Author Topic: would you migrate to StockXpert founder's new site? (Read 15509 times)

helix7 · « **Reply #25 on:** January 25, 2010, 17:51 »

Quote from: mantonino on January 25, 2010, 16:12

Quote from: helix7 on January 25, 2010, 15:50
I can't believe there was nothing in the sales contact of the remaining shares of StockXpert that prohibited the founders from entering into the microstock market again for some period of time. Especially considering the buyer. Seems odd that Getty/istock leave out such a clause.

Isn't the co-founder of IStock working for Fotolia now?

Don't know. Bt if so, that's a job change. I think starting a new company would be considered a little differently than just moving to a different existing company.

Really I have no idea if any sort of non-compete language was in the StockXpert sale contract. It's common that there is, though, usually prohibiting the seller from just going out and taking the money they made from the sale to start up a new competing company. But who knows. Maybe this case was a little different.

loop · « **Reply #26 on:** January 25, 2010, 18:41 »

I think that the sucess of StockXpert was 90% due to their former page, sxh,hu, which has a lot of traffic from people needed of photos. Having been sold sxh too, to begin again can be an ardous adventure.

lisafx · « **Reply #27 on:** January 25, 2010, 19:12 »

I wish Peter and the rest at Haap all the best. However I would have to take a wait-and-see attitude about uploading there (assuming I was independent still when it happened).

By holding back I managed to save myself the aggravation of dealing with the Lucky Oliver and Albumo closures.

I have only been an early adopter at one site - Veer Marketplace - and only because it is owned by Corbis/Veer and they are giants in the stock industry. That didn't turn out too well, IMO.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #28 on:** January 25, 2010, 19:26 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 25, 2010, 19:12

By holding back I managed to save myself the aggravation of dealing with the Lucky Oliver and Albumo closures.

LOL no kidding. I uploaded half my port to Lucky Oliver toward the very end .. got stuck $2 below the payout and then forgot about them until the day after the deadline to request any money they owed you.

dnavarrojr · « **Reply #29 on:** January 25, 2010, 21:44 »

Quote from: helix7 on January 25, 2010, 15:50

I can't believe there was nothing in the sales contact of the remaining shares of StockXpert that prohibited the founders from entering into the microstock market again for some period of time. Especially considering the buyer. Seems odd that Getty/istock leave out such a clause.

Many many moons ago I had a business partner eager to buy me out of the business. His initial offer was good, but it included a non-compete for two years... so I said no. In the end he wanted it bad enough to modify the non-compete to 6 month which I agreed to.

It's possible that Getty wanted them out bad enough to compromise on a non-compete clause.

gostwyck · « **Reply #30 on:** January 25, 2010, 21:56 »

Quote from: dnavarrojr on January 25, 2010, 21:44

It's possible that Getty wanted them out bad enough to compromise on a non-compete clause.

Hmm. Makes me wonder why Getty wanted to buy them out at all? The shares that Haap still had couldn't have been a controlling interest and, if the site is slowly being wound down, then their value would have been eroding with the company anyway. Maybe Getty intend absorbing StockXpert and it's content (which of course is actually owned by the contributors) into one of their new projects or something?

stockastic · « **Reply #31 on:** January 25, 2010, 23:26 »

I speak as the smallest of small pototatos - but, for what it's worth, I'm not interested in any new sites unless they give me some degree of control over price, AND can generate some significant traffic.

I already have one "hobby farm" over at CutCaster, I don't need another. At CC I can set my price, but I no longer get any views on any of my images - which is a bit weird in itself...

sharpshot · « **Reply #32 on:** January 26, 2010, 03:35 »

Quote from: m@m on January 25, 2010, 17:05

Quote from: nruboc on January 25, 2010, 16:08
Quote from: Dook on January 25, 2010, 15:55
Exactly, Helics.
I like StockXpert, they are one of my best earners. But, StockXpert started doing well for me only when Jupiter bought them , and then Getty. So, Jupiter and Getty are the ones we have to praise.

Exaclty the oppposite for me, they were doing well UNTIL Getty bought them, so no praise from me.

That makes two of us nruboc!...no praise for Getty here!

My sales have slumped since Getty took over and I was forced to opt out of subs. Makes me more determined not to go exclusive with istock.

lagereek · « **Reply #33 on:** January 26, 2010, 03:42 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 25, 2010, 19:12

I wish Peter and the rest at Haap all the best. However I would have to take a wait-and-see attitude about uploading there (assuming I was independent still when it happened).

By holding back I managed to save myself the aggravation of dealing with the Lucky Oliver and Albumo closures.

I have only been an early adopter at one site - Veer Marketplace - and only because it is owned by Corbis/Veer and they are giants in the stock industry. That didn't turn out too well, IMO.

Hi Lisa!

well we might have to re-think? search changes at IS, etc certainly dont favour us non exclusives.
best.

FD · « **Reply #34 on:** January 26, 2010, 04:54 »

Quote from: etienjones on January 25, 2010, 16:30

(Mr. Amateur sure has an opinion)

No I just brought the idea here in another thread after I got an email from him. No opinion since we don't know yet what he will come up with.

cathyslife · « **Reply #35 on:** January 26, 2010, 09:30 »

If Peter was doing well with StockXpert, why would he sell and start over? To me, that doesn't make too much sense. Unless they offered him a deal he couldn't refuse.

Not putting a no-compete clause in the sale doesn't seem smart on Getty's side. To me, Getty's whole MO since they bought IS has been to put everyone else out of business and take the market.

To allow a smart businessman to turn around and start a new company? Hmmm....

To answer the OPs original question...I would be cautiously optimistic. Assuming I am still independent if that whole thing happens.

louoates · « **Reply #36 on:** January 26, 2010, 09:51 »

Lots of ways to speculate on the lack of a non-compete agreement:
Non-compete clauses may not be enforceable in that jurisdiction.
The buyer may not feel threatened by whatever the seller may do.
The seller may be starting a new venture that will help the buyer gain market share.
The seller may be starting a division that is within the buyers organization.
The seller may have an undisclosed non-compete agreement.
The seller may have negotiated that there not be a non-compete agreement in the contract in exchange for a lower payout.

Whatever, I'm adopting my wait and see position as with any new start-up. Too many broken hopes in the past to waste any more time on.

donding · « **Reply #37 on:** January 26, 2010, 10:31 »

Maybe Getty just needed a deduction....their making to much money and need to show a loss somewhere

willie · « **Reply #38 on:** January 26, 2010, 12:15 »

Quote from: louoates on January 26, 2010, 09:51

Lots of ways to speculate on the lack of a non-compete agreement:
Non-compete clauses may not be enforceable in that jurisdiction.
The buyer may not feel threatened by whatever the seller may do.
The seller may be starting a new venture that will help the buyer gain market share.
The seller may be starting a division that is within the buyers organization.
The seller may have an undisclosed non-compete agreement.
The seller may have negotiated that there not be a non-compete agreement in the contract in exchange for a lower payout.

Whatever, I'm adopting my wait and see position as with any new start-up. Too many broken hopes in the past to waste any more time on.

well said.
i don't think Getty nor the creator of StockXpert are like such no brainers . They're business people and they're in it to make money. Much like those who owned properties in the old day, sold it, changed that said area into inner city and slums, buy it back at a fire sale price. These are shrewd business people who have not lost their shirts, and they don't just make a lot of noise for the sake of making noise.
Getty has a strategy, and the apparent continual of tighter and more stringent reviews at StockXpert and the prompt approval of those with images they want , points to this strategy that no matter what we think, Getty is still not showing their cards.
The creator of StockXpert too has a strategy, or else he would not be asking those who intend to migrate add their email to his site.
One thing is sure. We are already past one decade, and trends do change.
No surprise , as demographics change with each decade, which explains why DT also has clamped down on apparent old favourites.
The dinosaur perish due to their inability to change. Somehow, we've already seen young pups being destroyed at birth due to their lack of experience.
And somehow, I don't think I will be seeing the demise of Getty , nor the brainchild of the creator of StockXpert when he brings out his new idea.
People like them don't make money staying in one place, and nor do they continue to make money walking around with folders over their eyes.

louoates · « **Reply #39 on:** January 26, 2010, 12:57 »

Perseus,
I can also see a scenario where an entirely new but risky concept is financed by Getty. If the concept goes down the tubes, no Getty fingerprints. If it catches on, suitable rewards for Peter.

sharpshot · « **Reply #40 on:** January 26, 2010, 13:13 »

I read before the Getty takeover that Peter could start a new site if he left StockXpert, so he must of negotiated the sale of StockXpert to Jupiter without a non-competition agreement. Perhaps Getty aren't worried about a new site giving them problems now, they might think it is too late to enter the market.

Tim Markley · « **Reply #41 on:** January 26, 2010, 16:29 »

I would give it a go!

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #42 on:** January 26, 2010, 18:58 »

I'm still gettting sales at StockXpert but not like I was..... I uploaded just 3 pix over a week ago... still not reviewed.... used to get reviewed in a matter of hours after an upload... now... ptttttzzzzzzz.

To answer the question.... I WOULD ABSOLUTELY GIVE IT A SHOT... I liked StockXpert under our old friend... and hope he does get a new site up and running!! I'm needing some fresh avenues.

=tom

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: would you migrate to StockXpert founder's new site? (Read 15509 times)

helix7

loop

lisafx

Randy McKown

dnavarrojr

gostwyck

stockastic

sharpshot

lagereek

FD

cathyslife

louoates

donding

willie

louoates

sharpshot

Tim Markley

a.k.a.-tom

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors