pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: would you migrate to StockXpert founder's new site?  (Read 11706 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 25, 2010, 10:44 »
0
FD hinted there is some light to the tunnel for us faithful StockXpert contributors
who are still giving StockXpert full support to keep updating our portfolio there,
even though many have already given up or predicting its demise.
It makes no business sense to kill StockXpert with already a built foundation and reputation of once a hot number in the hands of the original creator.
Now, FD also said the creator of StockXpert is planning a new site which I for one cannot wait to support unconditionally, simply because when he was running the show, StockXpert was my best seller.

This may be something encouraging to the creator of StockXpert if he even comes in here to read anything in this forum.  At least when he sees how many of us will migrate our work to his new site, and or even close our account with StockXpert and or IS .
I would not expect such rash move as the latter, but I am sure many of us are already compiling new images waiting for the new of a new stock site by the creator of StockXpert.

So, let's give him some vocal moral support. Perharps when he is ready, he might come in here to make his announcement to leaf. And we will all migrate our work to his new site.

I know many will also say new sites guarantee nothing. But this is not a new creator of microstock site with no track record or having no clue about creating an effective market for us. This is the creator of StockXpert which was one of the fastest selling new sites before it got hijacked.
Nor is he the owner of a site that was perharps experienced in midstock or trad stock but haven't a clue in microstock and have failed once with snapwhatever such as Veer Mktplace.

Speak up or forever hold your peace.

P.S.
please don't come in here to argue about Veer Marketplace.
Start your own topic if you want to do that.
This here is to show your support for the new site of the creator of StockXpert.






« Last Edit: January 25, 2010, 10:49 by PERSEUS »


« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2010, 10:49 »
0

« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2010, 10:59 »
0
Yes.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/stockxpert-com/announcement-press-release/


 THANK YOU SOOOOO MUCH
my affiliate and I have just added our emails .
You're a good man, massman

« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2010, 11:05 »
0
No problem.

« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2010, 11:13 »
0
If we are talking unconditional support, then no. If we are talking uploading a small sample to test the waters, then probably. If it was getting decent reviews, then I would probably check it out and upload an initial sample portfolio.

una

« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2010, 11:55 »
0
Yes!

gbcimages

« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2010, 12:07 »
0
yes for me also!

« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2010, 12:28 »
0
I`ll support Peters new project with my small portfolio, too!

« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2010, 12:37 »
0
I'd be willing to give the new site a try - IF they do not offer subscriptions. My StockXpert earnings went seriously downhill after they started with the subscriptions.

« Reply #9 on: January 25, 2010, 13:00 »
0
I'd be willing to give the new site a try - IF they do not offer subscriptions.

Same here...also if they can make sales happen, I'm already getting rid of all my dead beat sites to start collecting new ones.  ;)

« Reply #10 on: January 25, 2010, 13:32 »
0
I would love to be a part of any new project that Peter starts. StockXpert still makes more than BigStock, 123, Canstock or Crestock for me. I would like to see a credit-based system only, as well.

« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2010, 13:52 »
0
I'd be willing to give the new site a try - IF they do not offer subscriptions. My StockXpert earnings went seriously downhill after they started with the subscriptions.
I'd be willing to give the new site a try - IF they do not offer subscriptions.

Same here...also if they can make sales happen, I'm already getting rid of all my dead beat sites to start collecting new ones.  ;)

WELL FOR SURE, you all know how I feel about subs.

« Reply #12 on: January 25, 2010, 13:57 »
0
If we are talking unconditional support, then no. If we are talking uploading a small sample to test the waters, then probably. If it was getting decent reviews, then I would probably check it out and upload an initial sample portfolio.

well ya, i can understand your more objective conditional support.
I said UNCONDITIONAL because personally , StockXpert was the very first micro site that not only took at awesome interest in my work, but also gave me my best downloads from the start as a new micro contributor.
Of course, as many of you said, it all but got jeopardized right after they offered subs.

« Reply #13 on: January 25, 2010, 14:23 »
0
I don't know if Peter is thinking of starting a new site or if it would be wise to.  I would support it because I try to support new sites that have something going for them.  I just wish someone would come up with something radically different.  There are too many sites with the same old strategy that looks doomed from the start.  Some good new ideas have been mentioned in this forum and I really hope there is an entrepreneur out there that can see the potential here.

« Reply #14 on: January 25, 2010, 14:44 »
0
I don't know if Peter is thinking of starting a new site or if it would be wise to.
He is. All will depend on the pricing model though. I hope he accepts DVDs.

« Reply #15 on: January 25, 2010, 15:16 »
0
Unconditional support ia a bit strong, but yes, I might support a new site by StockXpert founders, unlike new sites that pop up every now and then.

« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2010, 15:40 »
0
100% support from my side!


helix7

« Reply #17 on: January 25, 2010, 15:50 »
0
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.

If, however, it was allowed and actually happened, I'm not sure I'd put any more faith in it than anything else. StockXpert was the first microstock company I was involved in, as a buyer and then as a seller. So yeah, I do have a bit of nostalgic appreciation for StockXpert above any other company. But that was also a long time ago. StockXpert was in the right place at the right time. I have to doubt that lightning will strike twice for them in the same market. There have been plenty of upstart sites in recent years that had the experience and background to seemingly succeed in this market that ended up failing.

Despite the founder's previous success and experience, I don't think that qualifies as any more of an advantage for a new company in this particular business. New microstock companies are a dime a dozen. Previous success in the business doesn't distinguish a new company from the rest of the herd, and it doesn't give a new company any better chance to succeed in the future than anyone else.

Dook

« Reply #18 on: January 25, 2010, 15:55 »
0
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. 

nruboc

« Reply #19 on: January 25, 2010, 16:08 »
0
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.

« Reply #20 on: January 25, 2010, 16:12 »
0
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?

« Reply #21 on: January 25, 2010, 16:30 »
0
I don't know if Peter is thinking of starting a new site or if it would be wise to.
He is. All will depend on the pricing model though. I hope he accepts DVDs.

I have no idea what Peter is planning to do (Mr. Amateur sure has an opinion), but he is keeping a data base of possible contribitors that we know.  It would be nice to have a fresh idea coming in our direction.

« Reply #22 on: January 25, 2010, 16:36 »
0
Yeah.  I would definitely give it a shot.

« Reply #23 on: January 25, 2010, 16:54 »
0
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.

Exactly. If you go back all the way to the beginning , you will see on this forum StockXpert even had the longest running thread where StockXpert contributors commented on each others work . There were ALOT  of successful contributors with StockXpert
.... UNTIL Getty

« Reply #24 on: January 25, 2010, 17:05 »
0
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!

helix7

« Reply #25 on: January 25, 2010, 17:51 »
0
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. 

« Reply #26 on: January 25, 2010, 18:41 »
0
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 »
0
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.   :(


« Reply #28 on: January 25, 2010, 19:26 »
0
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.

« Reply #29 on: January 25, 2010, 21:44 »
0
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.

« Reply #30 on: January 25, 2010, 21:56 »
0
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?

« Reply #31 on: January 25, 2010, 23:26 »
0
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... 

« Reply #32 on: January 26, 2010, 03:35 »
0
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 »
0
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.

« Reply #34 on: January 26, 2010, 04:54 »
0
(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.

« Reply #35 on: January 26, 2010, 09:30 »
0
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.

« Reply #36 on: January 26, 2010, 09:51 »
0
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

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #37 on: January 26, 2010, 10:31 »
0
Maybe Getty just needed a deduction....their making to much money and need to show a loss somewhere ;D

« Reply #38 on: January 26, 2010, 12:15 »
0
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.


« Reply #39 on: January 26, 2010, 12:57 »
0
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.

« Reply #40 on: January 26, 2010, 13:13 »
0
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.

« Reply #41 on: January 26, 2010, 16:29 »
0
I would give it a go!

« Reply #42 on: January 26, 2010, 18:58 »
0
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.  8)=tom


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
42 Replies
21885 Views
Last post August 20, 2012, 12:31
by stockastic
3 Replies
2403 Views
Last post July 11, 2012, 20:39
by RacePhoto
1 Replies
2518 Views
Last post June 29, 2013, 13:22
by cathyslife
1 Replies
3384 Views
Last post October 07, 2014, 04:33
by Dook
13 Replies
9811 Views
Last post March 09, 2018, 04:09
by RCerruti

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle