The StockXpert story

NitorPhoto

« on: December 19, 2009, 18:17 »

#link

My source is a hungarian news portal (ORIGO.HU). They made a public interview with the former owners of StockXpert. Here are some lines from the article - you may find it interesting:

SXC (a popular free stockimage library) was started in 2001 by two hungarian guys.

In 2005 they also started StockXpert - the site we all know. This new site became poppular because of the high commision they paid and because of their advertismement strategy: they shuffled the paid images into the free ones on the extremly popular sister site (SXC).

Back to 2006 Jupiter bought 49,7% and one year later they bought 90% share of both products.

In 2008 Getty took this 90% as part of the acquisition of Jupiter

This december (2009) Getty bought the remaining 10% from the hungarian co-owners. So SXC and StockXpert are now wholy owned by Getty.

Other infos:

Since this summer Getty is advertising its own iStock collection on SXC instead of the former StockXpert collecion.

Since this summer the operation of SXC and the servers were moved from Hungary to Calgary, Canada.

The founders who were responsible for development and community management in the last 9 years told they are not responsible for anything anymore regarding SXC and StockXpert. They do not think Getty will choke SXC because it has a great advertising value for them, on SXC Getty can redirect a lot of potential image buyers to the paid (iStock) collections.
On the other hand they (the founders) are uncertain about the future of StockXpert.

Ok, this is what I read on a public site, I do not want to comment it or make any speculation.


« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 19:57 by NitorPhoto »	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2009, 19:30 »

#link

thanks for the info.... interesting.

maybe they won't keep StockXpert. It seems like it just came as sort of 'part of the package' when Getty bought Jupiter - so they may not really have a use for it.

Isn't StockXpert giving us 50% of the sales as well? That isn't quite inline with either iStock or Getty commissions. They would probably rather have those buyers buying on the iStock site where they get 80% of the sale from non-exclusives.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pixart

« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2009, 21:31 »

#link

But on the other hand - the library with all the non-exclusives and likely half of the Istock rejects competes directly with the other sites like Dreamstime and Fotolia. I can see why they would want to close shop, but I can see why they would want to stay open as well, especially since Istock is becoming more and more exclusive these days...

One thing I am certain of, they won't be selling it!


	Ignore \| Logged

mwp1969

« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2009, 23:57 »

#link

Does anyone think that there is a possibility of Getty keeping the existing StockXpert infrastructure and staffing by simply lowering the commissions to match those of their other subscription related sites?

My point is if StockXpert was profitable before at 50% commissions it would certainly be profitable to them at 20% commissions levels. While I am not personally a fan of lowering commissions anywhere, I would be a fan of not having to worry about what's going to happen to my existing StockXpert portfolio ...

-Mark
http://markwpayne.wordpress.com


	Ignore \| Logged

dgilder

« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2009, 00:48 »

#link

Well now, I wonder if iStock is going to start offering to allow exclusives rejects to be fed into SXC.


	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2009, 05:35 »

#link

well i suppose that could happen.. but... running two offices is more expensive than one, so why would they want to keep another office open at StockXpert

Just thinking more today, I don't really think they want more of the non-exclusive content. If they thought 'more content' was a successful business strategy they would increase the upload limits on istock. I have also heard Kelly say in a panel that content is no an issue - they have enough content. This seems quite apparent when you compare their database size to Fotolia or Shutterstock. They are obviously not afraid of have a smaller, tighter edited database.


	Ignore \| Logged

MichaelJay

« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2009, 06:07 »

#link

Quote from: leaf on December 20, 2009, 05:35

If they thought 'more content' was a successful business strategy they would increase the upload limits on istock. I have also heard Kelly say in a panel that content is no an issue - they have enough content. This seems quite apparent when you compare their database size to Fotolia or Shutterstock. They are obviously not afraid of have a smaller, tighter edited database.

Yes, Kelly said the same in August at the iStockalypse. Let the others fight for the numbers, iStock will continue focusing on quality. And that's why I don't see it happen that ANY content rejected by iStock inspection process will show up anywhere... there is no reason to show this content to customers when you have 5 million+ exclusive and non-exclusive images that passed the same inspection process.


	Ignore \| Logged

sharpshot

« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2009, 06:47 »

#link

I am sure StockXpert was making a nice profit before it was taken over. Now they have saved lots of money by using their servers and getting rid of most of the staff. Do they even advertise StockXpert any more? How much have they saved on the advertising budget? If they lower commissions below 50%, I will remove my portfolio. Having been forced to opt out of subs, I am only left with PPD and any lowering of commissions would be the final straw.


	Ignore \| Logged

hqimages

« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2009, 09:28 »

#link

http://www.draiochtwebdesign.com/blog/sxchu-and-getty-management

I must update that article with the latest development but it's just a run through of both sites and everything that's happened!


	Ignore \| Logged

Vonkara

« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2009, 10:23 »

#link

Forgot the epic fail subscription plan and photos.com/JIU plan. That was the fall of StockXpert to me, it's just too much a coincidence with their fall.


	Ignore \| Logged

hqimages

« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2009, 10:47 »

#link

Yup, and details of that epic fail here: http://www.draiochtwebdesign.com/blog/stockxpert-contributors-begin-to-pull-out

At least they backpedaled after members refused to accept .30 cent for what should be an EL sale, I don't think Getty would do the same.. mind you neither company were/are much concerned with being fair to photographers..


	Ignore \| Logged

m@m

« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2009, 11:05 »

#link

Quote from: sharpshot on December 20, 2009, 06:47

If they lower commissions below 50%, I will remove my portfolio. Having been forced to opt out of subs, I am only left with PPD and any lowering of commissions would be the final straw.


	Ignore \| Logged

Vonkara

« Reply #12 on: December 20, 2009, 11:06 »

#link

Haha nice link ! _sigh_

Quote from: hqimages on December 20, 2009, 10:47


« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 11:09 by Vonkara »	Ignore \| Logged

haap

New Member

« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2009, 10:15 »

#link

Quote from: hqimages on December 20, 2009, 09:28

http://www.draiochtwebdesign.com/blog/sxchu-and-getty-management

I must update that article with the latest development but it's just a run through of both sites and everything that's happened!

Hilary,
Actually your blog is the only place on the web where people can read about the history of the sites and it was used as a resource in the article mentioned in the first post


	Ignore \| Logged

hqimages

« Reply #14 on: December 21, 2009, 11:39 »

#link

Quote from: haap on December 21, 2009, 10:15

Quote from: hqimages on December 20, 2009, 09:28

http://www.draiochtwebdesign.com/blog/sxchu-and-getty-management

I must update that article with the latest development but it's just a run through of both sites and everything that's happened!

Hilary,
Actually your blog is the only place on the web where people can read about the history of the sites and it was used as a resource in the article mentioned in the first post

Ooo, how cool! I am glad I documented everything, it was a rollercoaster

ps. I will forgive you at some point for JM Wink