pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dreamstime still the best for editorial  (Read 2760 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 22, 2016, 12:17 »
+2
I've seen all the Dreamstime bashing here.  I suspect that it depends on what types of photos people produce.   Many stock photographers focus on generic model released scenes of the type that is good for commercial advertising. 

I find that for travel and editorial shots Dreamstime is pretty good.   Dreamstime was one of the first to accept editorial shots, and in my opinion is still the best.  They are easy to upload, and unlike other sites don't force you to jump through hoops to caption editorial shots.  They are also much more liberal in accepting just about any editorial shot, including interiors, for which many other sites insist that releases are needed even for editorial use.



« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2016, 16:17 »
+2
My editorial do best with SS, then DT.   Twenty20 (20twenty?) has also sold a few.  Not as many, but the return seems to be always be $2 per sale, which bits the less than a $ return on DT and SS subs. 

« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2016, 17:59 »
+1
I've seen all the Dreamstime bashing here.  I suspect that it depends on what types of photos people produce.   Many stock photographers focus on generic model released scenes of the type that is good for commercial advertising. 

I find that for travel and editorial shots Dreamstime is pretty good.   Dreamstime was one of the first to accept editorial shots, and in my opinion is still the best.  They are easy to upload, and unlike other sites don't force you to jump through hoops to caption editorial shots.  They are also much more liberal in accepting just about any editorial shot, including interiors, for which many other sites insist that releases are needed even for editorial use.

What kind of editorial do you sell? My editorial have a good sales on SS and BS, not on DT

« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2016, 00:11 »
0
On SS far more editorial then on DT for me.

« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2016, 03:16 »
0
I sell 100 more editorial images on Shutterstock than on Dreamstime

« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2016, 06:04 »
+1
For me maybe once but DT gets worse and in this area SS is getting relatively better. I tend to sell stuff that doesn't much/at all elsewhere on DT quite a bit...but recently it seems to have died.

« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2016, 10:26 »
0
Though I also find SS better, my travel and editorial shots sell on DT - but it's very up and down there, one month very low the next might beat SS - average sale price per image is usually much higher on DT - lots of $8 sales can add up - though ELs of my travel shots on SS can give me a good month. I have about 33% fewer images on DT than SS and haven't bothered uploading there lately, but I have some newer editorials doing well on SS at the moment and thanks, you've reminded me to add them to DT as well!

« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2016, 13:12 »
+2
I commented on another thread that my sales have plummeted in the past couple of months, as seems to be the case for many other contributors (just go to the DT forums to see), so I guess that's what OP calls "DT bashing." For the record, I think in theory, DT is a great agency.

If you don't value your work, nobody else will, and that's the reason why, a couple of years ago, when I decided to give microstock a shot, I signed up as an exclusive with DT: to my knowledge, no other agency pays its contributors 60 percent, which seemed to me more than fair. (Getting paid 20 percent so that a billionaire can buy himself another helicopter doesn't.) That says to me that DT is an agency that values and respects its contributors, which made me want to work with them. My opinion of DT in that respect hasn't changed.

Unfortunately, for some reason, sales on DT are just low and 60 percent of almost nothing is still almost nothing. And the latest change that DT made benefits older photos, which harms relatively new contributors such as me.

As I said, I think in theory DT is a great agency for exclusive contributors. The problem is that you cannot pay your bills in theory (I've tried). I do find it unfortunate that an agency that treats exclusive contributors as well as DT does is not more successful. I wish everybody in microstock would contribute exclusively to DT so that it would become the leading agency and all of us would get paid really well but, sadly, that's not happening.



« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2016, 16:10 »
+1
I've always quite liked DT but in the end they have to sell images...no matter how they treat contributors. I think we tend to underestimate marketing costs........


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
4760 Views
Last post February 26, 2009, 08:13
by epixx
9 Replies
3307 Views
Last post July 04, 2010, 22:53
by KB
64 Replies
20621 Views
Last post October 21, 2014, 02:19
by mojaric
5 Replies
6850 Views
Last post September 07, 2010, 19:24
by RacePhoto
5 Replies
2902 Views
Last post April 18, 2012, 15:55
by Paulo M. F. Pires

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results