MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Dreamstime.com => Topic started by: madelaide on February 18, 2009, 18:40
-
I have just foudn this site:
http://www.freefoto.com/
FreeFoto.com is made up of 124179 images with 162 sections organized into 3424 categories.
FreeFoto.com is the largest collection of free photographs on the Internet (link back and attribution required). See FREE USE RULES. (...)
If you go to the "about" page, it shows a DT ad that says "Create a free account. Download free stock photos." What a great way to advertise the site. :-\
Regards,
Adelaide
-
DT's "Download free stock photos" ads are all over that site. However, DT offers some free stock, so I guess the ad placement is understandable. Afterall, free stuff at DT is of much better quality compared to freephoto.com. But I don't think that people looking for free photos are likely to start purchasing through DT.
-
Not only Dreamstime. Istock also http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=84091&page=1
IMO I don't see how it's really bad, but still maybe a risky add
-
Could it be just some sort of a banner ad network? So maybe DT isn't even aware that it is being advertised on that site.
-
It looks like a DT ad, but I can't be sure. It does look bad to me to advertise "free images", even if there is a free section.
Just a little history about me finding this site: in Shutterpoint, someone downloaded a comp image of a photo, and he went there with a search for "free images for commercial use". The problem is that "royalty free" is caught in this search. SP was the 10th result in Google, with the 9 others being indeed sites with free images (although Freefoto is not for commercial use) or a list of sites with free images. Someone looking for "free images" is certainly not looking to buy anything. I hope my watermark at least gives him some trouble cloning it out. :)
In FT PT/BR, the term "royalty free" was translated as "free of rights", what is certainly misleading. I don't know why the term RF, at least to me it sounds wrong.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
freefoto has been around for years, it used to be a good place to get low cost photos back in 2000/1 but since 2006 or so it's just been riddled with horrible banners and popups. I guess microstock came along and took away their commercial market? or perhaps they just wanted to cash in.
Either way you can see how it works, show the visitor so many banners they will eventually click on one, go somewhere else and never come back!
-
It looks like a DT ad, but I can't be sure. It does look bad to me to advertise "free images", even if there is a free section.
Just a little history about me finding this site: in Shutterpoint, someone downloaded a comp image of a photo, and he went there with a search for "free images for commercial use". The problem is that "royalty free" is caught in this search. SP was the 10th result in Google, with the 9 others being indeed sites with free images (although Freefoto is not for commercial use) or a list of sites with free images. Someone looking for "free images" is certainly not looking to buy anything. I hope my watermark at least gives him some trouble cloning it out. :)
In FT PT/BR, the term "royalty free" was translated as "free of rights", what is certainly misleading. I don't know why the term RF, at least to me it sounds wrong.
Regards,
Adelaide
Yep looks like a google banner add. If you sign up for google adds and your website in any way relates to photography, chances are you'll get add placements for DT, SS and IS.