MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: on DT Delete images over 4 years or give them away?  (Read 10579 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 24, 2013, 07:14 »
0
If you have been on DT for 4 or more years I'm sure you have images over 4 years that have never sold. DT will ask you to pay to have them Re keyworded or give them away for free or delete them from DT.

My choice is to delete then as I can see no profit from giving them away.

I guess DT does this to make room for new images ...... But if the were good enough to be approved in the beginning .... Why delete or give them away Now??

If after 4 years they (DT) feels the images are not going to sell ... I can see their point somewhat. But they are wrong about never selling as I have the same images and 1500 more on BigStockPhoto and I have images 4-5-6- years old being sold for the first time every month.

So my question is: What do you do about this (if your a DT member) and why?

Regards,
Larry


Dan

« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2013, 07:20 »
+2
     I  would  think  about  re-key  wording  or  delete  them.  Never  for  FREE.

« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2013, 07:25 »
+1
Do not give them away. I haven't seen one single post where someone has said that giving your images away for free has helped increase their revenue. And from my point of view, it helps further cheapen microstock.  Agencies may claim that they bait in new buyers with these images, but I say, if that's the case you can budget in money to create a pool of images so each time one is taken we contributors get paid UNDISCOUNTED commissions.  Agencies could hook buyers (if free images really attract new buyers as some agencies claim) far easier if they highlighted a hand picked pool of images from their collection and put their best in front of potential buyers (the free section).  Agencies don't want to take that risk that new revenue won't be realized so they place all the risk on the contributor and use the "it helps you" hook.  In my personal experience, it doesn't help me one iota.

« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2013, 07:27 »
0
Never for free, too. I deleted  them.

ShadySue

« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2013, 07:29 »
+1
I'm not a DT member, but there's no way I would have a random commercial company using an image I'd taken for free.
In any case, what's the point in the agancy deleting an image. Last week I had the first download of a file uploaded two weeks short of four years ago net me $7.31.

(The picture was taken locally and is not available anywhere else I've looked, and unlikely to be anywhere at all.)
Also, if a subject is in low demand/low supply, what's the point in not having an image of it available, otherwise the buyer who needs the image has to go elsewhere, and might decide that the new site has a more comprehensive collection, so that's a buyer lost.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2013, 07:42 by ShadySue »

« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2013, 07:37 »
0
I always delete them.  DT tries to keep a clean database by getting rid of old non-sellers.  It's annoying to delete images that have been through review and that sell at least occasionally elsewhere, but with few exceptions my non-sellers on DT are not that great.  If getting rid of them helps keep the database lean, mean and more appealing to DT buyers then I'm all for it.  But I don't see the point in giving them away, especially since they are still available for sale elsewhere - once potential buyers get images for free they will think that they should get all images the same way, which is not the direction we want.

« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2013, 08:02 »
+1
They took away the option of having them re-keyworded. When they had the option I paid the 60 cents a couple of times, on images which were selling elsewhere. Since then one of those images so far has had a couple of downloads bringing me $1.66. I'm not sure why they took that option away, seems like they're really trying to push their free image site. I don't get sites which push free images hard. I think they believe they can have a good turnaround of converting people looking for free images to paying customers. Serious buyers wouldn't be looking for free images anyway, why don't they spend more effort on getting serious buyers?

« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2013, 08:38 »
+1
Always Delete!

Our images are cheap enough as it is!

« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2013, 08:41 »
+6
delete delete delete

« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2013, 08:51 »
0
delete delete delete

same here

« Reply #10 on: April 24, 2013, 10:22 »
+6
As I left DT when I became IS exclusive and returned in June 2011, none of my images are more than 4 years "old" (they might have been taken from 2004 on, but were made new again :))

I would never allow them to become free images, so I'd disable them. DT can spin it however they like, but if they have failed to sell an image that is for sale on other agencies, that's their problem, not mine and I wouldn't undercut sales elsewhere by letting them give it away.

« Reply #11 on: April 24, 2013, 10:29 »
0
delete delete delete

Is the correct answer.

« Reply #12 on: April 24, 2013, 10:36 »
-4
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:16 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #13 on: April 24, 2013, 13:43 »
0
Never give away images for free. Especially not images that are for sale somewhere else.

Delete them.

« Reply #14 on: April 24, 2013, 14:18 »
0
No free images ever.  Delete them all.

« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2013, 14:32 »
0
No free images ever.  Delete them all.

Absolutely agree!

« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2013, 19:39 »
+2
Delete.   

Some of these agency people think we're as dumb as doorknobs - telling us how free images will promote our portfolios.  Give me a break, guys.  Just go back to hiding all the profit in up-front subscription fees, at least I can pretend not to understand that one.



Dan

« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2013, 06:59 »
+2
     If  they  took  away  the  option  to  re key word  then  delete  and  find  somewhere  else  for  it.  They  rejected  my  best  seller  so  their  lost - my  gain.

« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2013, 07:42 »
0
I always delete. I see nothing to be gained by giving them away for free.

As I started on Dreamstime around October 2008, I am since a few months in the timeframe where the first of my non-sellers start to hit the four year timeline. Some interesting things I have noticed: The notification / deletion process seems to be not working all of the time, so now I have some non-sellers that are older than four years still active in my account (I don't care, let's keep them online...).
And: on a few occasions a file of mine had it's first sale just when it was in the "notifying period" (so it was listed under "oldfiles" with less then 30 days remaining time on DT). Just shows that even old files will sell once in a while...

« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 13:51 by dirkr »

ShadySue

« Reply #19 on: April 25, 2013, 07:48 »
0
As I started on Dreamstime around October 2012, I am since a few months in the timeframe where the first of my non-sellers start to hit the four year timeline.
Dreamstime must use a different arithmetical system than the rest of the world.  ;)
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 08:59 by ShadySue »

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #20 on: April 25, 2013, 08:13 »
0
Nothing for free! I deleted  them.

« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2013, 09:12 »
0
delete

« Reply #22 on: April 25, 2013, 13:47 »
0
So who is it that gives these images away?

« Reply #23 on: April 25, 2013, 13:52 »
0
As I started on Dreamstime around October 2012, I am since a few months in the timeframe where the first of my non-sellers start to hit the four year timeline.
Dreamstime must use a different arithmetical system than the rest of the world.  ;)

Oh thanks. Nice typo. Obviously I meant 2008. No idea why I didn't write it...

ShadySue

« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2013, 13:54 »
0
As I started on Dreamstime around October 2012, I am since a few months in the timeframe where the first of my non-sellers start to hit the four year timeline.
Dreamstime must use a different arithmetical system than the rest of the world.  ;)

Oh thanks. Nice typo. Obviously I meant 2008. No idea why I didn't write it...
Don't worry. I'm the typo queen and you're nowhere near stealing my crown.

« Reply #25 on: April 25, 2013, 14:00 »
+1
So who is it that gives these images away?

People who don't know any better and people who haven't changed their default setting and their images get dumped in the free bin by default without them even really knowing.

« Reply #26 on: April 25, 2013, 14:13 »
0
So who is it that gives these images away?

People who don't know any better and people who haven't changed their default setting and their images get dumped in the free bin by default without them even really knowing.

I believe the default is "delete"

« Reply #27 on: April 25, 2013, 14:21 »
-1
fwiw - DT now offers $.10 per download for images > websized in the free section.  so there's at least some reason to consider letting 4 yr old images into the free section -- compare this with Yay & other sites that pay only $.10 or so on sales thru partner sites

jareso

  • Boris Jaroscak
« Reply #28 on: April 25, 2013, 14:40 »
0
I also have some images older than 4 years and because DT announced their new paid approach to free images I decided to give my old images to free section by default just out of curiosity to see whether they will be downloaded under this new DT free/paid scheme.
Yes, I realize prices are somehow low at this new DT free/paid scheme, but I want to see what impact if ever will this new DT free/paid scheme have on my regular sales and sales of my free images.
(And than I will act accordingly. Keep them free, or delete them later, based on my observations.)
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 14:46 by jareso »

« Reply #29 on: April 25, 2013, 15:34 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:16 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #30 on: April 26, 2013, 06:31 »
+3
fwiw - DT now offers $.10 per download for images > websized in the free section.  so there's at least some reason to consider letting 4 yr old images into the free section -- compare this with Yay & other sites that pay only $.10 or so on sales thru partner sites

.10 per download is still free and an insult. If it was good enough to pass the review process, it is worth more than a dime. Sub sales at .25 - .35 are bad enough. Why work for free??
-Larry

« Reply #31 on: April 27, 2013, 02:17 »
+2
I'm amazed by how badly DT do with some images that sell well elsewhere.  I don't think deleting images does them or us any good.  We would get some money from those images over the years and buyers might join DT after finding a link while searching for an image they want.  If that image has been removed, that's a buyer DT has lost and another site will probably gain.

I think that's why SS and istock don't delete old images.  They know they still have some potential to make them money, even if it isn't through direct sales.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #32 on: April 27, 2013, 05:49 »
+2
fwiw - DT now offers $.10 per download for images > websized in the free section.  so there's at least some reason to consider letting 4 yr old images into the free section -- compare this with Yay & other sites that pay only $.10 or so on sales thru partner sites

.10 per download is still free and an insult. If it was good enough to pass the review process, it is worth more than a dime. Sub sales at .25 - .35 are bad enough. Why work for free??
-Larry
+1
10c is basically free.
heck, 25c is basically free!


WarrenPrice

« Reply #33 on: April 27, 2013, 10:22 »
0
I'm amazed by how badly DT do with some images that sell well elsewhere.  I don't think deleting images does them or us any good.  We would get some money from those images over the years and buyers might join DT after finding a link while searching for an image they want.  If that image has been removed, that's a buyer DT has lost and another site will probably gain.

I think that's why SS and istock don't delete old images.  They know they still have some potential to make them money, even if it isn't through direct sales.

And, adding to that thought, if DT (or the photographer) moves the image to free section, doesn't it lessen the value of an image that is selling at other sites?
 ???

« Reply #34 on: April 27, 2013, 10:31 »
0
I'm amazed by how badly DT do with some images that sell well elsewhere.  I don't think deleting images does them or us any good.  We would get some money from those images over the years and buyers might join DT after finding a link while searching for an image they want.  If that image has been removed, that's a buyer DT has lost and another site will probably gain.

I think that's why SS and istock don't delete old images.  They know they still have some potential to make them money, even if it isn't through direct sales.

And, adding to that thought, if DT (or the photographer) moves the image to free section, doesn't it lessen the value of an image that is selling at other sites?
 ???

I doubt it makes much of a difference.  How many clients find the right image on one site and then search other sites for the same image just to save a few pennies or even a dollar or two?  And if they did, do they have credit packages or subscriptions on both sites, or do they have to lay out considerably more money to make that tiny saving?  Unless the price is outrageous, I expect most clients to buy the image where they first find it, assuming they decide it's just right, Goldilocks-style.

If price were all important, none of us would submit to any agency that didn't offer the highest price or at least the highest dollar value royalty.  But most of us don't, or at least I don't; I balance royalty against numbers of sales and upload anywhere the ratio is at least potentially in my favor.  I'd even consider ten cents per download if I thought there was a ton of downloads around the corner.  Might not do it, but I'd at least consider it.

tab62

« Reply #35 on: April 27, 2013, 10:33 »
+1
Delete for sure!

 Speaking for myself I have photos that I took over a year ago that really suck compared to my newer photos due to better skills and equipment- so four years from now that image is kinda embarrassing to me anyway  thus glad to remove it  ;)


T



WarrenPrice

« Reply #36 on: April 27, 2013, 10:48 »
+1
I'm amazed by how badly DT do with some images that sell well elsewhere.  I don't think deleting images does them or us any good.  We would get some money from those images over the years and buyers might join DT after finding a link while searching for an image they want.  If that image has been removed, that's a buyer DT has lost and another site will probably gain.

I think that's why SS and istock don't delete old images.  They know they still have some potential to make them money, even if it isn't through direct sales.

And, adding to that thought, if DT (or the photographer) moves the image to free section, doesn't it lessen the value of an image that is selling at other sites?
 ???

I doubt it makes much of a difference.  How many clients find the right image on one site and then search other sites for the same image just to save a few pennies or even a dollar or two?  And if they did, do they have credit packages or subscriptions on both sites, or do they have to lay out considerably more money to make that tiny saving?  Unless the price is outrageous, I expect most clients to buy the image where they first find it, assuming they decide it's just right, Goldilocks-style.

If price were all important, none of us would submit to any agency that didn't offer the highest price or at least the highest dollar value royalty.  But most of us don't, or at least I don't; I balance royalty against numbers of sales and upload anywhere the ratio is at least potentially in my favor.  I'd even consider ten cents per download if I thought there was a ton of downloads around the corner.  Might not do it, but I'd at least consider it.

I think one of the first lessons in Advertising defines FREE as the strongest word in advertising/marketing.   ;D

WarrenPrice

« Reply #37 on: April 27, 2013, 10:52 »
0
Delete for sure!

 Speaking for myself I have photos that I took over a year ago that really suck compared to my newer photos due to better skills and equipment- so four years from now that image is kinda embarrassing to me anyway  thus glad to remove it  ;)


T

FREE is one of the most upsetting characteristics of DT.  I presently have over 300 images on disabled list.  I disable at TWO years ... just to be sure mine are not moved to FREE ... which, in my opinion, is stealing.   >:(

lisafx

« Reply #38 on: April 27, 2013, 11:06 »
+2
So who is it that gives these images away?

I can't believe I am going to the the one lone voice of dissent in this thread, but I do occasionally give DT a free image.

Before you all grab the pitch forks and come after me, allow me to explain my thinking.  ;)

My default is set to delete, and the vast majority of images that are unsold after 4 years are deleted.  The only images I donate are the ones that haven't sold anywhere in years, if ever, and are not likely to.

Unlike the other sites that ask for freebies, DT actually does use their free section to aggressively redirect people to the better, paid content.  Also unlike the other sites, the free image page displays much better work from your own portfolio.  So I do feel it is an effective way to market myself. 

I can't prove that is why I have done well at DT, but my sales and income have remained consistently high there as they have dropped on other top sites, so I can definitely say that judicious donation of a few free images has not hurt my sales there in any way. 

I'm not saying I'm right, and I do see the other side of this issue.  Giving away good content which may just have been neglected in the search engine is a bad idea, which is why most of my 4+ images with no downloads get deleted.

Just thought I would add the other perspective. 

« Reply #39 on: April 27, 2013, 11:15 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:15 by Audi 5000 »

lisafx

« Reply #40 on: April 27, 2013, 11:34 »
+3
I can't prove that is why I have done well at DT, but my sales and income have remained consistently high there as they have dropped on other top sites, so I can definitely say that judicious donation of a few free images has not hurt my sales there in any way. 
You can't actually say that with certainty, you could be doing even better if you didn't give away any images.  I don't think anyone can know for sure if it's helped (or how much), there are no stats available on that.  You used to be able to see how many times the image was downloaded (can you still?) for free and it was usually many times more than similars that were for not free.

LOL!  Reread my post.  I didn't say it with any certainty.  In fact, I included the phrases "I can't prove that's why I have done well" and "I'm not saying I'm right".   It's called an "opinion", and I gave mine.  :)

« Reply #41 on: April 27, 2013, 11:39 »
-3
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:15 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #42 on: April 27, 2013, 11:40 »
0
I can't prove that is why I have done well at DT, but my sales and income have remained consistently high there as they have dropped on other top sites, so I can definitely say that judicious donation of a few free images has not hurt my sales there in any way. 

I put my pitch fork down for a moment so I could type this ;). I would say that your images are as strong as they are plentiful. I imagine that your sales also remain consistently high on ss, a site which doesn't push free images, apart from their 2 free images a week.

I still believe that an abundance of free images on a site doesn't have the desired effect. In fact, having so many legal free images may be enough for many people who otherwise could have considered buying ms images, just using these free images as it covers their needs.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2013, 12:44 by Microstock Posts »

« Reply #43 on: April 27, 2013, 11:42 »
0
So who is it that gives these images away?

People who don't know any better and people who haven't changed their default setting and their images get dumped in the free bin by default without them even really knowing.

The default was "free".  When I was doing wedding photography I didn't check DT for about 2 years (only had about 50 on there).  I was quite surprised when I did check it and found that 3 of my old ones were free, since I NEVER agreed to give away photos for any reason.  I deleted them very quickly and shot an email off to DT to complain about it.  The DT reply was the explanation about the new "donate/delete" program and they said that "donate" was the default option if you didn't reply to the email they sent.  It was partly my fault for not checking my account or reading their emails.  I still thought it was a sneaky, underhanded way to "kidnap" some freebies for their benefit, certainly not mine.

« Reply #44 on: April 27, 2013, 12:00 »
0
A few weeks ago I got the DT 'email of death' on a photo that had just sold as an EL on SS a couple of days earlier.   I'm not giving DT anything.

« Reply #45 on: April 27, 2013, 12:57 »
0
I can't prove that is why I have done well at DT, but my sales and income have remained consistently high there as they have dropped on other top sites, so I can definitely say that judicious donation of a few free images has not hurt my sales there in any way. 
You can't actually say that with certainty, you could be doing even better if you didn't give away any images.  I don't think anyone can know for sure if it's helped (or how much), there are no stats available on that.  You used to be able to see how many times the image was downloaded (can you still?) for free and it was usually many times more than similars that were for not free.

not directed specifically at this poster, but funny how many people are CERTAIN that putting images in the free section is bad for sales!  many seem to have the odd idea that buyers are searching all sites by artist, so having a free image on DT will affect their sales elsewhere

anyway, this new approach by DT is worth a try & i've starting experimenting with it.  DT should be commended both for reducing their inventory by deleting old non-sellers and for making an attempt to give something to the artist - how many other sites even make an effort?

steve

« Reply #46 on: April 27, 2013, 13:02 »
0
A few weeks ago I got the DT 'email of death' on a photo that had just sold as an EL on SS a couple of days earlier.   I'm not giving DT anything.

Exactly.  These sites by in large already are making big bucks off of us and I see no reason to help them further that by giving them free images even if those images don't sell well anywhere.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #47 on: April 27, 2013, 13:12 »
+1
DT has some silly policies (and submission process). Don't get entangled with them. As the Cybermen say: "DELETE!"

lisafx

« Reply #48 on: April 27, 2013, 13:38 »
0

"I can definitely say that judicious donation of a few free images has not hurt my sales there in any way." 
Synonyms of Definitely:
1. See clearly. 2. absolutely, certainly.

It sounds like you are just in a mood to nitpick.  Okay, how about "I have no evidence to suggest that donating a few old crappy freebies has hurt my sales at DT"?  Better now?  ;)

ETA:  At least at DT it was my choice, and they promote my portfolio.  CERTAINLY a better deal than the poor saps got from Getty when their best selling images were included for free unlimited download in the google deal.   8)
« Last Edit: April 27, 2013, 13:52 by lisafx »

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #49 on: April 27, 2013, 20:21 »
0
A few weeks ago I got the DT 'email of death' on a photo that had just sold as an EL on SS a couple of days earlier.   I'm not giving DT anything.

Exactly.  These sites by in large already are making big bucks off of us and I see no reason to help them further that by giving them free images even if those images don't sell well anywhere.
sweet, so while you are helping them fill out the free section, I won't.  I don't disagree with the idea of the free section, it's that if all of us contribute we could probably make an entire stock library with our castoffs.  Agree, a somewhat low quality library... and if you look in the free section there is a lot of junk there, so i suppose it can have the added bonus of sending a buyer to make a purchase of something good. maybe. it's a risk that we take, not DT.

« Last Edit: April 27, 2013, 20:25 by gillian »

tab62

« Reply #50 on: April 27, 2013, 20:51 »
0
I will admit in my early days I allowed CanStockPhoto to use one of my pics for free (okay, slap me until I wake up!) but here is the kicker- that particular image is my best seller by almost double the next best seller on CanStockPhoto. Plus that image didn't even get accepts by Shutter, DT or Fotolia.  Go figure...



« Reply #51 on: April 27, 2013, 21:09 »
+1
While there may be some merit to Lisa's judicious and limited donation of free images the default should be set to delete. (and all of mine have been deleted).

« Reply #52 on: April 28, 2013, 06:27 »
+1
I've done the same as Lisa.  I delete most of them but the occasional one that comes up and hasn't sold anywhere else for years goes to the free section.  I have probably only got about 3 images for free.

« Reply #53 on: April 28, 2013, 06:27 »
0
A few weeks ago I got the DT 'email of death' on a photo that had just sold as an EL on SS a couple of days earlier.   I'm not giving DT anything.

Exactly.  These sites by in large already are making big bucks off of us and I see no reason to help them further that by giving them free images even if those images don't sell well anywhere.
sweet, so while you are helping them fill out the free section, I won't.  I don't disagree with the idea of the free section, it's that if all of us contribute we could probably make an entire stock library with our castoffs.  Agree, a somewhat low quality library... and if you look in the free section there is a lot of junk there, so i suppose it can have the added bonus of sending a buyer to make a purchase of something good. maybe. it's a risk that we take, not DT.

I think you misread my post, we are essentially saying the same thing. I do not advocate giving them free images at all, in fact the exact opposite. However, the logic you give "i suppose it can have the added bonus of sending a buyer to make a purchase of something good" is the logic that DT has used in the past.  The new microstock mantra, "give us free images and we will make you money", like the promise that an introduction of subscription they FORCE us into will make us more money.  They all make this statement, a promise of more revenue for more free stuff kind of message.

« Reply #54 on: April 30, 2013, 12:09 »
0
I'm with TAB62 I know that my oldest images on DT are the ones where I was still learning a lot (I'm always learning SOMETHING) and some are of lesser quality. That being said, I sold one of the very first images I uploaded this morning.

On the subject of free. I never, ever put in the free section. I don't know if it's my tight-fisted Scottish nature, or that I'm afraid I'll cross over something in a free section that someone else is paying for on another site and that's not fair.

I have however, used a free image (for what, I don't remember). Then, when I needed an image I purposely went back to the same person and bought one. I doubt thought that a lot of people think that way. I am a lot more conscious because I am a submitter.

Dan

« Reply #55 on: June 04, 2013, 06:15 »
-4
     I  had  one  that  hadn't  sold  and  i  donated  it  for  free  (even  though  i  said  at  first  i  would  delete  it).  I  thought  sales  had  dried  up  for  me  on  DT  but  had  2  sales  since  donating  the  free  pic.  One  was  a  sub  and   the  other  an  11  credit  sale.  So  who  knows  the  free  one  might  have  awaken  sales  for  me  again.  It  can  never  hurt  to  try.

« Reply #56 on: June 04, 2013, 07:23 »
+1
     I  had  one  that  hadn't  sold  and  i  donated  it  for  free  (even  though  i  said  at  first  i  would  delete  it).  I  thought  sales  had  dried  up  for  me  on  DT  but  had  2  sales  since  donating  the  free  pic.  One  was  a  sub  and   the  other  an  11  credit  sale.  So  who  knows  the  free  one  might  have  awaken  sales  for  me  again.  It  can  never  hurt  to  try.

Dan,

With all do respect, and in my opinion, donating free images only helps cheapen this market further.  We (me included) do a lot of complaining in here about sales drops, decisions made by MS agencies that we contributors get the short end of the stick, etc. and giving free images is yet another way to give agencies something that they should rightfully pay for.  The should have a marketing budget that constitutes "free images" for which we contributors get paid for at full rate if downloaded.  We simply fuel the fire for cheaper and cheaper images if we stoop so low as to give away freebies thinking it will grow our sales. There is not a single speck of data that suggests otherwise.....and to quantify sales that actually result from the free section is undoable, pure speculation. Don't get me wrong.  I've contributed to the free images sections seven years ago and ultimately pulled my pics.  But after the many, many slaps in the faces we've received from the agencies, I'd never do it again. It's hard enough to make any money without giving away images.  Even crappy images have a cost associated with them.....time being the primary factor, but prop costs, models (if that applies), equipment, etc.


Dan

« Reply #57 on: June 04, 2013, 07:43 »
-3
     Mantis
  To  each  his  own.  The  free  image  has  no views  or  dl's.  Maybe  the  free  image  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  2  sales.  But  coming  from  no  sales  to  a  start  of  2  sale  -  makes  you  wonder.  With  only  9  images  online  at  the  moment  what  else  could  it  be?
« Last Edit: June 04, 2013, 07:45 by Dan »

« Reply #58 on: June 04, 2013, 10:54 »
+3
     Mantis
  To  each  his  own.  The  free  image  has  no views  or  dl's.  Maybe  the  free  image  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  2  sales.  But  coming  from  no  sales  to  a  start  of  2  sale  -  makes  you  wonder.  With  only  9  images  online  at  the  moment  what  else  could  it  be?
You can't come to any conclusions based on 2 sales.  If you gave away images and your sales went from 200 a week to 400 a week you might be on to something but 2 sales are just random and  the images could have been found for any reason

Dan

« Reply #59 on: June 04, 2013, 12:48 »
-1
     fotographer
  I  know  2  images  are  a  smalll  number  but  my  free  image  hasn't  been  up  long.  Maybe  eandom  -  time  will  tee  if  i  have  more  sales.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #60 on: June 04, 2013, 13:21 »
0
I manually disable images with 2 years of no sales; just to be sure I don't miss one.  Disabled count is up to 369.
I do this ONLY at DT after a heated debate with Serban over "stealing" files.

« Reply #61 on: June 04, 2013, 13:58 »
0
My default is set to disable.  I've been getting the old files emails since last month.  This month I'll probably have a few more then I won't get any of those emails for another 8 months.

« Reply #62 on: June 04, 2013, 16:18 »
+1
Delete would be my choice too!  With rates around microstock sites plummeting to an insultingly low level already, freebies on one pretext or another is about the last thing I want to support.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
21703 Views
Last post October 17, 2007, 20:20
by madelaide
1 Replies
3601 Views
Last post March 30, 2011, 13:36
by johngriffin
8 Replies
2425 Views
Last post July 07, 2013, 13:28
by Anita Potter
1 Replies
1693 Views
Last post June 10, 2014, 13:27
by Shelma1
8 Replies
1767 Views
Last post February 27, 2018, 10:53
by stockastic

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results