Sockxpert.com - Stock Images. Yours?

[remi]

Chris,

I must say I don't think, that there are a lot of artists which sells thousands of copies through such sites. I mean, if I would run such a website, I would try to sing the same "marketing songs". We can't control it, but we can say them, that their business model and their license fees are not okay for the artists. It's just not fair.

As for the presence of commercial "community developer" at talkgraphics.com - we have some strict rules for "advertising" by new forum members. I know, it sounds not nice, but coming into a forum as a employer of a commercial website and trying to talk about the "advantages" of this website isn't the best idea...

In the end, our members decides by themself, if they want to use such 1 EUR stocksites or not.

Remi

[RTK]

So, Does this mean "I" didn't do anything wrong either? And, if I "have" been bothersome to any moderators, as stated,I apologize. I just saw this as maybe a good place to get work more exposure..

As Gary, Remi and I all said - you do as you please. The last (thank you) PM you sent to me, you said that you didn't realize that you only made half-on-the-dollar and nothing if you only sold $49 worth. At least you learned something, eh?

As I said in my last post - research and make up your own mind. Don't sign up to anything simply because a link is posted here on TG.

Risto

[geminiguy]

I definitely did learn from it. And I am grateful for yourself and the mods looking our for our best interest. (Im sure there are others who feel the same here)
I don't always pay full attention (partially because Im psycotic) But I am also extremely new to the pc graphics world... and thus, easy prey.
This thread definitely has taught me to pay more attention, and shop around... as well as given excellent advice on choices...
Thank you

I have to add, that I think this entire situation has brought about a very important topic and maybe there could be more set up to assist others like myself from the advice of those in the know??

[gwpriester]

Risto

You mention two of the biggest stock image/photo companies Corbis and Getty.

But do you have stock images with either? I don't and I don't know very many people who are at the professional level they demand.

Stockxperts is one company that is more appropriate for the non-professional who wants to license her or his images but does not want to do so on coffee cups and t'shirts.

You are not going to get rich with Stockxperts, but you might sell some images. If you sell a lot of images, let's say you have one or two really popular images, you might make enough to take the wife (or husband, partner, significant other, etc.) out for a meal.

And you might get your work out in front of the public.

If your images happen to sell like hot cakes, then you have a good reason to contact Corbis or Getty and say, hey, I've sold a pile of images on Stockxperts and you should consider taking me on.

As you and I both know, you have to start somewhere.

I do wish this topic would be put back in the Xara forum, where I originally intended it to be posted. But this is your decision and I respect it.

Gary

[RTK]

You mention two of the biggest stock image/photo companies Corbis and Getty.

But do you have stock images with either? I don't and I don't know very many people who are at the professional level they demand.

I don't think you understand the business model (read my first post)… istockphoto.com and snapvillage.com are micro stock sites owned and operated by Corbis and Getty… The micro stock sites have nothing to do with their main sites.

Stockxperts is one company that is more appropriate for the non-professional who wants to license her or his images but does not want to do so on coffee cups and t'shirts.

You are joking right? And option to CafePress' mugs and sub-par t-shirts? Did you read my first post at all? Did you visit the sites? I do hope that they see themselves as being cut-above that quality...

As I explained, the money is in the volume and lots of little streams of pennies… Same as with any other micro stock stock site - they need volume to make it work for them, so everyone can sign up!

Again, ALL micro stock sites are OPEN to EVERONE! (Again - even the Corbis and Getty one!) The business model wouldn't work otherwise…

You are not going to get rich with Stockxperts, but you might sell some images. If you sell a lot of images, let's say you have one or two really popular images, you might make enough to take the wife (or husband, partner, significant other, etc.) out for a meal.

Wow... But if you sell just a little bit short, all you accomplished was to give away your images for free (and generated some income for the people that runs the site).

And you might get your work out in front of the public.

Well, you could also end up gving it away for free if you don't make the minimum payout level, as "thanks" for that "exposure".

As you and I both know, you have to start somewhere.

I’m merely suggesting that member do their homework before deciding which site to go with (if they want to take a crack at it) and not just blindly sign up with the one you are currently helping to promote.

I do wish this topic would be put back in the Xara forum, where I originally intended it to be posted. But this is your decision and I respect it.

Thanks. Sorry, this has nothing to do with Xara products, nor does it belong in the Photoshop of Photography Gallery forum either.

Risto

[RTK]

Replying to a PM here also, to clarify the "free" part in my last post.

Let's say that all members on TG are active (15,404 members) and we all sell 40 low-res images (at a buck a pop) each on a micro stock site.

This will generate over six-hundred-thousand dollars in sales ($616,160 to be exact). Of this money, how much is paid back to the artists? Answer: ZERO dollars.

You don't get paid anything unless (if) you reach the minimum payout level of $50 (The payout levels vary depending on the site). That's an amazing little plus for this business model. Wouldn't you say?

Don't you think this was a contributing factor to Getty buying istockphoto.com for $50 million in 2005? Yeah, probably...

The example above is of course a pretty bad scenario but it's there to illustrate the business model... Sure, minimum payout levels are common place on the Web. But it doesn’t make it any less beneficial for the people that operate the sites - especially at $50 per person.

Can you think of an equally skewed scenario in "real-life"? You return your empties at the grocery store and they tell that they will pay you nothing unless you return another 10 at later dates... What would you say? Would government agencies look in to it? You better believe it...

Again, as in area of life, if you are good at what you do - you’ll make money. The more desirable your knowledge, skills and work are - the more money you will make. It’s simply a fact of life.

Do some people make some money with micro stock site? I'm sure some do...

I'm not saying that the mentioned micro stock site is any better or worse than the slew of other sites out there. I'm merely suggesting that you to do your research if you are thinking about signing up with one (or a few of them).

That's all.

Risto

[pauland]

I suspect that many posters here would be happy to sell some of their work for a negligible sum, just as a way of sharing and getting even a little commercial recognition for their work. It's not all about money.

In any event, whose to say what a few images sold for an euro might lead to in terms of more lucrative work? I for one am very grateful that people do allow their work to be sold on these sites.

I am grateful for the debate about the economics of these sites and really do feel the better for it, but I think the agressive tone against these sites is best left out of the forums. The point has been well made.

I'm actually dissapointed by the reception given to the guy from stockxpert. I think that while he did have a personal agenda, he was not from some fly by night operation and many people did actually point out competing sites.

So basically, we're all adults, can form an opinion and not everyone wants to make a big income from their work, but it doesn't mean their selling out in some way.

2p from me.

Paul

[handrawn]

I agree, everyone makes there own choice.

And I have sympathy for Risto as administrator. As I understand it the rules say that we can link to sites we think are useful but we cannot promote them within the forums. There are obvious very good reasons for this, and if exceptions were made, where would it end?
I personally do not want sales pitch here, no matter how well intended it is, or how it is phrased - I'll read it if its linked and interesting, but not here please, we'd end up swamped.
This is not personal to those involved here, its what I believe is healthy for TG.

[a4hire]

Thank you Risto and Remi for pointing out how the business model works. I think I can make more money promoting my own web site and selling any work from there.

[handrawn]

would agree myself

and I'm old-fashioned - select your market first and then design a product for it, not the other way round - but thats maybe just me