|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - peter_stockfresh
26
« on: November 17, 2011, 10:15 »
We've decided to accept files like these, but I still think that these effects can be problematic for some customers who expect to have these images printed without having to edit them. Thanks for the feedback, Icefront!  If you have any other comments or suggestions just let me know.
27
« on: November 17, 2011, 10:02 »
Thank you all for your comments! I'm sure many of you are impatient and would like to see your sales grow fast, but it will take a while for the site to take off. It's very tricky to attract customers these days and if you're not doing it right, you can waste a ton of money. We're doing marketing of course, just not at the scale some others do. Most of our competitors who grow quicker either had a sizeable 3rd party investment or have a huge community to rely on. We've started from scratch with some of our own money, with zero images and zero customers so we have a lot of hard work to do. We're still at the very beginning but at least we can now say that we have something to sell!  Fortunately, we have mastered the way of doing things super efficiently therefore we're not going away any time soon because of financial problems. We're here for the long run! I'd just like to say that I'm really happy that you support us even though sales are still low. Although I understand why some of you would refrain from uploading while sales pick up (time = money), there's really no point in deleting your port from any site out of protest once you've got all the pics online. You literally don't have to do anything with them and if sales eventually do pick up and you decide to start again, it will be a waste of everyone's time. I see some people hopping from site to site changing their minds and I never understood that. So once again thank you for your support, we know you want more and we're going to work hard on increasing your sales. As for the applications, I'll check them ASAP. We still have quite a number of people waiting. I'm not here all the time so if you have any questions you can also reach me directly through our contact form.
28
« on: October 12, 2011, 12:03 »
Hey Everyone, I'd just like to let you know that we've just reached 1 million images! Thank you very much for your continued support, we would be nowhere without you. Someone please tell Tyler to get a cake icon for posts like these  I have to get back to work now, but I'll pop in from time to time. Cheers! Peter
29
« on: September 16, 2011, 06:59 »
I have ignored whoami, but seeing as Lisa quoted her, I think it's worth pointing out that StockXpert was not sold to Getty but to Jupiter Images. Once Jupiter was purchased by Getty (something Peter had nothing to do with), Getty closed StockXpert.
What difference does that make? The point was that they sold a good site and sold everyone out. It was a waste of their time uploading. (...) The fact that Peter sold StockXpert says a lot about his attachment and passion for the site. I'm sure it will the same with StockFresh only this time it won't be worth much.
Just to make things clear: in Jan 2006 we sold 49% of our company to Jupiterimages because we were very new to the microstock game and felt a huge pressure as we didn't want to screw up. That was right at the start of StockXpert by the way, so I guess most people joined an already sold out site. Anyway, we thought they would bring a lot of experience to the table, and the reason why we sold only 49% because we wanted to be careful and didn't want to give up control on our sites. Things went great for a while and they were interested to buy more, so we sold up to 90%, of course still with certain guarantees on control. Nobody knew in advance that in 2008 the whole economy would collapse which would also put their parent company into a difficult financial situation and they would have to sell the entire images department to Getty. After the sale we still had our 10% and tried to work with them, but it was clear that they wanted to do things the opposite way, so we left and sold our remaining share. End of story. Oh, and Marina, as for attachment and passion, I personally designed and programmed and wrote every single bit of text on SXC, Stockxpert and Stockfresh and I put a tremendous amount of work and dedication into every single one of those sites (way beyond what most people would care to do) and you have absolutely no idea what those sites mean / meant to me. I didn't want to bring this up but you compared yourself a superhero just for starting a flamewar in a forum so this might help putting things in perspective.
30
« on: September 15, 2011, 08:53 »
Now I've managed to increase your revenue at printbusinesscards and at stockfresh because I kicked up a big enough fuss about it.. at my expense. While having noone here stand beside me but insulting me in the process.
It wasn't you who got the prices raised so don't take all the credit for that, on the other hand it _was_ you who hijacked and killed the whole conversation and started hurling completely unnecessary insults at other people, which probably explains why they didn't stand beside you, even though they might have agreed with your arguments. Anyway, thanks for the feedback everyone, I hope these new prices are acceptable. If you have any problems just let us know. And don't forget, from now on EPS 10 files are also welcome!
31
« on: August 24, 2011, 04:59 »
@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?
Some of the vector files are known to be priced wrong so we're doing a review and bump up the ones that are in the wrong category. By default only very simple files should cost $1. If we find that many files can be bumped up we'll even get rid of the $1 category. We obviously want to have fair prices on the site and it is not our intention to rip anyone off. Personally I don't believe in the one price for all solution though that many sites enforce because for example a 64 piece icon set should not cost the same as a single icon.
32
« on: August 24, 2011, 04:01 »
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.
Not really, we don't have plans for that at the moment. 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).
Success doesn't happen overnight.
33
« on: August 23, 2011, 16:24 »
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?
Well, because that's how microstock started and it's going to be like that, at least for quite a while. I think vectors are priced logically. 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.
34
« on: August 23, 2011, 16:17 »
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. $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. 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/priceshttp://stockfresh.com/info/upload_guideI 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.
35
« 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...
36
« on: April 27, 2011, 11:38 »
@Slovenian
Although it probably doesn't make sense to bother with all the smaller agencies, it definitely doesn't make sense to put all your eggs into one basket in the long run. Just a little tweak to the search engine on any of your preferred sites can make your earnings hit the floor if you're unlucky. It might be wise to have a plan B for tougher times and spend some time building portfolios elsewhere.
37
« on: April 26, 2011, 05:11 »
Please keep in mind that SUB downloads are limited up to M size.
38
« on: March 23, 2011, 09:57 »
Worst sites in regard to uploading imo:
iStock
Veer
Stockfresh (unfortunately)
Dreamstime (upload JPEG, wait half an hour, describe and finally attach an EPS that will get accepted half a month after the JPEG)
What's wrong with Stockfresh?
39
« on: March 21, 2011, 09:20 »
It says they are located in Budapest, Hungary.
Isn't that where Stockfresh is located as well?
I would like to see FD's research and opinion.
We have nothing to do with this company. In fact, I found out today that they even existed. Some of the text on their site is clearly "inspired" by what I wrote for StockXpert and Stockfresh.
40
« on: March 21, 2011, 07:32 »
Well, we've been experimenting with all kinds of advertising options in the past few weeks and we've seen an increase in traffic. It seems word is finally starting to get out which is quite encouraging. I'm also expecting a noticeable increase in sales by adding a second payment processor to the site. This is going to happen quite soon. <- Btw thanks for the Verified Seal, Tyler! 
41
« on: March 21, 2011, 06:59 »
Meanwhile, StockXpert site still states 3-day payment processing period... 
Good old times. I wrote that text 6(!) years ago...
42
« on: February 15, 2011, 14:05 »
Hi Phillip, I actually replied to your second message on Feb 13, around 2PM CET. The message was sent from my personal account by accident (I forgot to switch to the SF account) so it might have gone unnoticed or ended up in a spam folder. I read both of your messages and it seemed to me that you had made up your mind so I simply closed the account as you requested.
I agree with the air conditioning photo, that could have been accepted. The Eiffel pic is on the borderline. It looks great in thumbnail, but you can see that it was taken with a very old camera when you go full size. Although we're a budget site, customers still expect a lot for their money. Overall I think it could be accepted because it's a useful shot taken from a great angle, but qualitywise that's the minimum I'd expect as a customer from a site like this.
43
« on: January 31, 2011, 12:32 »
@kaycee
I'm sorry about the rejection of your application. I'm sure sometimes people think we are evil or crazy but the truth is that it's often difficult to decide based on five high res sample images whether the applicant will be a good addition to the site. We have limited resources (hence the long queue) so this selection process is crucial, and we can only work with the info we get.
@tdoes
We're trying to find the middle ground and I believe some of your photos are indeed acceptable for the same reasons you explained. I don't think we are pickier than Istock. We might be pickier than Istock 3-4 years ago but I'm sure they are also pickier than they used to be since the industry is evolving so quickly. It is true though that we pay more attention to details than some of our competitors and that can be annoying, but we must also build customer trust.
44
« on: January 25, 2011, 09:14 »
I'll pop in from time to time, don't worry! Well, as you probably already know we have around 560,000 images at the moment, so the collection is shaping up nicely. As for the marketing drive, it's coming but we are not quite there yet. There are a couple of very important things that we need to sort out first. We really don't want to rush it because you can burn money fast if you're not doing things right. We want to be extra careful. A newsletter is in the works. I also post all the important news on the Stockfresh blog which I'll try to update a bit more often in the future: http://stockfresh.com/blogWe're also on Facebook and Twitter. If there's something important going on, we definitely post it on both sites. http://www.facebook.com/stockfreshhttp://www.twitter.com/stockfresh
45
« on: November 27, 2010, 10:40 »
Well, there was an official launch back in June, but not with a huge advertising campaign if that's the general impression of a "proper" site launch... We are starting slow because as I explained earlier it doesn't make sense to spend bucketloads of money on advertising when you have little to offer compared to the rest of the sites. I think a stock agency needs to have at least a million images to be diverse and serious enough, but of course the more the better. We are now at nearly 500,000 with 1000 contributors, so we obviously need to grow. Sales are fine compared to the size of the collection and our current marketing efforts. Some people are not seeing any sales at all but some contributors are cashing out already. Everything depends on the type of images submitted. If it's not a popular subject, we might not have the critical mass to deliver enough sales. As for views, they are counted very conservatively, customers have to be logged in etc, so you'll probably see low view counts but higher download to view ratios.
46
« on: November 09, 2010, 09:36 »
Just a quick question, are estimate on the number of current buyers available? and how is that expanding...?
I'm sorry, but we're not going to disclose any sales stats.
47
« on: November 09, 2010, 07:39 »
madelaide, I've had one sale for $.50 a couple of days ago, it was an extra small. I'm guessing that's a regular sale, not a sub. Didn't find a way to tell if it was a sub or not.
As far as I know no one pays 50 cents for SUB downloads, so that has to be a PPD one.
48
« on: November 09, 2010, 05:49 »
When my first submission is inspected for quality, will I be notified by email if I am accepted or should I continue to check the website each day?
Everyone gets notified in email. No need to check the site.
49
« on: November 08, 2010, 10:22 »
^^^ This one is different because the owners have had a big previous success with StockXpert. Its still a gamble, as that might not make a huge difference but the upload is so easy, I'm not going to waste much time uploading there.
Exactly. We can't promise success to anyone. I mentioned this in every single email when I invited a couple of people to join. It is a gamble, but I believe that there are a number of reasons why a service like this can work and it is worth a try. If we fail, it's going to be our money and your time wasted. The goal is to make submitting files as effortless as possible, so you don't risk much.
50
« on: November 08, 2010, 10:15 »
@Peter - Is there an estimated date when StockFresh will officially be launched to the public? Or any marketing efforts planned for the near future? Just wondering when we might see some action from SF in terms of getting the word out to buyers.
The site was officially launched in June, but of course with a small collection of files. We are spending a minimal amount of money on marketing at the moment. This will gradually increase but there's no point in shoveling too much money into advertising when you have a relatively small collection compared to everyone else on the market. It's very easy to burn money on the internet if you're not running things efficiently. We're over 400,000 pics now so we're starting to have a reasonably nice collection, but I think we need at least a million files to be diverse enough and to be taken seriously. It also takes a while to saturate Google which is also important for growth. So to sum it up, we have plans and we have the money, but we want to spend it wise.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
