Author Topic: Wow Stockfresh! (Read 37609 times)

Noedelhap · « **Reply #25 on:** July 20, 2011, 09:47 »

I got the same reply:

"We have two different price lists for rasterized and vector files. One is based on size, the other one is based on complexity, they are consistent all over the site, so therefore it is possible that a huge rasterized file can cost more than the vector file itself. This is completely normal, XXL JPG's are a courtesy for those who don't want to bother or can't work with vectors and they will have to pay more for the convenience.

Best regards,
Peter Hamza"

LOL, what. In my opinion vectors are worth more because they are editable and scalable.

So I'm going to delete my vectors. Is there any way to do that without deleting the JPG's?

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #26 on:** July 20, 2011, 18:44 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on July 20, 2011, 09:47

I got the same reply:

"We have two different price lists for rasterized and vector files. One is based on size, the other one is based on complexity, they are consistent all over the site, so therefore it is possible that a huge rasterized file can cost more than the vector file itself. This is completely normal, XXL JPG's are a courtesy for those who don't want to bother or can't work with vectors and they will have to pay more for the convenience.

Best regards,
Peter Hamza"

LOL, what. In my opinion vectors are worth more because they are editable and scalable.

So I'm going to delete my vectors. Is there any way to do that without deleting the JPG's?

I can't undertand his logic. He is pricing the vectors taking only his cost into account and not the actual market value of vectors. I don't have many of them so it won't effect me much but I want them to succeed. Without vectors, they're holding themselves back. Some buyers only buy vectors.

Did you tell him you're about to delete your vectors because of the cheap price?

pancaketom · « **Reply #27 on:** July 20, 2011, 19:29 »

Think of it as the XXL rasters being overpriced for the lazy as opposed to the vectors being underpriced below them.

Now, if you disagree with the vector price, that is a valid reason to not upload there, but I wouldn't not upload vectors just because some other format and size is more expensive.

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #28 on:** July 20, 2011, 19:44 »

Quote from: pancaketom on July 20, 2011, 19:29

Think of it as the XXL rasters being overpriced for the lazy as opposed to the vectors being underpriced below them.

Now, if you disagree with the vector price, that is a valid reason to not upload there, but I wouldn't not upload vectors just because some other format and size is more expensive.

I don't think of XXL rasters being downloaded by the lazy. Quite the opposite. Usually it takes a lot more work to isolate a jpeg. If we were talking PNGs then that would hold true but jpegs can be a pain to work with.

I aslo believe that you're doing yourself out of pocket if you upload vectors at SF, unless of course they price your vector at the highest level.

If I have a vector at SF selling for 5 credits and it sells for 20 credits elsewhere, the buyer, who probably has an account elsewhere since Stockfresh in new, is more likely to buy the vector at SF and not at the dearer price elsewhere.... putting me out of pocket. If I don't upload the vector at SF and they really want a vector, they're likely going to look at their other agencies and buy from there.

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #29 on:** July 20, 2011, 19:51 »

The other thing I'm finding difficult to swallow is Peter's reasong that JPEGs use up more space than vectors. How does that work when we have to upload a high resolution JPEG along with the EPS anyway.

Even if that were true and they were trying to limit storage space, they should lift the vector price to encourage more EPS uploads to save them storage.

Yeah, I don't understand his reasoning at all.

Peter, if you're looking in and you have the time, do you mind popping in to discuss it further?

Noedelhap · « **Reply #30 on:** July 21, 2011, 03:55 »

Quote from: pseudonymous on July 20, 2011, 18:44

Did you tell him you're about to delete your vectors because of the cheap price?

No, I said I'd do it because of the lower price compared to the XL JPG's.

Quote from: pancaketom on July 20, 2011, 19:29

Think of it as the XXL rasters being overpriced for the lazy as opposed to the vectors being underpriced below them.

That's what Peter says, but in my opinion, a JPG severely limits your possibilities in using the image. That outweighs any "convencience for not having to deal with vector files". Therefore they should be cheaper.

peter_stockfresh · « **Reply #31 on:** August 23, 2011, 04:30 »

Hi Everyone,

I got a message that I should take a look at this topic.
Looks like there are two main questions about vectors:

1. Why can vectors be cheaper than XXL JPG's?
As I explained earlier, pricing is different for photos and vectors. Photo prices are based on download size and vector prices are based on complexity. Other agencies might not be offering raster versions of vector files so you don't see this "inconsistency" where a simple $1 vector can be downloaded in XXL for $20. We offer these files for convenience, because not everyone wants to bother with vector editing software. This has been our logic since the old days (StockXpert included). Very few people complained about this. Anyway, if you don't like this idea and don't want XXL JPG versions of your vectors to be sold, you can upload smaller files like some people, but you are limiting your own sales potential.

2. Why are vectors priced lower than they are worth?
Vectors are priced by humans and there can be mistakes. If you think your vectors are priced lower than they should be, let us know through the support form and we'll fix it. If you come to MSG to complain instead of telling us, that's not going to do any good because we are not here all the time. Those who emailed us always got their prices fixed. The whole point of the site is to offer a fair deal to contributors, why would we want to sell stuff for prices way below average?

For those who might have deleted their files out of rage: it really didn't make much sense because you never asked about the actual prices themselves (i.e. why are my vectors being sold for $1 when they should be at least $5), you only talked about the fact that there are XXL JPG versions sold for more, hence my reply. I guess it's easier to throw a tantrum on a public forum telling everyone how stupid or evil we are than to ask us the right question...

cidepix · « **Reply #32 on:** August 23, 2011, 05:10 »

Thanks for the detailed explanation Peter.. I guess I confused you with agencies like fotolia and IS..

It's nice to see that you are nothing like it..

Quote from: peter_stockfresh on August 23, 2011, 04:30

Hi Everyone,

I got a message that I should take a look at this topic.
Looks like there are two main questions about vectors:

1. Why can vectors be cheaper than XXL JPG's?
As I explained earlier, pricing is different for photos and vectors. Photo prices are based on download size and vector prices are based on complexity. Other agencies might not be offering raster versions of vector files so you don't see this "inconsistency" where a simple $1 vector can be downloaded in XXL for $20. We offer these files for convenience, because not everyone wants to bother with vector editing software. This has been our logic since the old days (StockXpert included). Very few people complained about this. Anyway, if you don't like this idea and don't want XXL JPG versions of your vectors to be sold, you can upload smaller files like some people, but you are limiting your own sales potential.

2. Why are vectors priced lower than they are worth?
Vectors are priced by humans and there can be mistakes. If you think your vectors are priced lower than they should be, let us know through the support form and we'll fix it. If you come to MSG to complain instead of telling us, that's not going to do any good because we are not here all the time. Those who emailed us always got their prices fixed. The whole point of the site is to offer a fair deal to contributors, why would we want to sell stuff for prices way below average?

For those who might have deleted their files out of rage: it really didn't make much sense because you never asked about the actual prices themselves (i.e. why are my vectors being sold for $1 when they should be at least $5), you only talked about the fact that there are XXL JPG versions sold for more, hence my reply. I guess it's easier to throw a tantrum on a public forum telling everyone how stupid or evil we are than to ask us the right question...

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #33 on:** August 23, 2011, 10:33 »

Quote from: peter_stockfresh on August 23, 2011, 04:30

Hi Everyone,

I got a message that I should take a look at this topic.
Looks like there are two main questions about vectors:

1. Why can vectors be cheaper than XXL JPG's?
As I explained earlier, pricing is different for photos and vectors. Photo prices are based on download size and vector prices are based on complexity. Other agencies might not be offering raster versions of vector files so you don't see this "inconsistency" where a simple $1 vector can be downloaded in XXL for $20. We offer these files for convenience, because not everyone wants to bother with vector editing software. This has been our logic since the old days (StockXpert included). Very few people complained about this. Anyway, if you don't like this idea and don't want XXL JPG versions of your vectors to be sold, you can upload smaller files like some people, but you are limiting your own sales potential.

2. Why are vectors priced lower than they are worth?
Vectors are priced by humans and there can be mistakes. If you think your vectors are priced lower than they should be, let us know through the support form and we'll fix it. If you come to MSG to complain instead of telling us, that's not going to do any good because we are not here all the time. Those who emailed us always got their prices fixed. The whole point of the site is to offer a fair deal to contributors, why would we want to sell stuff for prices way below average?

For those who might have deleted their files out of rage: it really didn't make much sense because you never asked about the actual prices themselves (i.e. why are my vectors being sold for $1 when they should be at least $5), you only talked about the fact that there are XXL JPG versions sold for more, hence my reply. I guess it's easier to throw a tantrum on a public forum telling everyone how stupid or evil we are than to ask us the right question...

With all due respect Peter, people did contact you but we didn't see the logic in your response. I still don't see the logic in this response.

1. Why can vectors be cheaper than XXL JPG's?

If the JPG is created from the raw vector, shouldn't the vector be more expensive or at least the same as an XXL image? A buyer can grab my tiny little vector and blow it up to the size of a truck if they want, in any format. Further more, they can change the colours and move things around. You say that other agencies might not be offering raster versions of vectors? Most do and here's a few I've looked at. I didn't look at IS because their pricing is all over the place and Fotolia's pricing is horrible for any format:

Dreamstime, Level 1 image: Maximum (XXL) 10 credits, EPS 20 credits
Canstock: XXL $10, EPS $10
123RF: XXL 10 credits, EPS 10 credits
Bigstock: XL (max) $3, Vector $3
Featurepic: XXL $10, EPS $10
DepositPhotos: XXL 6 credits, EPS 9 credits
Veer: XXL 20 credits, EPS 20 credits

You say your pricing of vectors compared to Jpegs is aligned with the market but it's pretty clear that they're not.

You imply that JPEGs are more expensive than vectors "because not everyone wants to bother with vector editing software", but I think it's the other way around. Most designers don't want to bother with Jpegs, especially for isolated illustrations. Maybe this statement would be true if we were comparing PNGs to vectors but JPEGs are a real pain to work with.

2. Why are vectors priced lower than they are worth?

This is the whole problem. Before we upload, we want to know what we'll be getting. Who can be bothered going through the upload process only to have to argue on email when you deem a vector cheaper than it's worth, and then delete it. You should have a standard price for vectors like you do everything else.

I don't blame people for wiping their vectors and I'm affraid after your explaination, you'll probably get more people deleting them.

I want to see stockfresh succeed, but I believe you're not doing yourself any favours by keeping vector artists away with those prices. Vector for $1. Come on now, that's pretty insulting and it's more insulting when that 'simple' vector is converted to an XXL JPG for 20 credits. It makes absolutely no sense at all and I'm sorry to say, but it makes StockFresh look a tad like they don't know what they're doing.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #34 on:** August 23, 2011, 14:49 »

I always forget to use my daily quota at Stockfresh, which means it will take basically forever - instead of years - to upload my entire port

thanks to this thread for remembering me about Stockfresh

madelaide · « **Reply #35 on:** August 23, 2011, 16:09 »

I must say that I don't understand why vectors are ranked by detail. If that logic prevails, photos would also need that. Think of all of you with several models and studio equipment vs simple object stills. I have very simple illustrations - as raster, not vectors - that sell well. Would they be less valuable because they're simple?

madelaide · « **Reply #38 on:** August 23, 2011, 17:15 »

Quote from: peter_stockfresh on August 23, 2011, 16:24

Would be interesting to change to a model where simple photos are cheaper, but to some extent size makes sense too. After all, having a small illustration on a blog shouldn't cost as much as a pic for a billboard campaign. But that's a whole different story.

But then that's why we have different prices for different sizes. It is also a legacy of how microstock started that the regular license is so lenient in its use.

For instance, I never understood why a CD or book cover does not require an EL. People do not buy a CD or a book by the cover, but it is a very important selling point, proven by the fact that big recording companies and publishers hire reknowned designers for their more important products.

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #39 on:** August 23, 2011, 18:28 »

Quote from: peter_stockfresh on August 23, 2011, 16:17

Quote from: hasleftthebuilding on August 23, 2011, 10:33
Dreamstime, Level 1 image: Maximum (XXL) 10 credits, EPS 20 credits
Canstock: XXL $10, EPS $10
123RF: XXL 10 credits, EPS 10 credits
Bigstock: XL (max) $3, Vector $3
Featurepic: XXL $10, EPS $10
DepositPhotos: XXL 6 credits, EPS 9 credits
Veer: XXL 20 credits, EPS 20 credits

I think you are referring to the most expensive files on each site although some of those numbers are wrong.
Anyway, on Stockfresh XXL JPEGs and high complexity EPS files both cost $20 which is fair.

No I'm not comparing the "most expensive" I'm comparing the two formats that are relevant here that happen to be the most expensive on most sites which makes sense.

Some of those numbers are wrong? I just looked them up and copied them from image pages comparing the same jpeg to the same vector, Peter, so they're not wrong. Want to point out to me which one's are wrong?

Quote

$20 JPEGs might look strange next to a simple $1 vector file, but we are not going to have different JPEG prices for certain images just to make it look less weird for some people. For consistency reasons they are the same for all images, and since this whole argument is about vectors being too cheap in general, it's irrelevant anyway.

To "some" people? I think you'll find it's weird to "most" people. This argumenent isn't about vectors being cheap in general, it's about it be being cheap compared it's related JPEG which was created from the vector. If the vector's cheap, then the jpeg should be cheap. If the vector is expensive, the jpg shoud be too.... they're the same image in a different format. If you're going to compare formats alone, vectors are typically more expensive than the jpeg because of their usability.

Quote from: hasleftthebuilding on August 23, 2011, 10:33

Before we upload, we want to know what we'll be getting.

I think it's pretty clear. (Except for the occasional pricing mistakes which can always be corrected.)
http://stockfresh.com/info/prices
http://stockfresh.com/info/upload_guide

No it's not clear because it's judgemental. The price is decided after we upload. And who's to say less complex vectors are less marketable and therefore less worthy?

Quote from: hasleftthebuilding on August 23, 2011, 10:33

I want to see stockfresh succeed, but I believe you're not doing yourself any favours by keeping vector artists away with those prices. Vector for $1.

Only about 5% of vectors cost $1 on Stockfresh. Over half of them cost $5 and the rest $10 and $20.
[/quote]

That's 5% too much and plus most of them you deem less worthy than it's corresponding vector. How many vectors are $20?

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #40 on:** August 23, 2011, 18:32 »

Quote from: madelaide on August 23, 2011, 17:15

Quote from: peter_stockfresh on August 23, 2011, 16:24
Would be interesting to change to a model where simple photos are cheaper, but to some extent size makes sense too. After all, having a small illustration on a blog shouldn't cost as much as a pic for a billboard campaign. But that's a whole different story.

But then that's why we have different prices for different sizes. It is also a legacy of how microstock started that the regular license is so lenient in its use.

For instance, I never understood why a CD or book cover does not require an EL. People do not buy a CD or a book by the cover, but it is a very important selling point, proven by the fact that big recording companies and publishers hire reknowned designers for their more important products.

I've been saying the same thing about book covers for so long. I'm glad someone else sees it that way. In the licence of my site, I've added book covers to extended licences. Thanks for reminding me about CD covers.

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #41 on:** August 23, 2011, 21:36 »

Quote from: cclapper on August 23, 2011, 21:10

Quote from: hasleftthebuilding on August 23, 2011, 18:13
Quote from: cclapper on August 23, 2011, 14:09
Quote from: hasleftthebuilding on August 23, 2011, 11:43
Because I can?

I've already been through this.

Oh, I must have missed the explanation. Can you point me to the thread?

That's right, you were sunnymars, then pseudonymous. If you are anonymous anyway, why keep changing names? That I don't understand.

1. mind your own business.

2. if you can't do 1. then look it up yourself. Nosy AND lazy?

he/she's back!

So do you have any new thoughts about the issues raised about stockfresh vectors or are you just here to stir the pot? I'm trying here to discuss the stockfresh issue and hopefully get Peter to rethink his vector prices so that I can then promote this site to fellow illustrators, but I have this nagging little puppy that's distracting me by persistently biting at my shoe lace. Any chance you can find something else to chew on so I don't have to receive emails only to come back here and find more crap that has nothing to do with the issues raised in this thread?

What's your point anyway? You don't understand why I'm not using my original name? Why don't you understand that? Weren't you one of the people who rallied up against me when I new here and insulted me? I fired back and then you and your pals rallied up to have me banned so that wiped my original name out and I couldn't use it. Hence the pseudo name. I told you that I've already explained this name in another thread but if you're too lazy to look it up, that's your problem. I'm not typing it all again in this thread. Obviously I'm not hiding who I am. If I wanted to do that I would create a new ID. I've explained myself in the anonymity thread. If you missed it, BAD LUCK, Miss I-Have-To-Know-Everything. You're the main reason why I had the anonymous name so if you don't like it, suck it up and move on. You're just being a child now.

And, you can click the 'ignore' button all you like but unfortunately, it doesn't work for nosy people. No-one's going to buy it. We all know you're going to keep clicking the "unignore" button (or whatever it's called - cause I don't use it), each time I post anything

I mean you've just come in here solely for the purpose of causing trouble and yet you've ignored me? LOL You're weird! It's me that doesn't want to interact with you so you ~~ignoring me~~, no no... ~~trying to ignore me~~, no no no... trying to give the impression that you've ignored me... has no effect on me whatsoever.

cthoman · « **Reply #42 on:** August 23, 2011, 22:05 »

Quote from: peter_stockfresh on August 23, 2011, 16:24

After all, having a small illustration on a blog shouldn't cost as much as a pic for a billboard campaign. But that's a whole different story.

Actually, I think the exact opposite. It's not a rights managed system, so every license should cost the same. After all, you're not paying for use or size, you're paying for the license. One license, one price. I understand the market doesn't do that in general, but I wouldn't mind the industry moving in more of that direction.

Also, since the subject of repricing has come up, any chance Stockfresh includes price setting options on the contributor side? Personally, I like to set my own prices on the sites that allow it. I think it lets me have a little more control of how my business is run.

Overall, I was excited about Stockfresh, but, frankly, it has been low sales with low returns per sale. I think you have a great opportunity to make something that is better than the rest, but, so far, it has been a little bit more of the same. Just constructive criticism and not an attack though (I still see a lot of potential).

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #43 on:** August 23, 2011, 22:41 »

Quote from: cthoman on August 23, 2011, 22:05

Actually, I think the exact opposite. It's not a rights managed system, so every license should cost the same. After all, you're not paying for use or size, you're paying for the license. One license, one price. I understand the market doesn't do that in general, but I wouldn't mind the industry moving in more of that direction.

I don't believe that would work because most sites place restrictions on the size that buyers can post on the net... usually 800x600px If they were to have one licence for all sizes, they would have to lift that restriction and then we have more XXL images floating around the net and that would lead to more IP theft. Personally I prefer people paying more for a larger image or vector (because it can be made into a large image) than all one price. I too think that Stockfresh has enormous potential so I hope they do something about their vectors. One thing I like about them is their limited size subscriptions. I don't like subscriptions in general but the restriction helps me swallow it down a little easier. I don't know about anyone else but whenever one of my my maximum sized images or vectors are sold under a subs plan, it makes me feel like my heart has been ripped out.

Peter, back to the vector prices... look it this way. A buyer who "can't be bothered with vector editing software" will most likely end up bothering with it, if it means it will save them up to $19 per image if they buy the vector and not the jpeg. They will then resize it to the XXL jpeg or whatever format they want. There's no real incentive for the buyer to purchase the XXL jpeg when the vector is possibly so cheap and thus there's no real incentive for vector artists to upload their vectors to Stockfresh.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #44 on:** August 23, 2011, 22:43 »

Alright, since Peter will not change the vector prices, I've just deleted my entire port at Stockfresh.

Fotolia has the same illogical price scheme:

Standard XS     1 credit
Standard S     3 credits
Standard M     5 credits
Standard L     7 credits
Standard XL     8 credits
Standard XXL    10 credits
Vector V     6 credits
Extended XV    40 credits

A vector on Fotolia costs 6 credits: that's less than an L, XL or XXL jpg. So far, none of my sold files have been a size L or bigger! Possible explanation: the customers who wanted an L or bigger, simply bought the cheaper vector and resized the image themselves. And who can blame them? Even a child can blow up an image in a vector program and export it.

And yes, I will delete my vectors there as well.

cthoman · « **Reply #45 on:** August 24, 2011, 00:44 »

Quote from: hasleftthebuilding on August 23, 2011, 22:41

Quote from: cthoman on August 23, 2011, 22:05
Actually, I think the exact opposite. It's not a rights managed system, so every license should cost the same. After all, you're not paying for use or size, you're paying for the license. One license, one price. I understand the market doesn't do that in general, but I wouldn't mind the industry moving in more of that direction.

I don't believe that would work because most sites place restrictions on the size that buyers can post on the net... usually 800x600px If they were to have one licence for all sizes, they would have to lift that restriction and then we have more XXL images floating around the net and that would lead to more IP theft.

That's pretty much what iStock does with vectors, so I'm not sure how it wouldn't work. They give you the vector and high res jpeg for one price (regardless of use). They do have a complexity scale, but they could price all their vectors at one price. I could see adding a low res cheap option for web use only (to bring in a certain budget customer), but all the other sizes seem to just undercut the price of vectors and high res files.

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #46 on:** August 24, 2011, 01:38 »

Quote from: cthoman on August 24, 2011, 00:44

That's pretty much what iStock does with vectors, so I'm not sure how it wouldn't work. They give you the vector and high res jpeg for one price (regardless of use). They do have a complexity scale, but they could price all their vectors at one price. I could see adding a low res cheap option for web use only (to bring in a certain budget customer), but all the other sizes seem to just undercut the price of vectors and high res files.

Interesting, I didn't know that and skipped over their licence agreement when I was doing my research a few weeks back. I bet that's why iStock's resolution restriction for web usage is higher than than the rest of them (1200 x 800 px).

On a side note, if anyone's interested, I have a rough spreadsheet where I was comparing licences from four agents... I've just added it to google docs. The tick marks converted to "Ps" and the crosses converted to "Os" when I uploaded it. Feel free to grab and update it for yourselves or for a new topic here. It might come in handy to someone. I would do it but I'm pressed for time lately.

http://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ai9dhorY3ovxdGR0Y3RZUGc5d1VaTmEwN0VJYVVySnc&hl=en_US#gid=0

@Noodelhap. I think you acted a bit too soon, although I can't say I blame you. I just saw on SF's forum (I just noticed they have forums today) that Peter wrote "we'll fix it" when someone brought up Vector pricing yesteday. I don't know exactly what that means but maybe they will redo their pricing?

fujiko · « **Reply #49 on:** August 24, 2011, 05:51 »

I think it would be nice to be able to see the price of vectors on "My Images" list.
And a button to ask for increased price would be awesome.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Wow Stockfresh! (Read 37609 times)

Noedelhap

TheSmilingAssassin

pancaketom

TheSmilingAssassin

TheSmilingAssassin

Noedelhap

peter_stockfresh

cidepix

TheSmilingAssassin

microstockphoto.co.uk

madelaide

peter_stockfresh

peter_stockfresh

madelaide

TheSmilingAssassin

TheSmilingAssassin

TheSmilingAssassin

cthoman

TheSmilingAssassin

Noedelhap

cthoman

TheSmilingAssassin

peter_stockfresh

peter_stockfresh

fujiko

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors