Sockxpert.com - Stock Images. Yours?

[RTK]

It's NOT a "con". All sites are pretty clear on how they work - artists just have to read the contract/TOS carefully.

Yes, my "tone" was off... Yes, I should have put things more diplomatically... However, I'm not angry with the site mentioned. I was disapointed that one particular site was promoted --- as there are many out there. I was aslo disapointed that the particular site (and concept) was made to look like the second coming of Christ, which it is not. A lot of people never reach the $50 so all they accomplished is to feed someone else. 50 cent or less for the use of an image might not be enough for some artist here (read the contract/TOS carefully before signing up).

Look at Jolande's post: research, hard work and a great portfolio will sell images, and the money is banked as with Adsense.

The big difference with micro stock sites is that you are banking on your physical work and copyrighted material - a real commodity. Adsense is just one advertisement method out of many. Another big difference is that you control the ads on your site - a stock site OTH can remove any or all of your images at their discretion (e.g. if it's not selling fast enough according to abstract rules they define for that particular day).

It's not for every one, which I'm sure many members are aware of by now. Please don't sell yourself short - or quickly - research before deciding if to sign up or not.

Risto

Risto, reading your thread i think you've shocked people with your 'tone' but i think you are bang on and that 'tone' is just how angry you are at this site that will sell our images and if for whatever reason fall short of the $50 then you get nothing...............its a con

it should be like google adsense.............you get paid when you reach a certain amount but the money is there, its not forfeit under certain circumstances..............you might just have to wait until the next month for it. i thank you anyway as i'd have signed up without checking out the details

[handrawn]

I was disapointed that one particular site was promoted --- as there are many out there. I was aslo disapointed that the particular site (and concept) was made to look like the second coming of Christ, which it is not.

[pauland]

I was disapointed that one particular site was promoted --- as there are many out there.

LOL, I'd better promote a few others then.. ;-)


There's nothing like a quote out of context.

[RTK]

Ahhh... Ok, that didn't come out quite right either.

Risto

[suunto]

It's NOT a "con". All sites are pretty clear on how they work - artists just have to read the contract/TOS carefully.

Yes, my "tone" was off... Yes, I should have put things more diplomatically... However, I'm not angry with the site mentioned. I was disapointed that one particular site was promoted --- as there are many out there. I was aslo disapointed that the particular site (and concept) was made to look like the second coming of Christ, which it is not. A lot of people never reach the $50 so all they accomplished is to feed someone else. 50 cent or less for the use of an image might not be enough for some artist here (read the contract/TOS carefully before signing up).

Look at Jolande's post: research, hard work and a great portfolio will sell images, and the money is banked as with Adsense.

The big difference with micro stock sites is that you are banking on your physical work and copyrighted material - a real commodity. Adsense is just one advertisement method out of many. Another big difference is that you control the ads on your site - a stock site OTH can remove any or all of your images at their discretion (e.g. if it's not selling fast enough according to abstract rules they define for that particular day).

It's not for every one, which I'm sure many members are aware of by now. Please don't sell yourself short - or quickly - research before deciding if to sign up or not.

Risto

well we can use different words for it if you want but i'll stick to con or if you want.............its a fix

Jolande's post is cool, it shows it can be done and seeing his work on the site would inspire someone to do the same rather, maybe stockxpert should have started with examples of peoples work and then ditched the $50 ............co* fi*.......situation

[pauland]

Suunto, I think your description of Stockxpert, smiley or not, is pretty objectionable.

You may not like what they do, but their terms are available and the whole thing has been discussed openly. I don't see that anything is hidden and people are free to make a choice.

Paul

[suunto]

Suunto, I think your description of Stockxpert, smiley or not, is pretty objectionable.

You may not like what they do, but their terms are available and the whole thing has been discussed openly. I don't see that anything is hidden and people are free to make a choice.

Paul

cool, thats your right, we can all have opinions and thats mine

i do like what they do.............just not the fact if you don't hit the $50 mark you get nothing

if you do one hour less of work this week you would still want to be paid for the other 39 (or however many you do) i can see why risto got started on this now

[pauland]

A 'con' is a deception, as is a 'fix'. I don't see how either apply in this case. It doesn't matter what you think of the business model, I don't see how those words apply.

[suunto]

A 'con' is a deception, as is a 'fix'. I don't see how either apply in this case. It doesn't matter what you think of the business model, I don't see how those words apply.

did you google that

it matters to me what i think of the business model, thats not for you to say

i'm not asking you to see how those words apply, you make your own mind up, submit your designs and when they reach $49 and you get nothing for them, you can have your opinion and i'll respect it

[pauland]

You're entitled to your opinion about the business model - that doesn't bother me, but since the model isn't hidden I don't see any deception of any sort. If the model was as bad as suggested, the business will disappear rapidly as people pull out.

I've come across plenty of dodgy businesses on the web that are out and out cons and you'll have to explain how stockxpert is a 'con' (as in 'confidence trick') because I just don't see it.

I understand completely why people may dislike the business model, but it is completely transparent. If you don't like it don't use them.

There's also a secondary notion here I think. Risto and others have commented about the dangers of selling yourself short by selling images too cheaply and I understand that completely - it's good advice. On the other hand it's not necessarily incompatible with the micro-site model. Lets face it, a good image - no matter how good - doesn't sell itself.

The value of an image IMHO is a balance between the reputation of the artist and the quality of the work. It's no good having a great portfolio if it only exists on your PC and on your personal website that nobody goes to.

Few people would expect all their images to fetch top dollar, particularly early on in their artistic career before becoming established. It seems to me that before becoming established people will do well to concentrate on 'spreading the word' not squeezing profit from a small number of sales. In this way I would imagine microsites can be a big help, if not a huge revenue earner. If people like your work there, they'll surely go looking for more and better work directly from you?

If I can't sell 50 images for a dollar worldwide for web distribution, why would anyone want to pay me $500 for that same image? If you want to test the water where demand for your work is, where better than a micro-site? If you use a micro-site do you have to post that dead-cert $5,000 image? No you don't.

Once you can sell your work without the microsites, then stop selling on them. Job done! In the real world only a fraction of artistic endeavour is sold and only a fraction of that sells for big money. Competition is fierce.

Now for the other side. Those supposedly money-grabbing site operators. I think we all forget about the costs of running a site. if you look at the pictures hosted and the sales you'll probably find that they're hosting a lot more images than they can sell and have huge bandwidth requirements. As a customer I buy few images, but download a lot of watermarked images to consider.

I really think that looking at the $50 barrier is a bit misleading. I don't particularly like the cutoff but I can understand why it's there. The important thing is to consider the positive aspects of a microsite in promoting yourself and testing the market rather than worrying about how much money you aren't making. Lets face it, if you aren't making money on a microsite, you probably aren't making money elsewhere either. If you are making lots of money elsewhere, don't bother with the microsite.

Anyway, I think I'm done with this now. Dead horses and all that.

Paul