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!