Quote from: Pauws99 on April 25, 2013, 13:47

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"

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.)

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

Quote from: cascoly on April 25, 2013, 14:21

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!

Quote from: sharpshot on April 27, 2013, 02:17

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.

Quote from: WarrenPrice on April 27, 2013, 10:22

Quote from: sharpshot on April 27, 2013, 02:17

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.   

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. 

Quote from: lisafx on April 27, 2013, 11:06

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. 

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.

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.

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.

"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.