered 'inside information' and as such might not be available to the entire market.

This is clearly not privileged information since, as one example, the stock factories and big portfolios talking privately already have far more pertinent information than is going to come from a thread like this.

@Jim - presumably an anonymous poll here would make it simple for people to respond openly.

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** November 08, 2014, 12:40 »

Quote from: bunhill on November 08, 2014, 12:29

@Jim - presumably an anonymous poll here would make it simple for people to respond openly.

Or maybe a proportion of posters here don't like providing free info for Jim's paid for service, and either would not answer or wouldn't post honestly.

robhainer · « **Reply #5 on:** November 08, 2014, 12:49 »

I have no problem providing this information. It doesn't go against what Shutterstock prohibits. It's not specific enough.

I could probably figure it out all time, but it would be too much work to be worth the effort. It would be easier if the Facebook and Single Image sales weren't mixed in.

I did October. After subtracting Single Image and Facebook sales, my average was $18.15. The highest sale for me was $108 and the lowest was $2.70.

The highest I've gotten ever was $150 earlier this year.

bunhill · « **Reply #6 on:** November 08, 2014, 12:55 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 08, 2014, 12:40

Or maybe a proportion of posters here don't like providing free info for Jim's paid for service, and either would not answer or would't post honestly.

Well there is that

And personally I have always been rather sceptical of Jim's extrapolations especially with respect to what could be divined from those Moody's reports this time last year.

But people contribute to the monthly threads here - and this is no different, apart from being somewhat more granular or specific.

gostwyck · « **Reply #7 on:** November 08, 2014, 13:05 »

Quote from: bunhill on November 08, 2014, 12:29

Quote from: gostwyck on November 08, 2014, 11:10
As you probably know Shutterstock are now a publicly quoted company and as such contributors have been requested to not divulge too many details on their earnings.

What does "as such" actually mean in this context ?

Quote
This could be considered 'inside information' and as such might not be available to the entire market.

This is clearly not privileged information since, as one example, the stock factories and big portfolios talking privately already have far more pertinent information than is going to come from a thread like this.

@Jim - presumably an anonymous poll here would make it simple for people to respond openly.

Bit nosey for an Istock exclusive aren't we? Just Google the words you don't understand.

Of course it's privileged information. If you were considering buying SSTK stock then you would not have access to it and that puts you at a disadvantage. SS contributors, through their own sales, may have knowledge of whether revenues are increasing or decreasing up to 3 months before they are reported to the market. It also protects the contributors themselves. If you bought or sold SSTK stock on the basis of the 'inside information' you gained from a contributor but ended up losing money instead then you might attempt to sue the contributor for misleading you.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #8 on:** November 08, 2014, 13:31 »

Most of us - certainly me - are such small fish in the SS universe that anything I report about my earnings is more a reflection of my portfolio than anything else. I can't see it of having any value to someone looking to profit via the stock market.

However, I did find Mr. Pickerell's lack of preparation on the topic he wants to report on - for pay - irritating in its laziness.

He wants us to give him information and he can't even be bothered to ask in terms that a contributor could provide. If he had even one contributor show him the interface we get to look at, he'd know that what he's asking for is impossible for us to answer. In which case he would do better by asking for specific information we do have - which people could then decide to provide or not as they see fit.

He also doesn't offer anything in return, which seems a bit entitled to me, especially as he expects to sell his intelligence.

bunhill · « **Reply #9 on:** November 08, 2014, 13:42 »

Quote from: gostwyck on November 08, 2014, 13:05

Bit nosey for an Istock exclusive aren't we? Just Google the words you don't understand.

It's interesting. FWIW I understand full well what "as such" means. Just not what it means in your context.

Quote from: gostwyck on November 08, 2014, 13:05

If you bought or sold SSTK stock on the basis of the 'inside information' you gained from a contributor but ended up losing money instead then you might attempt to sue the contributor for misleading you.

Only if it were offered as professional advice. Otherwise there is no court in the universe which would hear the case. But, as I said, Jim is better off coming up with an anonymous poll. As I am sure you would agree.

Anyhow - you should have a look at SSTK on insidertrading.org. The site seems to be down for me at the moment but I noticed last night that there had been big new trades in the past few days. Perfectly legitimately by people who are presumably close to the information which Jim is asking about. I do not see the difference.

gostwyck · « **Reply #10 on:** November 08, 2014, 14:00 »

Quote from: bunhill on November 08, 2014, 13:42

Quote from: gostwyck on November 08, 2014, 13:05
Bit nosey for an Istock exclusive aren't we? Just Google the words you don't understand.

It's interesting. FWIW I understand full well what "as such" means. Just not what it means in your context.

Quote from: gostwyck on November 08, 2014, 13:05
If you bought or sold SSTK stock on the basis of the 'inside information' you gained from a contributor but ended up losing money instead then you might attempt to sue the contributor for misleading you.

Only if it were offered as professional advice. Otherwise there is no court in the universe which would hear the case. But, as I said, Jim is better off coming up with an anonymous poll. As I am sure you would agree.

Anyhow - you should have a look at SSTK on insidertrading.org. The site seems to be down for me at the moment but I noticed last night that there had been big new trades in the past few days. Perfectly legitimately by people who are presumably close to the information which Jim is asking about. I do not see the difference.

No I wouldn't agree with your suggestion of an anonymous poll. If Jim wants to pay contributors for their information, in the same way that he expects to be paid for his own musings, then I'm sure he can PM those that he wants to.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #11 on:** November 09, 2014, 12:56 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 08, 2014, 13:31

However, I did find Mr. Pickerell's lack of preparation on the topic he wants to report on - for pay - irritating in its laziness.

He wants us to give him information and he can't even be bothered to ask in terms that a contributor could provide. If he had even one contributor show him the interface we get to look at, he'd know that what he's asking for is impossible for us to answer. In which case he would do better by asking for specific information we do have - which people could then decide to provide or not as they see fit.

He also doesn't offer anything in return, which seems a bit entitled to me, especially as he expects to sell his intelligence.

Yep, well said. I am getting a bit frustrated by his lack of interaction and communication following up his regular requests to us to provide information that he is going to put up for his paying clients.

bunhill · « **Reply #12 on:** November 09, 2014, 13:10 »

^ do you know anyone who has ever actually paid. I doubt that many investors are paying for it. The stuff he had on Getty midstock last year seemed more surmised than researched. It seemed to have been extrapolated from the freely available Moody's report.

And there is so much margin for error when someone makes a calculation based on a supposition and then later uses that result as the basis for a another calculation introducing an additional estimate. Because guess * guess = meaningless.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #13 on:** November 09, 2014, 14:58 »

Quote from: bunhill on November 09, 2014, 13:10

^ do you know anyone who has ever actually paid. I doubt that many investors are paying for it. The stuff he had on Getty midstock last year seemed more surmised than researched. It seemed to have been extrapolated from the freely available Moody's report.

Someone once told me (proudly) that he paid for Jim's professional column and therefore was better informed than me on certain aspects of microstock. The amusing thing was that much of what Jim was saying at that time he had got from discussions with me

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #14 on:** November 10, 2014, 10:09 »

Quote from: bunhill on November 09, 2014, 13:10

^ do you know anyone who has ever actually paid. I doubt that many investors are paying for it. The stuff he had on Getty midstock last year seemed more surmised than researched. It seemed to have been extrapolated from the freely available Moody's report.

Why "investors"? Photographers if I'm not wrong. There is a world of photographers who are not really into microstock, you know. They are not reading forums or blogs. And the newsletter has been around for a long time, so there are likely a lot of subscribers from the good old times.

Besides, I did pay for single articles. Occasionally there is some interesting stuff you can't just get from some forums that I found worth a few dollars.

bunhill · « **Reply #15 on:** November 10, 2014, 10:14 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on November 10, 2014, 10:09

Why "investors"?

Because previously he has implied that investors have been his audience - especially with respect to how well the companies are performing.

Pickerell · « **Reply #16 on:** November 10, 2014, 10:33 »

Thanks to Jo Ann Snover and robhainer for the information you shared.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What’s The Average Price Of A Shutterstock Enterprise Sale? (Read 10201 times)

Pickerell

Jo Ann Snover

gostwyck

bunhill

ShadySue

robhainer

bunhill

gostwyck

Jo Ann Snover

bunhill

gostwyck

MichaelJayFoto

bunhill

BaldricksTrousers

MichaelJayFoto

bunhill

Pickerell

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors