pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: StockFresh - from Peter Hamza and Andras Pfaff  (Read 141308 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: June 02, 2010, 08:57 »
0
I do not know why you all are so happy ?

The same people  sold their entire market and customers to Getty...
I am happy because StockXpert was one of my favorite microstock sites, and I hope the replacement could become as good.

And BTW they didn't sell it to Getty, they sold it to Jupiter and Jupiter did develop it and did include StockXpert to some of their projects.


« Reply #51 on: June 02, 2010, 09:09 »
0
Signed up and application sent ;)

« Reply #52 on: June 02, 2010, 10:46 »
0
I signed up and sent the 5 initial images. I left the PC whilst it was uploading and when I returned I was back on the 'Sign In' page. I'm not sure if the application went through properly or not as there was no acknowledgment or email. Was it the same for everyone else?

« Reply #53 on: June 02, 2010, 11:02 »
0
I signed up and sent the 5 initial images. I left the PC whilst it was uploading and when I returned I was back on the 'Sign In' page. I'm not sure if the application went through properly or not as there was no acknowledgment or email. Was it the same for everyone else?
Looks like yours hasn't gone through, my page has "application is waiting to be reviewed" message.

cmcderm1

  • Chad McDermott - Elite Image Photography
« Reply #54 on: June 02, 2010, 11:16 »
0
I like the SUB restriction to Med and below!!!  Always thought that was needed.

Even different Sub packages:  Med and below = 0.35;  Large and below = 0.45; XL and below = 0.55

Something like that, where the buyers determines his "usual" need of image size.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #55 on: June 02, 2010, 11:16 »
0
No opt out for subscriptions? Nah I'll take a pass.. yet another site jumping on the subs bandwagon, great for them, not for us with small portfolios..

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #56 on: June 02, 2010, 12:23 »
0
Maybe I'm missing something here but I'm not seeing anything innovative or even unique. The only thing I'm seeing that's fresh is the appearance and cheaper pricing. Everything else doesn't seem different from the other sites.

« Reply #57 on: June 02, 2010, 12:52 »
0
Maybe I'm missing something here but I'm not seeing anything innovative or even unique. The only thing I'm seeing that's fresh is the appearance and cheaper pricing. Everything else doesn't seem different from the other sites.

I think these 3 things are HUGE differences:

1. cheaper pricing for buyers
2. higher commissions for contributors
3. limit on sizes sold as a sub

These are 3 major things we all have been asking for from all the agencies, but no one has done it. Now we have an agency willing to do it...for now anyways.

I'm still waiting for my first 5 to be approved.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #58 on: June 02, 2010, 13:13 »
0
I think these 3 things are HUGE differences:
1. cheaper pricing for buyers
2. higher commissions for contributors
3. limit on sizes sold as a sub

1. Is cheaper really the right direction?
2. You're getting 50% but from cheaper pricing and at a brand new low/no volume site. Sound familiar?
3. Don't most other places offer full size subs? Good for contribs but why would a buyer settle for this?

I wish them the best on this venture but it's starting off with a pretty weak value proposition which is "we created Stockxpert, we're fresh, we're cheap". If I were a buyer the thing that would stand out to me is the "cheap" part.

« Reply #59 on: June 02, 2010, 13:44 »
0
This is microstock, their prices look reasonable for buyers and sellers.  Some sites seem to of moved on from microstock with their pay per download prices but have kept subs prices low.  I sell a lot less than I used to with the sites that have put their prices up a lot, it must of put off some buyers or made them reduce the number of images they buy.  I am really not sure if we make more with higher prices, as sales are reduced.  It is hard to tell if my earnings go up because of higher prices or because I have added lots of images to my portfolio.  I don't see many people using this site for subs but that isn't a bad thing, StockXpert only sold PPD at one time and sales were good.

KB

« Reply #60 on: June 02, 2010, 15:26 »
0
1. Is cheaper really the right direction?
2. You're getting 50% but from cheaper pricing and at a brand new low/no volume site. Sound familiar?

Let's look at the $ contributors would earn at SF, compared to what I've been earning at FT as a Silver contributor (obviously base level contributors make less, and higher level contributors more):

Size / SF / FT


0.1 MP / $0.50 / $0.31
0.5 MP / $1.00 / $0.93
2.0 MP / $1.50 / $1.55
6.0 MP / $2.50 / $2.17 or $2.48 (4MP or 8MP)
12. MP / $5.00 / $3.10 (but 15MP)

So it seems that SF pays more $ to contributors, yet buyers pay less? Sounds like win / win to me, if they can be successful.

Also, $0.35 subscription credits for 2MP (M) sized images is much better to me than $0.37 for XXXL sized. But, good point, is it good enough for buyers? I think that's the way it always should have been (but that ship has sailed, and sunk by now): Subscriptions should be for smaller images. Larger images should be available by pay per download only. Oh, if only.

« Reply #61 on: June 02, 2010, 15:50 »
0
1. cheaper pricing for buyers
These are 3 major things we all have been asking for from all the agencies, but no one has done it. Now we have an agency willing to do it...for now anyways.

Uhhhhh....

« Reply #62 on: June 02, 2010, 15:53 »
0
My friend who was a bank manager in a local bank changed the city where he works, and moved to a neighbor city. He contacted all his important clients...I believe more than 100 of them, and almost all of them moved their accounts to be managed from the neighbor city, where my friend works now.
He made a huge success, and in the next 3 months he fulfilled the plan for whole year.
Maybe, if guys from ex-StockXpert have email addresses from all buyers, they can contact them, and invite them to stockfresh... It's not impossible.
They could get large amount of buyers in a short time. I would do it in their place.

« Reply #63 on: June 02, 2010, 15:55 »
0
Maybe, if guys from ex-StockXpert have email addresses from all buyers, they can contact them, and invite them to stockfresh... It's not impossible.
They could get large amount of buyers in a short time. I would do it in their place.

I'm pretty sure that would be illegal.  A buyer list would be a trade secret of the original company, or something like that.  I'm surprised they don't have a non-compete in place.

« Reply #64 on: June 02, 2010, 15:58 »
0
Maybe, if guys from ex-StockXpert have email addresses from all buyers, they can contact them, and invite them to stockfresh... It's not impossible.
They could get large amount of buyers in a short time. I would do it in their place.

I'm pretty sure that would be illegal.  A buyer list would be a trade secret of the original company, or something like that.  I'm surprised they don't have a non-compete in place.

It's probably illegal, but...   :)
They made those contacts while they were bosses of StockXpert. Those contacts are their contacts, not Getty's.

« Reply #65 on: June 02, 2010, 16:04 »
0
They made those contacts while they were bosses of StockXpert. Those contacts are their contacts, not Getty's.

No, they would be the contacts of the company.

« Reply #66 on: June 02, 2010, 16:06 »
0
... I'm surprised they don't have a non-compete in place.

Perhaps they did, but a short 6 month one. I think 6 months have gone by since StockXpert sold to Jupiter...could even be a year already. I know I asked this question when it was all happening, but I suffer from CRS syndrome...can't remember sh-t.

« Reply #67 on: June 02, 2010, 16:12 »
0
They made those contacts while they were bosses of StockXpert. Those contacts are their contacts, not Getty's.

No, they would be the contacts of the company.

Yes, I know. But still... who knows. It's OK to contact potential buyers in one or another way, right? Sending email is one way to do it.

ap

« Reply #68 on: June 02, 2010, 16:23 »
0
Let's look at the $ contributors would earn at SF, compared to what I've been earning at FT as a Silver contributor (obviously base level contributors make less, and higher level contributors more):

Size / SF / FT


0.1 MP / $0.50 / $0.31
0.5 MP / $1.00 / $0.93
2.0 MP / $1.50 / $1.55
6.0 MP / $2.50 / $2.17 or $2.48 (4MP or 8MP)
12. MP / $5.00 / $3.10 (but 15MP)

So it seems that SF pays more $ to contributors, yet buyers pay less? Sounds like win / win to me, if they can be successful.

hey, i was about to write a similar post.

If IS, now the dominant microstock co., were to offer these terms, they will probably wipe out the competition. however, they're kind of into developing their 'exclusive' brand to achieve these ends. it may be higher commission for their exclusives, but not cheaper for their buyers.

the fact that stockfresh is doing it on both ends means that they are willing to take a reduction to their own bottom line in order to promote a business model that can be very successful in the long  run.

i will never forget that as a newbie my first xl sale on stx netted me $5, only $3 at is and elsewhere and the same $5 for an el at ft.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2010, 16:24 by ap »

lisafx

« Reply #69 on: June 02, 2010, 17:43 »
0
From reading this thread it really looks like Peter and Andras have a lot of goodwill among contributors.  Our memories are not so short that we have forgotten the days when they ran StockXpert and treated everyone fairly. 

If they have similar residual goodwill among their former buyers that bodes well for their future success.

I don't know if the buyer list would be a trade secret or not.  Even if they can't access the actual buyer list from StockXpert, with all the companies out there harvesting our contact info every time we buy anything online it would probably not be that difficult to get a list of regular microstock buyers.  If they cast a wide net they will almost certainly manage to reach former StockXpert buyers, plus a lot of others too.

« Reply #70 on: June 02, 2010, 19:43 »
0
I hope this comes off. I was keen for veer to fill the void that the destruction of stockxpert made but looks like that's not going to happen.

I'll be signing up and submitting a couple of hundred and then wait and see.

The commissions and pricing seem to be okay
 

« Reply #71 on: June 03, 2010, 06:45 »
0
I don't know all the details so hope you're right ...
I  have nothing against them,they were kind and friendly,  but it would be big mistake for us to do again Sizif's job.

I don't know all the details, either. And that's not important.
Finally, they sold their company just for money and did not care about us.
I believe that they will do that again.

I love StockXpert, but I don't know if StcokFresh .....

« Reply #72 on: June 03, 2010, 11:49 »
0
From reading this thread it really looks like Peter and Andras have a lot of goodwill among contributors.  Our memories are not so short that we have forgotten the days when they ran StockXpert and treated everyone fairly. 

If they have similar residual goodwill among their former buyers that bodes well for their future success.

I don't know if the buyer list would be a trade secret or not.  Even if they can't access the actual buyer list from StockXpert, with all the companies out there harvesting our contact info every time we buy anything online it would probably not be that difficult to get a list of regular microstock buyers.  If they cast a wide net they will almost certainly manage to reach former StockXpert buyers, plus a lot of others too.

Yep!

That was my intention to explain in my last posts!

Also,,almost all of customers are already on the market, they need (again) to take their piece of pie!

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #73 on: June 03, 2010, 12:03 »
0
Maybe, if guys from ex-StockXpert have email addresses from all buyers, they can contact them, and invite them to stockfresh... It's not impossible.
They could get large amount of buyers in a short time. I would do it in their place.

I'm pretty sure that would be illegal.  A buyer list would be a trade secret of the original company, or something like that.  I'm surprised they don't have a non-compete in place.

They did but it expired.. otherwise I'm pretty sure this site would have been launched at least 12 months ago..

« Reply #74 on: June 03, 2010, 12:12 »
0
Maybe I'm missing something here but I'm not seeing anything innovative or even unique. The only thing I'm seeing that's fresh is the appearance and cheaper pricing. Everything else doesn't seem different from the other sites.

The differences that make one agency more successful than another can be quite subtle. Some agencies understand what it takes and others simply don't and probably never will. Based on their track records I would put money on Stockfresh being vastly more successful than say Veer.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
8783 Views
Last post July 27, 2010, 20:26
by a.k.a.-tom
13 Replies
6991 Views
Last post December 30, 2010, 04:17
by alfonsodetomas
8 Replies
3401 Views
Last post February 18, 2012, 17:41
by Fran
74 Replies
11695 Views
Last post December 20, 2014, 02:26
by Hobostocker
52 Replies
20458 Views
Last post March 02, 2015, 01:13
by Hobostocker

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results