Oh dear, I hadn't noticed that. That's almost as bad as Vectorstock

What ? Where do you see this ? For me it says 5 credits, also for new vectors (didn't it use to be 10 though?)
If this is really the case, I'll have to delete mine too. Not submitting to Vectorstock under that model, and the same would apply to all other agencies attempting to try the same

Some are 5 and some less detailed ones are 1. Still, I don't agree with offering vectors for much less than the XXL Jpeg. How are you going to sell the $20 Jpeg when there is the $5 vector available.. Anyway I already deleted all the images and reuploading as JPEGs at the moment. Attempting to sell even a fraction of my port for $1 is a disgrace and solely for that reason I have deleted the whole port.

They will have to make do with Jpegs, as I have no vectors for $1.

Quote from: ThomasAmby on June 16, 2011, 06:33

What ? Where do you see this ? For me it says 5 credits, also for new vectors (didn't it use to be 10 though?)
If this is really the case, I'll have to delete mine too. Not submitting to Vectorstock under that model, and the same would apply to all other agencies attempting to try the same

Some are 5 and some less detailed ones are 1. Still, I don't agree with offering vectors for much less than the XXL Jpeg. How are you going to sell the $20 Jpeg when there is the $5 vector available.. Anyway I already deleted all the images and reuploading as JPEGs at the moment. Attempting to sell even a fraction of my port for $1 is a disgrace and solely for that reason I have deleted the whole port.

They will have to make to with Jpegs, as I have no vectors for $1.

Yes I agree. I think I'll go about it by finding my $1 vectors and replacing them with JPEGs. I'm fine with tiered pricing, but $1 is bad for everyone - and as you put it, a disgrace to contributors. $5 is in the low end as well.
I hope Stockfresh will come in here to explain

$5 would sound ok if they didn't offer the XXL Jpeg version for $20.. Under their model, $10 is the only acceptable price for vectors.

Isn't it ridiculous that they value a vector at $1 but price the xxl jpeg version of it at $20? How ridiculous is this?

Would you pay $20 for the XXL jpeg while there is an option to get the vector for $5 or $1? By deleting vectors I am actually giving myself a chance to sell the $20 XXL sizes..

$5 would sound ok if they didn't offer the XXL Jpeg version for $20.. Under their model, $10 is the only acceptable price for vectors.

Isn't it ridiculous that they value a vector at $1 but price the xxl jpeg version of it at $20? How ridiculous is this?

Would you pay $20 for the XXL jpeg while there is an option to get the vector for $5 or $1? By deleting vectors I am actually giving myself a chance to sell the $20 XXL sizes..

I agree. An editable vector file should NOT be less money than a jpg. That doesn't even make sense.

$5 would sound ok if they didn't offer the XXL Jpeg version for $20.. Under their model, $10 is the only acceptable price for vectors.

Isn't it ridiculous that they value a vector at $1 but price the xxl jpeg version of it at $20? How ridiculous is this?

Would you pay $20 for the XXL jpeg while there is an option to get the vector for $5 or $1? By deleting vectors I am actually giving myself a chance to sell the $20 XXL sizes..

I have always thought that was weird, but I'm putting up with it at Fotolia. In case of vectors being more expensive than XXL's, Stockfresh would have to price them at at least $20, and that seems a bit too much in this day and age.
I don't know what the solution to this would be, but I'd be happy to get my vectors back at the $10 price point. Fotolia has driven prices down to $4 worst case scenario, and that's bad enough.

My point is vectors can't be offered for less than jpegs... How many $20 XXL size sales do you expect to get?
These vectors are NOT $5: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-14127267-zodiac-star-signs.php?st=f681069
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-14127267-zodiac-star-signs.php?st=f681069
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-14127267-zodiac-star-signs.php?st=f681069
and even though it's not my best image, this is NOT $1: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-6674366-healthy-lifestyle-female-version.php?st=f681069

Absolutely not, and I find it odd they would put any of your images in that price category

Is anyone selling enough at Stockfresh to be up in arms over this? 

For me, Stockfresh is at the very bottom of the barrel in terms of my sales, and I don't actively upload there anymore.  For instance, my June total there (as of June 16) is $4.50 in sales at Stockfresh, while the other small players have done pretty well: Veer - $49.70, GL - $40.56, CanStockPhoto - $251.32, etc. 

Let's focus on the sites that matter.  Stockfresh appears dead in the water.

I couldn't find any $1 vectors in mine either. Most of them are $5. I would like to see the prices raised there a little bit though. They seem fairly low.

Can we request repricing for images? Not much sales there, so I probably wouldn't bother. It would actually be nice to be able to request higher prices or be able to have price setting options.

If that happened, I would reupload the vectors..

I'd delete any image priced at $1. But at $5 the royalty is still better than what I get for most vector sales at istock. $2.50 beats the roughly $2.10 average I see over there.

Still seems odd to me that an EPS can be priced lower than the XL JPG.

Well you are right about how much you get per vector sale..

But I prefer to sell the $20 XXL jpeg that will pay me $10, instead of selling the $5 vector to get $2.5

I believe that $5 vector option makes it near impossible to sell the $20 jpeg. A person who will buy that $20 jpeg while vector is available for $5, is plain dumb..

So the reason I am deleting the vectors is because I don't want to miss on the $20 XXL jpeg sales..

Yeah the pricing is not right.  I noticed it up front and avoided uploading vectors.  I sent Peter an email.  I'll share it...


On May 24, 2011, at 10:46 AM, sunnymars wrote:

Hello Peter,
>
> I don't really understand your vector pricing and have been holding off from uploading vectors because of this (as have others).  Can you please explain to me how you come to the different prices.  What is the difference between "low" "medium" "high" and "super"?  Actually size in MPs?  Scaleable vectors can be scaled to any size so I cannot understand this pricing structure at all.  Are you referring to complexity?  Actual file size in MBs perhaps?  I've just done a search for "red carpet" where I normally get heaps of vectors at other agencies but here, there aren't many at all and I fear that others like me are not uploading vectors because they are usually sold for less than the XXL size jpeg. This doesn't make sense as the EPS or AI file or whatever, can be expanded to larger than the XXL size.
>
> Look forward to hearing a response from you.
>
> Thanks and regards,




Peter's response...

Stockfresh Support [email protected] to me
   
show details May 25
   
Hi,

Everything is explained in the upload guide:

Vector prices are based on the complexity of the file. Simple vectors cost 1 credit, while exceptionally high detail files can cost up to 20 credits. Vector price categories are assigned by our administrator team. We used to have the exact same system on Stockxpert.

Low detail              1 credit
Medium detail           5 credits
High detail             10 credits
Super high detail       20 credits

It doesn't matter that rasterized versions of vector files can cost more than the vector version. It might be strange at first but that's only because we have a completely different set of rules for vector and raster prices. Most agencies don't offer rasterized vector files, that's why you haven't noticed this before. By the way our vector prices are in line with industry standards so there's no reason for anyone not to upload.

You can also look at it this way: for those who don't know how to use Illustrator, the JPG version is very helpful. Those files are more convenient for them but they take up a lot more space on our hard drive, so they should pay more.

The reason why there aren't that many vectors yet is that we have around 780.000 pics while others have 10 million. We have a very small selection compared to most agencies.

Best regards,
Peter




I didn't bother replying back and arguing but it still doesn't make sense that the jpeg is sold for more than the vector.  It's nuts.  They're missing out on money as much as we are. 

@pseudonymous

that's a ridiculous answer you got there really don't bother replying..

I can't believe he said it's the same as stockxpert  it is nothing like stockxpert..

at StockXpert all my vectors were $10.. it was acceptable to have higher priced jpegs.. here "those exactly the same vectors" which were priced at $10 were priced at $1.. of course I just couldn't accept that and deleted all 700 of them!

he can have sweet dreams with consoling himself that it is about having less images.. In my case, he has 700 less vectors just because of extremely ridiculous pricing.. I don't understand why some people just can't take positive feedback the right way!

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

$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.

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?

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?

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Try selling a book with no type on the pages, or a cd with no music on it, and see how valuable your image is.  It's a promotional use, like any other.

Do you mean something like using the image as a cover for a writing book or a blank CD?
I've seen many people deciding what writing book to buy by its cover.

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

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.

Try selling a book with no type on the pages, or a cd with no music on it, and see how valuable your image is.  It's a promotional use, like any other.

Try selling a book with a blank white cover placed in rows of books with outstanding images on the cover.

Quote from: sjlocke on August 24, 2011, 06:05

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

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.

Try selling a book with no type on the pages, or a cd with no music on it, and see how valuable your image is.  It's a promotional use, like any other.

Try selling a book with a blank white cover placed in rows of books with outstanding images on the cover.

Yes, you've illustrated (lol) that an image on the cover of a book is a good promotional usage.

13 posts were moved to the 'hidden area' of this thread.  Please keep your comments and back and forth discussion respectful of all parties.  Calling people names or insulting each other doesn't help the conversation at all.